User talk:Taxman/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Older stuff

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for introducing yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) and you can preview your changes before you save using the show preview button. You can find more tips in the Wikipedia:tutorial and there is a regularly updated one at the Community Portal. I look forward to reading your great articles and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Angela. 00:13, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia!

Wow, have I been botted by a real person?  :) Thanks though Angela

Welcome from me as well. Angela's quite real, although anyone trying to keep up with her around here sometimes believes otherwise.
Editors note - For some reason, I never thought of the simple fact of being able to cut and paste a well thought out welcome onto someone's talk page. Brilliant in hindisght of course.
It's good to see another economics person here. It's not one of our stronger areas on Wikipedia, and there's plenty of room for expansion. My own economics interest is mostly in game theory and microeconomics (although I spend most of my editing time on totally unrelated stuff.) Anyway, take a look at list of economics topics if you want. If you need anything or have any questions, drop me a note on my talk page

On my talk page you wrote:

Hi, welcome to wikipedia. I see you've made a listing on Peer review. Please try to help implement the suggestions made there. In order to make the peer review process more vibrant and useful, editors making a listing there are expected to help incoporate good suggestions, otherwise th listing will be removed to make room for other conversations. Thanks, and keep up the good work. - Taxman 23:26, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

In response, I wrote

apologies. I've been in Edinburgh for the Festival for the last week, and rather forgot about the post. I should have made it clear that I was away, I suppose - sorry for the lapse =)--Si 20:37, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Talk-page etiquette is really very confusing. I'm trying to figure it out =) I assume I was right to copy this across to your page?--Si 21:47, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Gidday, Taxman - you seem to be more busy than the average taxman. Anyway, welcome. And there IS a link straight back from a Talk page: "View Article" or "View User Page". - Robin Patterson 00:34, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Taxman! It's good to see someone else contribution to the economics and finance stuff. I've responded to your comments about the annuities article at Talk:Annuity. Enchanter 16:37, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Academia

Thanks, Taxman, for attempting to address some of the (minor, really) issues I had with Academia as a Featured Article candidate! I find the addition to the "Practice vs Theory" section slightly hard to understand though; I don't suppose you would be able to reword it a little, just for clarity? Thanks, — Matt 12:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps when you left your note at User Talk:Wetman you hadn't yet seen the essential material that I moved to the Talk:Academia page, which I placed there under the rubric "Liberal Arts" because the material I changed was only about medieval use of "liberal arts." At least I added a mention of Martianus Capella, who hadn't even been mentioned previously. I hate it when people suppress good information, myself, so I was doubly embarassed. Is anything good missing now? Do replace it... Wetman 03:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC))

[edit] Model

I made some more edits. I moved around some stuff, because I wanted to keep the methodological and structural differences clear. These different classifications I think are useful, particularly the conventional model concept, which is an important thing to keep in mind in present day economic discussions (in US at least) CSTAR 20:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I responded to your comments in the Talk page; please edit it as you see fit.CSTAR 22:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi, Taxman. Thank's a lot for giving additional in Papiamento section. I appreciate it so much. I also contribute for Indonesian Wikipedia and Javanese Wikipedia, and let's talk more about the contribution :-)

From Kolomonggo

[edit] PaX FAC Discussion

Made a comparison of PaX to ES as per popular demand.

How does PaX compare to the other NX implementations like W^X and Exec Shield?

I believe you may withdraw that now?  :) Please?

--John Moser 22:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

EDIT:

W^X information isn't readily available to me. W^X is poorly documented, or so I've been told when asking for help hunting the docs; and there's on a cursory scan nobody extremely knowledgeble on #openbsd about W^X on the rare occasions I go in there. Also, I've done a comparison on Exec Shield. If W^X is in scope, then so is Windows XP SP2 and Longhorn; else what determines what's in scope?

I'm working on a wobbly enough base as it is with exec shield; at least I have the information I derived from Ingo Molnar in e-mail. With W^X, I've got that I've *heard* several times from the PaX developer or Ingo or someone or on some web site or by some random Hardened dev I know, somewhere in that pile, which I can't exactly recall, that Exec Shield is pretty much similar in design to W^X (ES came out 1 day after W^X, hence the order).

I do need a section about ES' ASLR in the comparison, which I know nothing about. What I don't need is a section where I pretend to be able to expand on, "PaX has a high (23/24 and 16 bits on a 32 bit processor) entropy per segment (per library, for comparison) ASLR scheme; whereas W^X has library load order randomization, supplying log(2,N) static bits of entropy per segment, creating log(2,n)^n bits of total entropy. With 8 libraries, this computes to any one library having log(2,8) or 3 bits of entropy, placing it in one of 8 positions; this creates log(2,8!) (15.299) bits of entropy total, or 40320 different orders. Most attacks will rely on one library, so 1/8 is much more common than even 1/56 (relying on 2) chance of success with ret2libc attacks." I'm pretty sure that's accurate, but I don't know if W^X does any other randomization, what policies it places on executable space, etc. It's not well documented, so I can't even back any of what I just said up.

In short, it's not needed, and I can't supply it in any reliable way.

--John Moser 06:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review / WikiReader Cryptography

Thanks for pointing that out -- I've delisted the first request (which was about trying to choose a Table of Contents). — Matt 16:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Proofs"?

The Proofs category seems horribly wrongly named for the sort of thing now getting included in it. Here's what I wrote on User:Lupin's talk page:

[edit] Category:Proofs

You seem to be the person who created this category. Did you have in mind that it would include
  • articles that embody proofs, or
  • articles about the concept of proof?
Is it being treated as the latter. It seems like a grossly inappropriate, because highly misleading, name for that. I would expect a category that is to include articles about the concept of proof to be called proof rather than proofs. What do you think? Michael Hardy 21:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Either way, I don't see why it is appropriate to included finished mathematics in that category, since it is neither an article that embodies a proof nor an article about the concept of proof.

What is your understanding of what that category should include? Michael Hardy 21:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've moved share to stock for you and fixed the redirects, but I'll leave it to you to decide if the rest of the links pointing to share need fixing. Angela. 22:37, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus

Added a source for Kowa Seki history: a link to a Scientific American article that provides (I think) a decent introduction. Er, is this a kosher cite?... Still figuring this out. Mashford 21:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re Kowa Seki- I basically agree. Added my thoughts to the discussion. Mashford 12:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Biodiesel copyediting

Hey,

Thanks for your note about the Biodiesel article. I'd be happy to copyedit the article more thoroughly; at the moment, it looks like you're in the middle of editing it. I'm probably going to print it out and take a pen to it; if you let me know when you're finished with any content work, I'll see what I can do. -- Creidieki 18:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Whack!

I'm giving you to whacks across the knuckles. Please be more careful next time ;) →Raul654 01:55, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Keyes article

You asked, "If you know it violates the guidelines, then why nominate it here?" Well, I could say that I was following the rule to ignore all rules.  :) The prosaic truth, however, is that the alternative of PR simply didn't occur to me. I agree, that's a better place for it. Thanks for the suggestion! JamesMLane 22:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Yeah I was gonna remove it and got confused on the rules. I guess I'll move it to "to be deleted" on peer review.

--John Moser 00:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think I let myself get distracted in the middle of incorporating some material into that paragraph on Great Galveston Hurricane. Not used to working on such big articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mercedes 6.9 article

Hi! Thanks for the suggestion regarding my article on the Mercedes 6.9. I've acted on it, and I wondered if you might take a moment to revisit the article and see if the changes meet with your approval. Again, thanks for your help. - Lucky 6.9 01:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


  • Hello again! I've moved the taxonomy to a separate article and linked it to the main article. You can find it at Mercedes-Benz 6.9 Specifications. Thanks yet again for your suggestions and support. - Lucky 6.9 21:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 240D

I know someone who has a cherry little 240D with a five-speed. Neat little car! The thing will probably be running fine fifty years from now. Thanks for the heads-up on the new article! I'm going to go to the main M-B article and add this to the "significant past models" section. - Lucky 6.9 16:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for you comments at FAC.

Much appreciated. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ridge Route band-aids

I went ahead and acted on your suggestions for my latest foray into Wikpedia immortality. Would you please take another look at Ridge Route when you have a moment? Thanks yet again. - Lucky 6.9 20:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review (Slide rule)

Taxman, thanks for your comments on the article at Wikipedia:Peer review. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about slide rules myself and didn't author the article, so I'm not sure I can make many of the contributions you suggested—but they're great suggestions nonetheless. I thought it was a pretty well-written and informative article, and so I thought with a bit of community input it could become a featured article. Again, thanks for providing some of that needed input. Alanyst 22:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More Ridge Route musings

Whew! I truly don't know how much more info that I can add to the size and scope of the project. I milked ridgeroute.com absolutely dry. Hope I've done well. Thanks for the suggestions. - Lucky 6.9 16:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy that you're happy.  :^) Please let me know if there's anything else you feel is in need of a tune-up. - Lucky 6.9 18:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The business and economics forum

Anouncing the introduction of The Business and Economics Forum. It is a "place" where those of us with an interest in the business and economics section of Wikipedia can "meet" and discuss issues. Please drop by: the more contributors, the greater its usefulness. If you know of other Wikipedians who might be interested, please send this to them.

mydogategodshat 18:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more Ridge Route

I managed to find a smidge more info regarding the scope and complexity of the task as opposed to building a railroad. The technology was different as was the overall layout. Please sneak another peek if you would. - Lucky 6.9 19:14, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I tried, believe me. The theory doesn't seem to be credited to any one person or group. The state wanted to build a road, but couldn't figure out how based on the engineering theories of the day. That's why the commission went to Europe where the technology was more advanced. Once the route was surveyed, they had a firm engineering footing on which to go on, one that simply didn't exist in this country up until then. Even the Harrison Scott book doesn't cover exactly who deemed the road impossible. - Lucky 6.9 20:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, I left a detailed discussion on how Lucky and I can meet your very thoughtful and kind objections (such Wikilove)! I think I have a solution or two that will help get Ridge Route into FA status. Please take a looksee there at the FAC page if you would be so kind. Thanks bunches! --avnative 23:25, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket

Hi! Updated the structure of the Cricket page. Details in Talk:Cricket. Please let us know if you still have any objections in the FA list. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:43, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding whale

Hi, I've modified it to take into consideration your objections. Is this OK, or can you suggest more changes to be made? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, I've updated the exploding whale page to reflect that the exploding whale of Oregon was significant to alt.folklore.urban because it appeared in their FAQ. I really have tried to incorporate your suggestion, however it's very difficult to because though it's a significant movie file and the event itself and the main pages are linked and referred to on the Internet frequently (some may call it a meme, but I've just realised this isn't appropriate because it isn't something everyone replicates - like smileys) nearly impossible to gauge how many people have linked to it. The other thing is, even if we could find out the number of people who link to the main exploding whale sites, how would we go about adding this rough estimate into the article without making it look clumsy? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Geschichtsaufarbeitung

Thanks for your suggestions. I've moved the article from PR to RFE. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:43, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I rolled back your last FAC edit. It caused a screwup in the page. Please repost. →Raul654 19:01, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fugu

Hi. Could you check if the latest changes to Fugu would overcome your objections on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 17:15, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Rondane

I'm just wondering about your comment on Rondane on WP:FAC. How do you like the biology section now? ✏ Sverdrup 22:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:Ac.hephaestus2.jpg - I took it myself. Adam 15:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I suppose I will have to learn this stuff so people will leave me alone. Where on the image page do I say this? What is GDFL? Adam 15:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look at ...

You made an obsversation on the Sealand link and I would like to read your comments in response to my own about the name itself, which I have made on the discussion page, not on the article page. MPLX/MH 03:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up on my earlier comment

I took a look at Wiktionary for its definition of Principality:

Etymology From Latin principalitas, from adjective principalis, principal, + noun of state suffix -itas. principalis is from prin-, prim-, from primus, first, + cip-, from caput, head, + adjective suffix -alis.

Noun principality, plural principalities A region or sovereign nation headed by a prince or princess.

and then I took a look at the definition of Prince:

Etymology From French prince, from Latin princeps, literally "first head", from primus, first, + ceps, head, related to capitus, head

Noun prince, plural princes male ruler or head of a principality son of a prince, king, queen, emperor, or empress, or some other rank like a grand duke

It would seem that this is nothing but an old play upon the Steve Martin skit of "You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes". You say, "Steve, how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?" Steve replies, "First get a million dollars. Second ..."

The key is to deal with first things first. In this case the question is: "Where is the king, queen, emperor, or empress, or some other rank like a grand duke who is alleged to have given "Prince Roy" the ability to rule a principality? The answer is that none exists because his authority came from drinking something alcoholic at a pub.

Because this first issue fails, then the entire saga also fails as nothing but a joke and Wikipedia is involved in a non-issue, which is how the UK and USA view "Sealand". MPLX/MH 14:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Enquiring minds?

Who are these people? Also, you may wish to know that I've expanded my user page to list some other things to plead guilty to as well as Doune Castle. While in writing, any comment on the copyvio implications of pictures where the original is a couple of centuries old would be welcome dave souza 19:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying it's only you (plural): just as well I'm not paranoid, visions of a wikicommitte demanding proof of authorship! orrabest, dave souza 00:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the help with the strategic management nomination. You suggested a diagram showing the relationships between the various theories. I did not understand what you ment at the time, and am still not altogether clear about it. I know you can not mean a diagram with links between all 60 or 70 theories discussed in the article. Maybe you want to group the theories into categories and explain the relationships between the categories. Can you explain further? mydogategodshat 20:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was simply referring to the fact that for an article to be featured on the main page, it needs an image associated with it. A conceptual topic such as this may not lend itself to a photo, so I thought a diagram representing the topic might be possible. Just something representative, certainly not something diagramming the whole subject. - Taxman 20:33, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
That is too bad. I thought you might have an idea for a publishable paper . mydogategodshat 20:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Taxman

It's definitely not featured material, but I fixed it up. Johnleemk | Talk 16:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Tiger

I have tried my best to respond to your quibbles with the Celtic Tiger article on WP:FAC, please read my reply - if you've furture problems with the article, please let me know, if not, please strike out your comments. Thanks. CGorman 17:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for support on bicycle

I will look into your comment. That stuff was there long before I got to the article.Sfahey 22:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Old Swiss Confederacy

Of course I don't mind others working on it! I don't own that article. It just so happens that nobody else felt inclined to jump in. Incidentally me being essentially the sole author (so far) is also the reason why I hadn't listed the article on FAC; I had planned to let it go through peer review first. But now that it is listed there, let's make the best of it! Lupo 14:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Following the comment of Chris 73 on FAC it dawned on me what might be wrong with the lead section. Sometimes one just doesn't see the most obvious things if one has been involved deeply. I still don't know whether his comment expresses your concern, too, but in any case I have now rewritten the intro. Apparently you didn't have the time. Could you go take a look and tell me what you think about it now? (And of course, feel free to change it—I know that some authors here are extremely possessive of anything they write, but I try to avoid such behavior. Edit it mercilessly!) Thank you. Lupo 09:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I was looking for and much better than I could have done not knowing the subject. Sorry I didn't get to it though. - Taxman 13:06, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Legal Status of "Sealand"

moved to User talk:MPLX. I had asked before that he keep extensive discussions to the article talk page, not here. - Taxman 16:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

hey there thanks for your edits on the article Lesch-Nyhan syndrome it is much appreciated. would happen to know where i could find an applicable image for this article?? --Larsie 21:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As to a relevant picture, I have no idea. See if any related topic have a somewhat relevant picture. Best would be to create an accurate diagram showing the mutation and where it is. There are a number of good graphics/diagram creation software packages that people use, but I am not familiar with them personally. - Taxman 22:08, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

ok then do you think its done or what? --Larsie 20:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FAC

Hi, and thanks for the comment on my talk page - I presume you are referring to Economy of Africa? No offence meant or taken: I agree that the standards are very important; on the other hand, I would not want the standard to stand in the way of an article that is good enough. WP:FAC has a tendancy to see things through the wrong end of a telescope, valuing the details over the big picture, so it is very useful for someone (like you!) to take care of the big picture too. For my money, that page will do, but clearly don't agree. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Google ads

People have objected to ads, even opt-in ones. See Opt-in Google-ads. I suggest you encourage people to discuss it there, and see if any consensus forms. I'm doubting it will though. Many will view ads, even opt-in ones, as somehow tarnishing the site. It's also likely to have little effect compared to showing ads to readers of the site. There are far more of those than there are users. I also don't know how this would work with Google's terms of service. Allowing ads to be seen only by those choosing to want to raise money for the site would surely lead to misue of them. Angela. 08:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Admin nomination

Hi Taxman,

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I have, in fact, already been an admin in the past (see Wikipedia:List_of_administrators#Former_Administrators, Jheijmans is my former username). I resigned because I (then) felt there was some additional responsibility which I didn't want to bear (anymore). This is no longer the case (even Wikipedia:Administrators says so), so I guess I don't have a problem with being an admin. Then again, I hardly do any "cleaning" activities anymore, so I'm not sure I would actually use my slightly increased powers. In summary: I'd be happy if you nominated me, but I wouldn't mind if you didn't. Jeronimo 19:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] re: edit for LNS

hey there while i was saving an edit there was an edit conflict and i think the edits you just made may have been nullified. i hope you can re-edit what you did as i would appreciate any help whatsoever. --Larsie 18:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hey don't worry about the edits i already did them --Larsie 18:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of Ireland

I've tried to address your comments on WP:FAC - note the articles title has been changed to Economy of the Republic of Ireland. CGorman 22:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LNS

Okay, I've moved the message. As for reorganising: the present organisation is not adequate and is actually an impediment to featured article status. There is a Wikiproject for Medicine, and most medical articles now conform to the basic outline as agreed on that project. I don't think I need to renegotiate this basic fact over every article. JFW | T@lk 14:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Max Weber peer review

Tnx for your comments on Wikipedia:Peer_review#Max_Weber. I think I have adressed them all - would you have any further advice before I put old Max in Featured candidates? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Re: Your suggestion for admin nomination. I'm not sure what this entails, although in principal, I would be interested. ThanksCSTAR 18:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I can handle it.CSTAR 18:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] References

I agree completely that our articles need better references. I've been adding copious source/other-reading/etc info to articles here for years now (see e.g. Multics), and I think this is really something we have to do, so I'm really glad to see you carrying that flag. Noel (talk) 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. It is a strangely uphill battle. Unfortunately most Wikipedia editors think I am coming out of left field in pressing for more than just cursory references. My most recent thoughts on it is that of all of the introductory policy and editing help material, very little covers or even mentions doing good research and requests citing it. Therefore most wikipedia editors, myself included when I started, just wrote what I personally knew well. I'd like some input on what ideas you have to help improve the presentation of that going forward. - Taxman 17:22, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

No worked-out ideas in particular, alas. Off the top of my head, one thought is that step one is to press people to do a better job with what I'm calling "Further reading" (see below), which we can justify to other editors as killing two birds (helping users who want more than is here online, as well as verifying article contents) - I suspect we'll find that an easier "sell". Once we get people used to that, then we can move on to phase 2 ("References", again below), as it were. Noel (talk) 17:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A further concern is that there is no standard for what the references section will be called. Wikipedia:Cite_sources does say it should be called 'References' explicitly. I seem to agree since 'further reading' could simply be suggestions, having nothing to do with being used as an actual reference for the material in the article. But Multics is that way, so perhaps you have some difference insight? - Taxman 17:22, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

The talk pages here and also to some degree here contain some fairly detailed thoughts on "References" versus "Further reading". In brief, I think that we really need to keep front and center that are writing for general readership, not scholars. So, I reckon that because of that, we need to separate out our "Sources" (i.e. the name for all things which provided info which is in the article) into:

  • things which ordinary humans might want to go to if they want more than is in the article (which I would label "Further reading"), and
  • things only useful to people who want to verify every last little bit of data in the article (which I would label "References").

As to the section-names in Multics, I did all that a while ago, so I hadn't really fully formulated all this thinking then. As a matter of fact, I did the article from memory, with little reference to sources! So technically none of it goes into what I called "Sources" above! I arranged the readings in those sections simply to give readers who wanted to know more some idea of which things they should start with, etc (as opposed to those which were more suitable for computer specialists). So, now that I think about it, even if I were to go back and adopt the Reference/Reading division I advocate above, I'd probably wind up with much the same division as I have now.

Now, when I'm done with the revision of 47 Ronin article (see its talk page, that definitely will have a "References" section, as well as a "Further reading". Noel (talk) 17:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to those discussions. They did not seem to come to a consensus though, and I would have to say I disagree with your way of doing it. Though any extra resources are better than none, I think it is important for the long run value of Wikipedia to do it correctly. The heading "Further reading" is very unclear as to whether that is a list of works that have actually been used to fact check or provide the material in the article or not, which is the most critical thing to me. Further reading could simply suggest a list of relevant books were found off amazon or the library catalog, but not actually looked at. The distinction of what is best source for a reader of a given expertise to consult is a valuable, but in my mind completely separate issue. As illustration, that can be done within a References section that was used for material and fact checking and/or under a further reading section that was not, by adding it as additional metadata within either or both of those sections. - Taxman 19:50, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Without extensive academic-paper style footnotes (which most wncyclopaedias don't have anyway), fact-checking is going to be non-trivial no matter how we organize the "Sources" section, especially for large articles with lots of sources. (Are you suggesting that we do extensive footnotes? Maybe in the source only, and thus not visible to people just reading the article? Might not be such a bad idea; I know I've on occasion wished an encyclopaedia I consulted had such...)

As to my suggested organization, which do you think is going to be more likely - some reader wanting to fact-check some assertion, or some reader who wants to know more about a given topic? I'll bet dollars to donuts on the latter - which is why I think that should be the first consideration in organizing the "Sources" section.

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who lists anything in "Further reading" without personal knowledge of it, and how useful it is, is comitting a grave sin - just as would someone who lists something as a "Source" without ever having laid eyes on it - or. more to the point, just as someone who puts something in an article without sourcing it. Anything that's in the article should be something that is known to be valid and quality - and that includes the listings in "Further reading". Noel (talk) 20:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Erich von Manstein

You originally voted Neutral for the article, since then all the issues you have raised have been fixed, so you may want to revise your vote. GeneralPatton 18:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, everything you demanded has been worked on, so you could eather strike it out and support it, or make a new set of objections. This way you’re ignoring the progress. GeneralPatton 12:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Hi, I've read your contributions and I see you are very good at helping articles reach featured status. Can you please have a look at Autobiography (album)? It's currently a candidate, can you please vote to help it pass? Thank you. 172.198.134.50 02:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A brief observation

It would appear that instead of merging the unique content of Fürstentum Sealand that it was just deleted. It would also appear that many people seem willing to attack something but not to contribute towards something. Now all of the SHAEF and German part of the story has been removed. Your obsevations on deletion rather than merging unique material? MPLX/MH 00:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Annuities

The edits by 69.158.21.244 left an extremely incorrect statement that "an annuity population can be expected to have distribution of lifespans in accordance with the mortality table used in the premium calculations". That is not correct at all. The annuity company attempts to do that for their annuitized annuties, but are guaranteed to not be exactly correct due to variability. 69.158.21.244 may be correct that the distribution is not a normal distribution, so that is how I left the fix. - Taxman 21:51, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Surely the lifespans of a population of adults of the same age follow a normal distribution? I would be surprised if this was not the case and the annuity tables used were not ulitimately derived from the assumptions of such an analysis. Dainamo 12:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
They may be close to normal, but that is not the point. The point is the statement the anon left implies a causal relationship in the wrong order. The distribution of lifespans does not fall in line with the table the ins company has, instead, the ins. company tries to make their table close to an adjusted version of the actual distribution of lifespans. They adjust for various things such as adverse selection. - Taxman 13:17, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belated reply

Sorry, I didn't see your more recent comment until just now. Please see my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Questions_.28motivated_by_the_ArbCom.29. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Williams

Taxman, thank you for your input regarding Bernard Williams. I have a couple of questions. First, I don't know what you mean by formatting the external links. I took at the look at the Wikipedia cite sources page you suggested, and I'm sorry if I'm being blind and dumb, but I can't see it. Secondly, I'm interested in what you say about short paragraphs being graded badly. I was taught to write in short paragraphs. Do you have anything you can refer me to about why long paragraphs are regarded as better, and how to judge what an appropriate length is? I should stress that I'm not asking this to be a smart ass, by the way. I'm genuinely interested because I see that Bishonen has gone through Bernard Williams merging paragraphs, and it's clearly an improvement. I'm just not sure why. I'd like to submit more articles for Featured Article status in the future so I'm keen to improve my writing. Slim 23:16, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Here is the exact link: Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Web sites (not from periodicals), or the one above it if it applies. I don't have a source in front of me that I can cite for your second question. It was just from my English teachers over the years. Part of it has to do with a one or two sentence paragraph not being a full idea. That is usually the case in Wikipedia. It shows something that is left on its own, and needs more or should be combined with something else. The other part is that it flows poorly. Short paragraphs break up the prose and make for choppy, start and stop reading. What you have been taught, was more likely to write in concise paragraphs, as short as can be done in good form. Less than three sentences is almost automatically too short. Almost all writing rules can be broken, so less than three sentences might possibly be good form if each sentence has multiple valid clauses for example. - Taxman 23:35, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I'm fairly certain I won't be able to provide the date the websites were created (they're mostly newspapers). I can insert the date I retrieved it, if you really think that's necessary, but I wonder whether it is, as the articles will be the same regardless of the date they were retrieved. Regarding short paragraphs, they should certainly flow into each other, unless a particular, abrupt effect is being sought. But I don't think I agree about the "one paragraph = one full idea" hypothesis. The sole aim of the non-fiction writer (I have taken writing classes professionally and during my post-graduate work) is to convey ideas clearly and accurately. Long paragraphs often hinder that aim, which is why journalists, for example, tend to use short paragraphs. I do think, in the case of the Williams article though, that the longer paragraphs improved it, although I can't quite work out why. I suppose it depends on the subject matter. Slim 03:04, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hi again Taxman. The sentence "The utilitarian philosopher's main rival is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant" is the introductory sentence (a one-sentence paragraph) of the Kant section. I don't believe it's POV. There are basically two views regarding how to judge the moral value of an act: (1) utilitarian, which means consequentialist i.e. you judge the value of an act according to its consequences and (2) deontological, which means you judge the value of an act in some way intrinsically. See Deontology. A deontologist would say (broadly speaking) that, if an act X is good, then it continues to be good even if it produces dreadful consequences. The most important and influential deontologist is Kant. I'm fairly certain no moral philosopher would dispute that. I'm going to move this to the Featured Article page in case anyone else has a view on it. Slim

It is a POV because it is an opinion. It does not matter that almost no moral philosopher would dispute it, that is beside the point. It is not a fact, partly just because 'main rival' is an ambiguous term. But you could easily make it NPOV in this case, by citing the comment to a source or a source that backs up your claim that "no moral philosopher would dispute" it. For ex, saying MSU is the main rival of UofM is an opinion, but mentioning Lloyd Carr, coach of UofM said the same thing is a fact, if he did say it. Please review the NPOV policy and think about what is opinion and what is fact. Just because many or even every person asked believes one thing is so, does not make it so. - Taxman 04:21, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Taxman, you are driving a hard bargain.  :-) Saying Kant is the utilitarian's main rival is like saying Oxford is Cambridge's main rival. It's a true proposition. I will try to find a quote, but I'm worried it'll be hard to find anyone who actually says it. Regarding your fact/opinion distinction, in some cases, everyone's saying X does make X true e.g. the example above: if everyone believes Oxford is Cambridge's main rival, then it is true that Oxford is Cambridge's main rival, because their status and relationship is based upon the beliefs of others regarding that status and relationship. Similarly, if all moral philosophers believe Kant is the main rival to utilitarianism, then he is, as a matter of definition. But I take your point nonetheless.  :-)
TouchŽ. But to me as an outsider I have no idea that the main rival point is remotely true. I can only take your word for it at this point. - Taxman 04:38, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, your other changes were fine, thank you. Slim 04:33, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
I found a quote in the Boston Review obit from Martha Nussbaum, who is a philosopher. She calls Kantianism and utilitarianism "those two dominant theories."
So that sentence now reads: "The main rival of utiilitarianism is the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Williams' work throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Morality: An Introduction to Ethics in 1972; Problems of the Self in 1973; Utilitarianism: For and Against with J.J.C. Smart, also in 1973; Moral Luck in 1981; Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy in 1985) outlined the basis of his attacks on the twin pillars of utilitarianism and Kantianism. "As a group these works denounced the trivial and evasive way," wrote Martha Nussbaum, "in which moral philosophy was being practiced in England under the aegis of those two dominant theories." [1] Let me know what you think. Best, Slim 05:14, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Taxman, I was interested to see you write on the Laal language candidate that one-sentence paragraphs are bad writing style. Do you have a reference for this? It is not what is taught by professional writers, or at least I have never heard of it being taught.
One sentence-paragraphs can be very effective in certain cases; and if you stick to the "one idea=one paragraph" rule of thumb, which most writers do, often an idea can be expressed in one sentence. There is a website here [2] that lists "no one-sentence paragraphs" as a myth, giving some references, which you may find interesting. Another editor sent me the following quote from "The Careful Writer" by Theodore M. Bernstein: "A paragraph may be of one sentence or it may be of ten. An elementary-school teacher told her class that a paragraph could not contain only one sentence . . . That teacher deserves a sentence -- and a long one."
I don't mean to labor the point, but I feel that in judging featured article candidates, it might be a good idea to go easy on the no-one-sentence-paragraphs idea, because it may not improve the articles by sticking to it rigidly. In the case of my entry, I have to say that merging the paragraphs did improve it, as I have a tendency to err on the side of shortness. Slim 19:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, well I don't have anything authoritative to refute the sources you have shown, I had just assumed (possibly incorrectly) it was a foundational piece of advice. Perhaps it is that encyclopedia articles are different and the general advice you have quoted doesn't apply, but I've never seen a Wikipedia article that is not improved by avoiding one sentence paragraphs. Perhaps that is also just my bias coming in. From experience though, the rule does always seem to make a better article. - Taxman 20:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Reginald Maudling

I feel sure you must have missed the section giving full publication details for his autobiography and for the recent biography by Lewis Baston when you commented that this article lacked references. But even so, I've expanded it. Does this change your mind? Dbiv 16:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Congradulations on your promotion to adminship. Please read the administrators FAQ and relevant documentation before using your powers, and again, congradulations. →Raul654 03:20, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reference pages

Hi, have you seen my proposal for a namespace for reference pages? Comments would be much appreciated. So far no one has objected to the idea, but more supporters are needed before this can be implemented. - Fredrik | talk 20:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

See my User:Taxman/Copyrights page for my multi licensing. I hope that is enough and that you don't need a direct response. - Taxman 14:52, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Congratulations! I just discovered you were running, too late to give my vote, (fortunately you got overwhelming support) but not too late to give congtaulations. I'm still somewhat clueless finding my way around WP, so much of it passes me by without my noticing. I really appreciate your effort particularly in the economic areas. At some point I would like to return work on an article on specific mathematical macroeconmic models (e.g. Keynesian models and growth models, such as Solw Swann models). I'll see if it is possible for the record to give my vote. CSTAR 04:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Missed your message – sorry

Just discovered this on my Talk page:

  • Hi thought you might be interested in voting to help get Culture of Spain selected for the collaboration of the week. Then we can get a lot of help to bring it up to a featured article. Thanks - Taxman 16:54, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

No idea how I missed it at the time; apologies. mfc 12:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem. It got selected, but then I had no time the week it was the COTW project. Between that and few other people contributing, it still needs a lot of work. See what you can do if you don't mind. - Taxman 15:24, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

OK please point (link) me towards said project and I'll try and contribute. mfc

[edit] thanks for ...

... your attention to "Niagara Falls", which has so far met a better fate than "Bicycle", the only other FAC on which I had done the bulk of the work. As I'm sure you've learned, it's a bear to keep articles up to par when they concern topics about which everyone thinks himself an expert. "Pepsi-can stove" and "Japanese toilet" run a more gentle gauntlet. Sfahey 23:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: John Bull (locomotive)

I've updated the references formatting like you requested. slambo 12:04, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Biweekly Special Article

Hi. I'm currently on vacation in Turks and Caicos, and I was wondering if you could update the next biweekly special article. It's really easy...most articles aren't referenced! If not, I would really appreciate it if you could delegate the task to somebody else, as I won't be able to access the internet very frequently until christmas (when I'm coming back). Thanks very much in advance.

PS: I'm really sorry to do this to you, but I really don't know what else I could do at this point. You seemed to be pretty active, and you found the last one too. Anyhow, if you don't want to, you can contact me, but I'm afraid that I won't be able to respond in time. Thanks again. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 22:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Government of Maryland

I appreciate your comments on Government of Maryland, which I have nominated for featured article status. Per your suggestion, I have added further references and reorganized that section to indicate which were actually referenced in the writing of the article and which are only provided for further information. Please take a look at this and see if it satisfies your objection. If not, please provide further information on what you think would improve the article up to FA status. Jacob1207 15:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Equal Protection Clause

Just in case you miss this message, here is what I wrote in reply to your comments regarding Equal Protection Clause as a featured article candidate: "I can't say I had all of those sources actually in front of me as I was writing the article, but I have read 10/12 of the sources mentioned, with the 2 othersÑthe Kotz and the Morris booksÑhaving been praised highly by others of the sources. I can't speak for Niteowlneils, but I'm guessing he just figured "references" meant references for the readers. That, at least, was what I had supposed, just because if they were meant to be sources, they would be called "sources." It may be, though, that "references" are a sort of term of art on Wikipedia, and "references" means what in other contexts would be called "sources." Taxman, could you direct me to whatever resource can clear this up for all of us? ThanksÑand thanks for your comments. If we get this references/sources thing all squared away, do you think you could support this article? Best regards," Hydriotaphia 05:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Resolved nicely, see the FAC discussion for details. - Taxman 18:02, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, thanks again for all your help. I have a favor to ask of you, though. Would you mind striking-through whatever concerns you think my changes have laid to rest? I figure that'll help the article's chances of being accepted as featured. I've also, by the way, added a section on affirmative action. Contrary to my anxious comments on the featured articles candidates page, I've looked over the section again, and believe it isn't POV. But let me know what you think. Best, Hydriotaphia 08:54, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Hydriotaphia 05:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Btrieve

Have attempted to fix the introduction. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've done a much better lead section. Now it's more focussed on Btrieve itself. I now only have to add information about Btrieve for NT as well as Btrieve for Pervasive.SQL 7 & Pervasive.SQL 8. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks are not expiring

I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical warfare

I made some changes to chemical warfare according to your recommendations, with special attention added to updating the families of agents and dispersal methods (conventional explosives, planes, crop dusters, etc). The new "chemical weapon technology" section that will contain the following sections:

  • Chemical weapon agents [updated and complete]
  • Delivery systems [complete]
  • Defense & countermeasures [incomplete]
  • Decontamination [incomplete]
  • Disposal [incomplete]

As you can see, I will be doing quite a bit more in the next couple of days. If you have a moment, please take a look and let me know what you think.

Many thanks, ClockworkSoul 07:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those are excellent additions, I'll comment at its entry on FAC - Taxman 20:50, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe Katie

Salve, Taxman!
Thanks for your help on my Katie Holmes article at Wikipedia:Peer_review#Katie_Holmes. I've posted a reply to them after adding a bibliography and some choice quotes. Let me know what you think. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:22, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I am through with the Sealand article. I wrote that before then I returned which led to Centauri (who others suspect is someone else and who caused no end of trouble for other people under another name) to begin to play tag with me. I want no part of it. You can delete the article, modify it, do whatever you want to do with it. I think the entire thing is a time wasting lot of nonsense. The facts speak for themselves. I offered to answer specific questions off that site and that is all that I will do. I also think that to anyone with a byte of intellegence who is not caught up in the fan club aspects understands all of this. I also suspect that Centauri is in Australia, thousands of miles away from the scene. If you don't want to believe anything that I have written that is fine by me. You may delete everything I ever wrote on that site. Just don't attribute anything to me. If you don't want this message on your page just delete it because it is written for you and for you alone. I will repeat my offer, however, if you have a specific question ask me and I will do my best to respond. By specific, I mean a narrow question (or more than one), that concentrates on a very specific point of enquiry. I will not respond to general questions. Have a Happy New Year on Wikipedia! MPLX/MH 02:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am back because I need your assistance. As stated I am not going to get further involved with the Sealand matter, but I also made mention of the individual who I believe is actually the former Gene Poole and now called Centauri. It is one thing for this individual to edit anything that I submitted regarding Sealand (in this case HavenCo), but it is quite another for him to POV his stuff all over the place and then made snide remarks while doing so. His latest on the HavenCo page states: "(remove bias, unneccesary repetition and off-topic rants written by apparent zealot)" I am bringing this to your attention because I am not the first person that this individual has tangled with and since I want nothing further to do with him or his comments I feel that his actions are uncalled for and I may need your kind assistance in dealing with him. Thank you. MPLX/MH 05:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll keep a watch on those pages. You may be right, but for now, Centauri is making mostly good faith edits. You would do well to insert less bais in your writing and be less emotional about the whole thing. You refuse to provide the evidence you speak of so the only conclusion that can be made is that you have none. If you want to change that conclusion, simply provide the evidence. - Taxman 12:32, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
All of the facts that I have stated I have documented. I noticed that this other person is now watering down those facts. He changed 'dormant shell company' to 'shelf company' which is not the same thing. Other facts are also being constantly distorted and so I do not want to be bothered with this any further on Wikipedia. I asked you to be specific about what you want to know and you ignored me and added a blanket reply. I asked you to assist to stop the insults and you ignored my request. I will take my complaint to others. MPLX/MH 16:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do what you like, but I haven't seen any non public evidence that you claim you have, much less documenting all of the claims you have made. - Taxman 17:32, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand what: "I haven't seen any non public evidence that you claim you have ...". It would appear to be an oxymoron - a contradiction in terms. I asked you to name a specific request for specific information. That offer still holds to you personally. Do you have a specific question related to the evidence you seek? MPLX/MH 17:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SOLLOG

Look at all the deletes wyss is doing to Sollog talk page. You say discuss Sollog article on talk and yet wyss edits all pro sollog posts. Ban wyss. - 12.101.152.130 11:42, Jan 1, 2005

Well you have actively ruined your credibility by vandalizing pages, using all caps to shout, and editing from multiple anonymous proxies. So don't act surprised that your comments are removed. If you want to be listened to, log in as a registered user and make valid edits only. You have ruined your credibility so you have to work to gain some back. And yes, I will do what I can to make sure Wyss does not remove any more valid comments from the talk pages. If you edit in good faith, your edits should be treated with respect too. If you don't, well then you need to accept the consequences. - Taxman 17:32, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wyss deleted you

do you like wyss deleting your comments about sollog talk

BAN WYSS - Fuckwiki^G

It is easy to see from the history that he did not delete anything I wrote. And notice that you can be banned for using an offensive username. Stop using anonymous proxies and try to make a better article. Otherwise go away. - Taxman 18:16, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] request for comment

I've recently started trying to remove the bias from some of the half dozen or so articles that the writer MPLX has written on the subject of Sealand and I'm finding him totally unwiling to discuss anything in a reasonable manner, although I'm sure he has a lot of valuable information to contribute. He seems to prefer insulting and making strange paranoid accusations about anyone who touches "his" work, and has deleted requests by me to reconsider things from his talk page numerous times, without responding. I'm starting to think he must have a personal interest in the subject which is clouding his objective judgement, and making him come across as an angry, righteous zealot. Whatever it is I'm getting tired of his snide remarks, and I'm thinking of posting a request for comment about him. Firstly, do you think that's a good idea, and if so would you support it? --Centauri 22:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He says he is just going to leave them all alone, so maybe no action is needed. Try that first. Just edit in good faith and be careful to have sources to back up your edits. If and when he blocks valid edits, then an RfC may make sense, and I would support in that case. Just make sure you don't get in revert wars and always work towards the best article and no one will have any room to question what you do. We should all be here for the sake of writing better articles, but I think people forget that. - Taxman 22:55, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
OK thanks I'll try that. I just don't want him going around talking about me rather than to me.--Centauri 22:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thats a fact of Wiki life. Better to not get stressed about it in the least. As I said, just make good edits and you have no major worries. If you try inserting another POV, then that is where problems come in. Avoid that and it is all good. With good faith edits even contentious articles get better. - Taxman 23:07, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] League of Nations - featured article candidate

Hi Taxman. You left a comment on the above FAC page, asking for some paragraphs to be expanded. I would very much like to see this article promoted - perhaps you could let me know what is missing? Thanks a lot. Smoddy | Talk 17:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having trawled through the article, the only part I can find with any number of paragraphs like you said is League of Nations#Agencies and commissions. Would a table along these lines be an improvement? Smoddy | Talk 19:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Matthew Brettingham

I've been thinking about your comments on Matthew Brettingham on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, one of the reasons I wrote the page was that there is so little about him on the internet, I could list about 20 sites that have a couple of lines about him in various ways, yet as you discovered they often conflict with various information. The written references I used are all by highly respected authors which is why I used mostly only their facts, and then pieced the lot together in some sort of chronological order. Do you think, the answer is to explain this on the talk page. I removed the link to Euston Hall as it is misleading, I am sure Brettingham probably did design a closet or move a window or pillar at Holkham Hall during the 20 odd years it took to build but I can find no documentary evidence to support this, he is often referred to as Lord Leicester's architect at Holkham, which indeed he was, he was retained by that estate, and probably designed farm houses, lodges, and barns, (again no evidence for this) but that is not the same thing as designing Holkham Hall. All reliable sources attribute Holkham to William Kent and Lord Burlington. I would value your opinion on this, as once I put it on the talk page its always there. Giano 08:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore's FAC

Hi, you objected to elevating Singapore to featured status on FAC. I and some others have tried addressing your objections; would you mind reevaluating the article? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 07:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really a lawyer, but Laws of Singapore should be able to help you out. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, can't really help you out there as I'm not legal eagle, let alone on the laws of Singapore. Johnleemk | Talk 09:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review bloat

Hi, Taxman. I fully understand if you got fed up with the one-man conversation at the moribund Wikipedia Talk:Peer review and stopped watching the page, but your input there would be much appreciated in respect of my recent post and Mark Dingelmanse's comment on it.--Bishonen | Talk 16:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Cite sources

Hi Taxman, I'm becoming increasingly horrified at the number of articles in Wikipedia that do not cite any sources; and the number of editors who feel they don't have to bother. Even featured articles often don't have any, and will often add references after the fact, whether or not they've been used in the article. I took a look tonight at Wikipedia:Cite sources, and it's not suprising people are confused. First, this apparently is not policy, just a guideline. Second, the page actually said you can add references at any time (after the article is written) to help the reader learn more. In other words, they've mixed up references with further reading. I have edited the page to get rid of that ambiguity (though whether the edit will survive is another matter), and I am interested in doing whatever has to be done to make this policy. As this is an issue you've often expressed concern over at the FAS page, would you be interested in joining me and, in particular, looking at the page to see whether the guideline is now properly written and explained? SlimVirgin 08:29, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am totally for anything that helps get the message accross that well researched articles are critical to Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia has been built on a culture where writing what you know is ok. People see research as too hard and not worth the time. It will take a while to change that and I am open to any ideas you have in that line. The changes you have made look good overall, but need some tweeking I guess. Some people may have issues with it, but I don't. You should add requests for comment to Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. To me the biggest problem is the cultural issue that I mentioned. Part of the problem is all of the introductory material for editors to learn how to contribute says they can just write what they know. I tried to add mentions every place I could that research and citing sources to each fact is important, but I'm sure I missed some. See if you can find any. I would personally go so far as to say every added fact should have the effort made to cite it to an authoritative source. Thanks - Taxman 15:39, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
The thing about Wikipedia is people want to zoom in, make a couple of quick edits, then spend the rest of their time arguing on the Talk pages. The suggestion that research sometimes involves reading a book (what's that?) or even going to a library (duh?) would stun them.  :-) So it's a hard culture to fight, but I feel that cite sources should become a chant. I didn't dare make too many changes to the cite sources page, and I stayed more or less within the structure that was there, but I think I got rid of a couple of confusing things, and I posted a note on the Talk page that I'd like to see it become policy. I'll also ask for comment on the pages you suggested. Also, do you know there's a cite sources template: {{Template:Cite sources}} that you can put at the top of pages without adequate references? It reads: "This article does not adequately cite its sources and may contain unverified information or original research. Please help Wikipedia by adding references or removing unreferenced material. See the talk page for details." I have also let Maurreen know that I would like to make cite sources policy. Best, SlimVirgin 01:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re Roe v Wade discussion

I got into the discussion on post-facto adding of references for s specific reason. Since you seem generally to take well considered positions on the myriad disputes which arise here, I was surprised by your comments on "Roe" vs. what you had said in a prior such dispute. In FAC:Singapore you encouraged an editor to go to the library and find some references, and then jumped all over someone who (correctly) suggested that this encouraged faking references after an article had been written. You then took essentially this person's stance in jumping on the "Roe" editor for (possibly) doing what you had encouraged in "Singapore". It is disingenuous to suggest that the reason one should go get references AFTER writing an article is to VERIFY material. BTW, I too have become a devotee of helping FAC's get buffed up and through the gauntlet. The know-how of the "judges" in this process is spectacularly varied, and this dispute is a rare instance where I for one did not endorse your positions. Sfahey 04:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My comments are not at all inconsistent. First I do ask that editors go to the library and get reliable references if the article lacks them, and properly use those to fact check the article. Then in Roe, I am simply pointing out that adding references so quickly in response to a request requires the editor to assert that they have properly used the added references either to add material or to fact check. In re: to Singapore, I didn't jump all over anyone, I simply pointed out that adding references after the fact is not bad if they are used properly--the same position I took in Roe. How is it "disingenuous to suggest that the reason one should go get references AFTER writing an article is to VERIFY material."? That is exactly what should be done if an article already has good material, but lacks proper citation. References are critical to Wikipdia's long term reliability, trustworthyness and ultimate success. If you think about it, anything added to a Wikipedia article that is not cited to a source is original research, which is against policy. Slimvirgin made a good observation in pointing that out. So I'm not sure what you are saying you think I am wrong about. - Taxman 16:15, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
My main point regarded the tone of the comments, in both "Singapore" and "Roe", which sounded atypically adversial, rather than collegial. I agree (with whoever it was said it in "Singapore") that when you suggest that it's not hard to "go to the library and get some references", it is unlikely that the writer will be doing so to fact check their article. They instead are likely to be faking references, having already written their stuff either from their head (sports article, areas of ones own expertise, etc.) or from on-line material that doesn't look as good in a bibliography as a "paper trail". I doubt that the Roe writer was faking anything, since legal material is his metier, and the article was so laced with facts and dates that it couldn't have come from his head. Also, not citing material to a source does not make it "original research". btw, someone higher up on this page had good thoughts on "sources" vs. "references", which would clear up some of this. Let's shake hands and move on. This (aspect of the debate on "references") is not a big deal, and is difficult to resolve in this time-delayed fashion. Sfahey 23:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ahh yes, well sometimes I am a little too curt in my suggestions. But I don't know the Roe editor, so I've just asked him to verify the references. - Taxman 09:32, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I used the Brethren, Closed Chambers, and the Ely article quite extensively. I know a lot of the information from memory from reading and college classes. It involved no original research or interpretation, everything claim made in that article has been made by some other authority. Noah Peters 21:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters
Thank you very much. You clearly know what you are talking about, it is just important for Wikipedia's reliability that we cite sources well. That you know what you are talking about makes you all the more qualified to find and utilize good sources properly. - Taxman 22:13, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

“Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Keep up the efforts to improve what you see. However, can you point to anywhere that encourages the lines (----) you are putting in pages? That is a mostly deprecated way of doing pages and is generally considered bad style. Proper sectioning using == === and ==== is considered better and encourages better writing and more coherent sections. Any article that needs dividers like ---- should instead be fixed properly. Thanks - Taxman 23:38, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)”

Aloha, I just copied the formatting from the pages that I visited. I removed them where I could find them. One-line definitions did not seem to me to need GIANT headings. There was no obvious consistency on the pages that I visited. Thanks.. GT

If there is not enough material to need separate sections, then they don't need to be broken up with lines either. Yes there are lots of bad articles out there, but don't emulate those, look to emulate the best. Also spend some time looking through the style guides. There will be some inconsistencies in there, but if you point them out people will try to fix them. So again, keep trying to improve what you can and as my personal mission, try to back up what you add with good research and cite good sources. That is what Wikipedia needs most. - Taxman 17:14, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Taxman, if you have a minute, your views at Wikipedia talk:Cite sources would be appreciated. The discussion revolves around (a) whether the Cite sources page should distinguish between good and bad sources (using words like reputable, authoritative etc) and (b) whether there should be a separate References section at the end of articles listing only material used in the creation of the article. Best, SlimVirgin 05:42, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portfolio (finance)

Hi taxman, here is another page at which your views are welcome. [3] mydogategodshat 04:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources templates

Taxman, you might be interested in the voting at Templates for deletion. There are votes to delete the "cite sources" and "unreferenced" tags here [4] and [5] SlimVirgin 10:29, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I guess everybody's after you, Taxman, sorry. I was just wondering whether you've got any comment on this, but maybe you're as fed up with Peer review as I am. Bishonen | Talk 12:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not fed up with PR, just been busy with real life, so I haven't been able to work on solutions. See the PR talk page for my detailed response. - Taxman 14:49, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
I've written a proposal for trimming peer review instructions and emending policy at Wikipedia talk:Peer review, please respond if you have the time! Bishonen | Talk 08:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Russia

Hi. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Russia again? Your objection was posted after the thread should have been archived, with no unresolved objections until then. If your new objection is not addressed soon, time will be out and the nomination will have been killed. I'd like to see that article on the main page, since it may attract new editors interested in our Russia-related articles, which are still quite underdeveloped at this time. 172 22:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with the footnoting on History of Russia so far? Do you think that there are any other specific points that need footnotes? 172 19:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could always use more. What is well known to one person is novel to another. But I have moved to support it as it is a great article. - Taxman 21:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer_review/2002_Winter_Olympic_bid_scandal

I have been mulling over in my head how to summarize the main points at the beginning of the article. I guess my main confusion was about citations. I have two books as references. One of them an official publication of the SLOC. Do I need more references? --[jon] [talk] 20:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would always say yes. I would have a hard time believing an article would pass FAC with only two references. I don't think I could support it personally. But even more important in this case is citing the truly contentious facts, like what the bribes were, etc. And by the way, if you are still mulling comments over or how to implement them, just leave a note to let the PR commentors know so we don't bug you or remove the listing. - Taxman 22:20, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Mathematics Wikiportal

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:53, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BCP article

I am new to Wiki and had I known the correct formating for references, I would have set it up that way from the beginning. Can you point the way with a URL link? Revmachine21 10:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AEJ Collins

  • Hi Taxman, I see that you edited the above article. This is currently under consideration for a FAC

AEJ Collins FAC Perhaps you might consider supporting the nomination on the above link? Kind regards Brookie 16:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Studniówka

Thanks for your questions. You should find answers in the article now. The ball is for those who are going to pass the matura and leave the school. Depending on whether it's a 4 or 5-year school, they are aged 19 or 20. Of course, one may bring his/her date who may be younger or older.
I wrote this article after I had read the one about prom and thought, why not have an article about Polish proms? Only then I noticed that Wikipedia lacks a general article on education in Poland, so I suppose this will need to be written too. – Kpalion (talk) 19:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... 44-0-1! (source: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Grutness ;) Grutness|hello? 06:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Mate, I do think the article is pretty good. Perhaps I should have put it on peer review first, I dunno, but I wasn't trying to make a point. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review: Solar neutrino problem

Hi. I'm the one who nominated Solar neutrino problem for peer review. I apologize, as I was ignorant of the way that peer review works. I thought that anyone could nominate an article for peer review and then others would consider implementing the recommended changes. I did not make any contributions to the article, and I must say that I know very little about the topic. I just thought it was an interesting article that I felt was covered very well and could possibly be a featured candidate someday. Hence, I don't feel that I'm qualified to make implement the changes that were recommended for this article since they require quite a bit of knowledge about the subject, which I do not have. I appreciate all of the suggestions that were made, and once again I'm sorry for nominating this article when I'm not able to carry out the suggested improvements. I went ahead and removed the article from Candidates for Peer Review and I moved the topic to the archives. Hopefully someone who is more of an expert will come across the archived topic and help improve the article. — Brim 05:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tamil language references

Thank you for your message on my talk page. The section of the article on Geographic distribution has been completely rewritten using four of the books in the references (two of them are now mentioned in the text). I also made changes several weeks ago to the section on History based on another of the references, which I've now again inserted into the text. The analysis in the Examples section is based on standard grammars which are now listed in the ancient works section of the references. I've also made several small changes to other sections recently, again based on the references. If you've any suggestions as to how the article could be improved by directly citing references in the text, they'd be gratefully received --- Arvind 15:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fact-checking & articles needing citations

Hello - I am new to Wikipedia. I like rummaging around looking for articles missing proper referencing. Currently working on adding external links to John Major (listed on the talk page). I would like to research [Sebastio de Melo] as it was so interesting but...well...colourful. Not quite sure how else to say that. In all honesty, neither Major nor de Melo are within my field of expertise. I would hate to create a situation where someone would have to fact-check my fact-checking. I am used to working with both attorneys and highly trained professionals who speak English but don't write a word of it. How can I chip in and make a positive contribution here? Can I assist? Or do I just dig in, and hope for the best? Thank you, Otto 03:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Dalkowski

Thanks for the feedback, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Zerbey 15:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update on your talk page

Taxman, the British East India Company article should be changed to the entire category - all five are missing both external weblinks and citations. I'll working on this piecemeal, but meanwhile, the category should be listed on your "problem page" and not just the British East India Company. Otto 15:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See my response on that talk page. - Taxman 16:07, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] O Julia

Salve, Taxman!
Hope this message finds you well, we've not spoken in a while. I wanted to thank you for your kind words on WP:PR re my Julia Stiles article. I completely rewrote it a few days ago after another user began rewrites and questioned my sources. Thus the compilation of the bibliography from my notebooks. Yes it is long and some don't like long reference sections but as most articles have no cites at all I think it is valuable to document our material. (I know I've not done as good a job I ought.)
As for a photo, I know it needs one. Trouble is my skills are editorial not technical and I don't know how to post one. Maybe one of her video covers, available on Amazon, could be used--The 60's has a great photo, which I mention. I know other articles, e.g. Lowell Thomas have a cover, taken as fair use. Again, thanks for your praise. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 16:15, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your work on peer reviewing things and on WP:FAC. I think it's one of the more important contributions we can make on Wikipedia. But unlike, say, writing articles, it's one of those things that requires quite a bit of effort but results in little (tangible) to show for it! Cheers, anyhow. I've also replied to your comment at Talk:Secret_sharing#Comments_from_peer_review. — Matt Crypto 17:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome, I hope my comments were helpful. I've always felt a bit bad about it because I do more critiquing than writing. But reviewing happens to be what I am better and and more motivated to do. Production of good material is also vital to Wikipedia though and I don't do nearly as much volume of that as perhaps I should. I suppose if the end goal is correct, verified information then the work I do promoting awareness of the importance of referencing and citing in articles is more important in the long run than just adding material. One thing that has been proven is that Wikipedia as a system successfully atracts the contribution of material. So perhaps the focus on referencing and verifiability is well placed, because that won't be done without a specific, focused effort to that end. - Taxman 18:56, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa FA

Hey, I really appreciate your comments on Wikiepdia:Featured article candidates/South Africa, and I believe I attempted to address them with further edits and content to the Culture section. Because South Africa is so incredibly diverse, it is very difficult to write something about the dance of South Africa, but I have attempted to address cuisine and music. Thanks! 172.148.142.203 23:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go look, but please don't paste the same thing four times. - Taxman 02:57, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your update on In-N-Out

Regarding the phrase you recently added to In-N-Out:

"It is evident from visiting any location that the workers move faster than in nearly any other fast food restaraunt."

I find that very POV, unless you have any references to the contrary. Zzyzx11 17:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it is, except it is from direct observation. It's quite amazing how fast they work. Yes I suppose that makes it original research and shouldn't have been added, but I believe it to be a fact. - Taxman 18:16, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weight training

Sigh. Even though I merged in many of Dan100's changes, and invited him to discuss the remainder, he simply reverted back to his version. I think he may be seeking a revert war here. If he does, could I ask you to back me up, please? I don't want to fall foul of the 3RR. Thanks! GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Thanks for your encouragement on diamond. Regarding the footnotes, I've thought a bit about it, and it's a difficult question. I agree with you that inline footnotes demonstrate reliability by making fact-checking simple; using this method with reputable references is surely an excellent way to overcome critics' objections, as you note. However, there are a number of issues that stand between reality and the dream of universal recognition of Wikipedia's accuracy.

Most obvious is the amount of work involved. An encyclopedia-style article is especially dense in footnote-able facts; I would guess that an article the size of diamond would have close to 100 footnotes if every fact were referenced. (As a side note, this would make the tail-end of an article unweildy due to Wikipedia's formatting and thus relegating sections below it, including categories, beyond where most would look.) Finding and including a specific reference for each fact (including page number for books and articles) is very time consuming.

Of course it is not easy. But it certainly is easier to do while you are producing the material from the reference. That's why I tried to catch you while you are doing it. And of course ideal footnoting might be citing all 500 facts. But if the concept is good, some is better than none. So just start with the most contentious or most important facts, do as many as you can, and call it a day. Don't let perfect get in the way of better. - Taxman 23:25, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is a recreational activity, and most people don't think sourcing is fun at all, most editors just don't do it. It is the overall lack of references, not the ease with which they can be used for fact-checking via footnotes, that I think is the big problem. References should be enough to establish credibility; I don't think we need to provide a map to each individual piece an article is constructed from. Those who are interested can research the sources to confirm various facts, but given where Wikipedia as a whole stands right now, it seems like good footnoting is a little bit pie-in-the-sky. Footnoting is invaluable to editors or factcheckers in a professional organization, but I don't think it's achievable in this context.

There are other issues, too. Footnoting would make obvious the reliance of main authors on a relatively limited number of sources. Most articles do not have the luxury of true experts writing on their topics of interest, and so we hope to replace real expertise with the partial understandings of several editors, cobbled together. Usually that's enough to make a good encyclopedia article, which does not require the breadth and depth of knowledge of a true expert. The result is a heavy reliance on relatively few references, as those casually interested don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of literature on the topic. Three consecutive paragraphs with 12 footnotes, all pointing to one chapter of one source, a) is indicative of poor research, b) is demonstrative of an incomplete knowledge of resources, and c) invites questions of plagiarism. Worst of all, I think it weakens Wikipedia's authority by demonstrating that it was written by hobbyists, not experts.

OK, I'm ranting and raving here, and I certainly didn't intend to. My point is, I think references are sufficient and footnotes are an unneccessary luxury. (Why couldn't I just say that? Whew.) I'm open to discussion though, so I'd love to hear what you think of my thoughts. -Bantman 23:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

As above, of course they are not a requirement. But the more the better, so just do what you can. Prioritize the facts that need it the most and go for those. Then do others as you see fit. Thanks for your comments - Taxman 23:25, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I've taken some time and looked over the footnotes project pages. I'd post my comments there, but it's confusing for a newcomer to the page - I'm not even sure which of the three footnotes pages is the right one to talk at. So I'll twist your ear instead.
What would you think of coming up with a hybrid between footnotes and bibliography? Basically, the references section (bibliography) would be numbered 1,2,3, etc., and notes would just refer to the reference number? This addresses the issue of a huge number of footnotes greatly extending the page, helps verifiability by tracing specific facts to specific references, and is much easier for the editor. Plus, most wiki-articles use websites for some or all of their references, so a classic "Author, book, page number" citation is overkill for many sources. If you like you're welcome to copy my comments to the appropriate footnotes talk page (just let me know where you put it so I can follow the responses). Thanks. - Bantman 19:42, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In recognition

I award you, Taxman, this barnstar for your tireless insistence on verifiability and for your significant contributions to Wikipedia's credibility and relevance. Your work is of great value. — Mark Dingemanse.
I award you, Taxman, this barnstar for your tireless insistence on verifiability and for your significant contributions to Wikipedia's credibility and relevance. Your work is of great value. — Mark Dingemanse.

It is with great pleasure that I award you this barnstar. I leave it to you to add it to your userpage or to leave it here on your talk. Keep up the good work! — mark ✎ 17:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the academy... :) I think referencing and verifiability is the single most important thing now to Wikipedia's long term relevance and success. It does seem to be an uphill battle, so I appreciate the recognition. I think I'll leave it here for now, as I'm not too much in for self lauding. - Taxman 17:37, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
It wouldn't be self lauding at all — your user page is protected, otherwise I had added it there myself. — mark ✎ 18:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. Anyway I guess It's as good here, so thanks again. - Taxman 19:50, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taxman

Vandalism Civility Dan100 21:05, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Eh, well, the vandalism article makes a decent case that considering your actions vandalism is improper. Beyond that I have been entirely civil, even though you have repeatedly acted against consensus, and reverted multiple times. You are not being very helpful and that is unfortunate. Instead of trying to push your desired changes in spite of what everybody else thinks, just engage in further conversation. As noted multiple times, all other parties are being reasonable and trying to integrate all correct information. You on the other hand only want it your way, and appear unwilling or unable to concede anyone else's good points. This reflects a decided lack of maturity. Instead of going around linking to policy, why not just try to work together peacefully for a better article? - Taxman 21:28, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help on hydrochloric acid

Thanks

Hello Taxman, Thanks very much for your help sofar on the hydrochloric acid wikipage. The development isn't finished, of course: the discussion is on-going. Met vriendelijke groeten, Wim. Wim van Dorst 17:32, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

[edit] FA criteria

I've hardly done or am hardly doing anything to the FA criteria. Someone questioned and removed some text, so I readded it in a manner which I hoped clarified the issue. I am not the one who decided that featured articles do not need actually cite sources. Hyacinth 04:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship

Thank you for your support and the kind words on my adminship nomination. Carefully exploring my new powers now! Best regards, — mark ✎ 21:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weight training - again! (sorry)

Thank you for your eminently reasonable comments at Talk:Weight training#Phony Consensus. I have also reported the (probable) 3RR violation here.

May I ask your advice? Do you think that Blair's behaviour warrants opening an RfC? I'm not asking you to do it for me—I'm happy to do the donkeywork myself—but having never been in this kind of conflict before, I'm not sure whether the situation supports this kind of escalation yet. What do you think? GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No yet. So far it seems like he thinks he is right and is editing in good faith from that perspective. I haven't looked through all of the edits carefully I don't think, but he doesn't appear to be trying to cause trouble, though he is nonetheless. We'll just try to encourage him to edit cooperatively instead. If he refuses to do that after requests, only then we should consider taking it to dispute resolution. We haven't exhausted all options yet. And do try as hard as you can to see what part of what he has to say is helpful and incorporate those changes. Then we'll try to fix or ignore the rest. - Taxman 22:21, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
OK, will do. I have attempted to enter into a dialog with him regarding each of his proposed changes—as politely as possible. For the aerobic vs anaerobic debate, I actually don't really have a firm opinion of my own, except that I respect your and Sfahey's judgement on this issue.
I'm happy to keep his version of Weight_training#Aerobic_exercise_vs_anaerobic_exercise and his division of the summary into three paragraphs, plus some grammatical tweaks, but the remainder of his edits just remove information from the summary.
Oh, and thank you for your advice! GeorgeStepanek\talk
And what a suprise, he reverts again...
I have added a proposed compromise version to Talk:Weight training#Article summary that merges in all of his edits that do not actually remove information from the text. (Except the (an)aerobic thing, which I leave to your judgement.) I'm not applying it just yet in case it is interpreted as a 4th revert. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re Talk:Weight training#New_issues: I give up. I'm taking Weight training off my watchlist. Blair can do what he likes to it. Honestly, this is not worth the stress and hassle. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asking a favour

Could you please lock my user page and user talk page? I'm taking an indefinite leave of absence from Wikipedia, and I am concerned that someone we both recently became acquainted with will leave negative comments on either or both of these pages. Users can request that their own pages are locked, can't they? Thanks! GeorgeStepanek\talk 11:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, I can't do that, from what I understand of the policy. Especially the talk page cannot be locked. I will put it on my watchlist though, and remove any vandalism there. I would however, recommend a wikivacation instead of indefinite leave. Just try to not take things so personally, it's just a wiki article after all. But the process, in the long run, should turn Wikipedia as a whole into something remarkable. - Taxman 13:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. It's not about the article—it's just one article. In fact it's not even really about Blair's behaviour, unpleasant though that has been, because he's just one individual. It's about what the response has been from the rest of the community (on WikiEN-L) to Blair's lies and personal abuse. I've explained my feelings in more detail in my one-and-only post to that mailing list here. GeorgeStepanek\talk 19:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship - User:ABCD

As you may remember, you rejected my nomination for adminship in January. I have recently reapplied. You may wish to vote here. Thanks, ABCD 19:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE your comment - I have just changed the archive note, and if you were to check the diffs, you would find that all of my edits are in good faith. – ABCD 20:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism

Taxman, I wonder whether you have any time to look in on Talk:Capitalism. There's a dispute (and revert war) regarding the introduction and what it should say. One editor feels that the current introduction states or implies that capitalism has been "implemented," and that this is POV. I'm not in a position to judge the merits of the argument, and can only ask for authoritative sources for the claim that capitalism has not been "implemented" (by which I take it he means it has never existed in a pure form). Do you know whether this is a tiny-minority view of the kind that should not be referred to in the introduction? Or if it is a mainstream view, can you refer us to an authoritative, academic source? If you don't have time, however, that's fine, I understand. Best, SlimVirgin 19:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not my area of specialty. But I do think that is a relatively uncontroversial view. Regulation causes markets not to be free, so pure capitalism has not been implemented on a large scale. Neither has pure much of anything else political so that distinction is rather esoteric. Therefore those who would define capitalism only as pure capitalism are just being pedantic. I couldn't make heads or tails of where you would want this on the talk page so I'll leave it here for you. - Taxman 00:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi again Taxman, this is just to say thank you for voting for me in my adminship nomination. I really appreciate your support and kind comment. Best, SlimVirgin 00:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biweekly special article

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|✍ 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accident at WP:FAC

There was an editing accident (probably MySQL error or cut-n-paste error) on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates that resulting in the page contents being duplicated. A number of edits had occurred by the time it was noticed, but I tried to preserve everything while removing duplicate material. Just in case, mosey on over and check if your vote stuck. If you have any questions, respond on my talk page. Thanks!

-- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 20:53, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

[edit] Helium FAC

I've responded to your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Helium. Please check. --mav 02:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blair P. Houghton

Taxman, as I've said, I'm not taking a position on the substance of this article. If you feel that BPH is intractable, just ask me and I will temporarily protect the article, which will force the discussion to talk or a working copy. Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take you up on that if needed. For an article like this where there is not a whole lot of traffic to it, that is workable. I do not think that is a good strategy to end revert wars on more popular articles because then no one can edit the article. Therefore one editor with a POV to push can lock up an article indefinitely. - Taxman 13:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

I referenced the demographics statistics on the India page from the Times of India newspaper (print edition). The history of the page indicates that I added it on 24 Sep 2004, but I recall that the matter appeared a few days before that. Since the same is not available online (ToI), how do I cite my sources?  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

How do I cite matter from WP itself, to address claims such as "Polo was invented in India", matter which is mentioned on the Polo page itself?

(Please could you post a reply also on my talk page? Thanks)  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)=

Well, if the objections of whoever nominated it for removal have been addressed to that person's satisfaction, then you can consider my objection addressed also. Everyking 21:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon object

For Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish-Soviet War. Replied. Seriously, I'd love too see any *useful* Soviet reference for this war. It is as likely as a Soviet publications on the virtues of capitalism and deficencies of central planning, or on the errors of Marxism. Most of the referenced English sources use various Polish pre-IIWW referneces. Again, you wont find much useful stuff printed in Poland from 1939-1989 on that matter. The new stuff in most cases simply confirms what was printed in the West (much of what was based on research among immigrants and such, since you could hardly conduct significant research in PPL or SU at that time). If there are any new Russian post-91 sources with shocking new information I'd again love to see them, but the entire anon post about how Soviet won the war seems more like a vandal/troll comment then anything meriting serious discussion. Still, since you are a valuable contributor, I hope this combined with my answer on FAC satisfies your curiosity in the manner of references used. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe Katie--Holmes That Is

Salve, Taxman!
Hope this message finds you well. I put up my Katie Holmes article on FAC and nobody has anything good to say about it, alas. As you posted some comments when I had it on Peer review in December, I wonder if you had anything to add. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katie Holmes. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 14:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Salve, Taxman!
I didn't expect you to "reverse the consensus others have created", I just was hoping to get at least one support vote, which I have not gotten in my recent noms. I thought the article was comparable to my Julia Stiles article, which was voted featured status a few weeks ago. It seems one of the faults of Wikipedia, that there's plenty of criticism, rarely any praise. That said, I have another FAC up at the moment, Helen Gandy, whose nomination is here. Any comments on that one? PedanticallySpeaking 17:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LSD References

The article on LSD is rather large, were there any specific section you were looking for references for, or just in general? --Thoric 19:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mandarin (linguistics) References

Three references have been added to the Mandarin (linguistics) article (one of them was added by Patrick0Moran; two of them by me). Those references plus the external links already featured in the article should cover just about everything that requires citation support in the article. --Umofomia 09:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weather lore

This article was written when requirements for FA status were not as stringent. The documents listed as "Further Reading" are in fact references, as are the external sites. Denni☯ 20:54, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

[edit] Crash test dummy

I know you're just doing your job, Taxman, but I want to let you know that "Crash test dummy" was FA'ed in a kinder, gentler time. I do not list in my sources anything I have not read, and so both the "Further reading" and the "External links" must be considered as references. I have, regrettably, amended the article accordingly. Denni☯ 21:07, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

[edit] Gough Whitlam

Hi Taxman, please see the article's further reading section. Slac speak up! 23:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama references

I added some references. Unfortunately, I was constructing this well after the fact, and that article is (understandably) heavily based on news articles. I can't promise that these are the articles I actually consulted, but they cover essentially the same ground and can substantiate the facts in the article. Also regrettable is that most of them are no longer available without access to Lexis-Nexis or another paid archive. Is this acceptable? Please reply on my talk page--I'm eager to do better next time. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 01:20, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of computing hardware

WRT referencing that article, it's an overview, summarising and contextualising many other articles in the Wikipedia. The references are in the more detailed articles. --Robert Merkel 04:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of computing hardware#References

Added 7 references. The Datamation article is the most important one. W.J. Eckert's book started it all, and also Bell and Newell rank as the best references to the era. Ancheta Wis 07:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity references

I added a few references to the Christianity article, as per your request. More about them is on the talk page. KHM03 10:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Hi, I just saw your post on Attack on Pearl Harbor Talk. It kind of put a slight pall on the back slapping and self-congratulating for its recognition as a Featured article. But necessary it was, because it seems that my joining Wikipedia was brought on as I transitioned from a user to someone who was incresingly running into stuff of questionable veracity. But this was not a problem for me, since I understood the basic idea of Wiki in general Wikipedia in particular to be that someone first writes an article, and then the article is refined through addition, redaction and correction, by users themselves rather than the traditional peer review – a dialectical process, which gives Wikipedia its unique, dynamic quality.

I think Wikipedia is what the Web was supposed to be but never was, because it utilizes hyperlinks the way I think Tim Berners-Lee envisioned. For me, hyperlinks are the most elegant form of notation, far better æsthetically and functionally than footnotes. Obviated is the old refrain, "Where do we put them, page bottom or end of chapter or appendix?" Of course, one feature of the hyperlink that we're all familiar with is the delightful hazard of what our old buddy Søren Aabye calls endless parenthesis.

Anyway, I think that in our zeal to eliminate the plague of weasel worded polemic and spurious "facts," we must take care not to apply academic rigor to the point where Wikipedia becomes just another collection of research papers, instead of the lively, sometimes irreverent reference it was designed to be. That is to say, articles should not be expected to be born fully-fledged and are always works-in-progress, whose imperfections are intrinsic to the dialectical process of improvement: if they were perfect they'd be dead!

For example, the Pearl Harbor article is by no means perfect and no doubt is deficient of the references and citations that would make it more scholarly. But the article is evolving and self-correcting in the best Wiki traditon, as you can see by its lively history, and I think that patience is due, even if it's not where you'd like it to be. Frankly (and I'm only a minor contributor) I can easily see why the Pearl Harbor article would be featured: it's beautifully illustrated, well formatted and quite informative.  Is it perfect? No!  Should it be? Not at all.

Yes, it's the author of the content, rather than the editor, who should be responible for the sourcing, but don't you think it's easy enough to separate content with the ring of truth from the b.s.? Of course, lots of credible-sounding stuff is going to be spurious, and that's why universal scrutiny, rather than peer review, is so vital – if you or I don't catch the error, then someone else will, most likely with a citation to back the correction, rather than one unsubstatiated assertion for another. Again, I think the key is patience in letting that wonderful dialectic work its wonders.

— J M Rice 22:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of Risk Management . . .

Have you checked out this Wiki? — J M Rice 22:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Orbison Reference

Hi

I've cited a reference source in the Roy Orbison article. I addded the source I used to check the date time and place of his death. Is this the sort of thing you are looking for? Should I add page no.? Tiles 00:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship: thanks!

Hi Taxman. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. Cheers again, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] some references were added for Carl Sagan

Carl_Sagan#References Memenen 02:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References added for Comet

Hi. I've added references for that part of comet that I wrote myself, and was able to fact-check some portions that I did not write. I'd say the job is about 2/3 done, but there's little more I can do unless / until I rewrite the rest of the article using those sources I do have available.

If you like the way I've used Template:hnote [N] on that page, or can think of a way they could be more functional, please let me know. Shimmin 15:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

207.34.29.9 is a returning troll on the Germany page. Perhaps you could give him/her a lesson and block his/her IP for some time? Thanks. - Heimdal 16:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you that he deserved it. - Heimdal 17:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I just would like to inform you that troll # 207.34.29.9 - whom you blocked for one week upon my request - is back, and is once again vandalising the Germany article and other pages. Perhaps one week was not enough. Could you please block him for another week? Thanks. - Heimdal 16:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir. I sure will keep you informed, if necessary. - Heimdal 17:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References in FAs (Signpost)

Considering how hard it is to get something featured without references lately, I found the lack of references on these featured articles on your list shocking. I suppose a lot of them are from way back when it was still brilliant prose. Could some of the references be lost in editing by clueless newbies? You seem to know a lot about the project. Would you consider writing a first draft article about it yourself? Mgm|(talk) 09:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Just don't mention yourself too much and it won't be self-promotion. Can you have the draft ready in about 10 hours? Mgm|(talk) 12:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, don't worry. You can create a new header. It's easier for me that way to track down what was added to my talk page. Mgm|(talk) 12:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Taxman, been meaning to say that for a couple of days already but somehow always forgot - thanks for going over the ilinks at Rock carvings at Alta, that was a real improvement :) When writing articles, I often forget how useful and effective it can be to link common words because we have excellent articles on the topic... -- Ferkelparade π 17:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Health insurance

Hi Taxman, I would like to suggest some changes to the article on health insurance. I have added the changes to the discussion page at private health insurance. Please check it out and let me know what you think. jmcmeans

[edit] Probabilities and events

I just wrote an edit summary that says:

No wonder User:taxman was confused: the statement here was simply incorrect. I've fixed it by changing the word "probability" to "event". Michael Hardy 21:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then I looked at the edit history and saw that you were the one who inserted the incorrect language. So that really doesn't explain it. I'll try to expand it a bit and see if it makes it clearer. Michael Hardy 21:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Asparagus

Yes, there was a good reason for doing so. The term Asparagus, in the English language, denotes the vegetable (Asparagus officinalis) as well as the genus (Asparagus). To prevent ambiguity, both articles have been renamed as Asparagus (vegetable) and Asparagus (genus). In many other languages the vegetable has a different name : asperge (Dutch, French), Spargel (German). JoJan 14:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we can come to a common ground by using Asparagus for the vegetable and mentioning in italics on top of the page : see Asparagus (genus) for the botanical description of the genus. If you agree to this, you can go ahead and change it. JoJan 17:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quatermass and the Pit

Sorry, only just noticed the comment you left on the Quatermass and the Pit discussion page, requesting the addition of references for it, being a featured article. I've added the main reference, author Andrew Pixley's definitve production history of the Quatermass serials, the 30,000-word Viewing Notes booklet included with the BBC Worldwide DVD release of the episodes. I know it's only one reference, but it's the only decent professionally-published production history of the serials out there. Possibly when the Nigel Kneale biography is released as scheduled later this year material can be incorporated from this and added into the article, with that book being used as another source reference. Anyway, I hope this addition is enough until then! Much material can also, however, be found in the links listed in the external links section. Angmering 12:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sticker (paper)

Hi - just letting you know that I've followed up on your {{merge}} tag and merged Sticker (paper) into Label --Dcfleck 13:45, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

[edit] LaTeX stuff

This is the LaTeX bible: [6]. It's a good general reference if you ever want to know how to do something specific like make a matrix, figure out how to make a weird character, etc. Actually, that should be all you need on here, as we don't write whole papers and such. However, here's a presentation, related LaTeX files and output that I gave a couple years ago [Chttp://www.derk.org/files/LaTeX]. Cheers. CryptoDerk 04:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference in Ferdinand Magellan

I haven't edited this article much, but I did use the book by Bergreen that's been listed in "Further reading". Per your request, I created a new "References" section and moved the Bergreen book there. JamesMLane 18:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on Pearl Harbor

Thanks for catching the reference that I inadvertently deleted. -Willmcw 17:00, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus

Thanks, Taxman. I agree that the link does not support the statement. I have included a stronger link in the discussion page. I plan to add the same to the page on Bhaskara (in time). --Pranathi 23:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost article

I've integrated your text on article referencing of featured articles into my signpost article as it's on new featured stuff. Someone suggested it earlier in the Signpost Newsroom. Please drop by at User:MacGyverMagic/In Progress/featured18 and let me know if anything needs changing. Mgm|(talk) 21:30, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

WRT to your article on FA needing references. Cricket was written explaining the game and peer reviewed. I believe references should be used for figures and contentious topics. What sort of references would be needed for this article?  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 08:41, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:LSD

From the Talk page:

I most certainly did read it — it was in many ways even worse, including a direct appeal to the reader which goes against Wikipedia (or any encyclopædia's) style, and at least one bad typo. Merely reinserting it without noticing (or caring about?) those problems isn't acceptable. Also, your edit summary that the new material is no worse than anything else here isn't justification for letting it in; it's grounds for improving what's already here. Let's go for consistency by raising the quality, not by dragging it all down to the lowest common denomoninator. Given that this apparently a featured article, we should be particularly careful about what's added.

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Helvarg

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Helvarg you said "if the article does nothing to tell why he is important that is a problem". Does this mean that you had read the article and found nothing to tell you why he was important? Or does it mean that you have not read the article and are making the general point that articles should state why the subject is encyclopedic? --Theo (Talk) 16:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hi dad...give me some taxes please

Hi taxman! I am your child! Do you recognise me? I remind you that you have to give me tax, one coin every month. So please go find money and give it to me... otherwise... thank you... Taxman's child 07:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The above is all out of left field if anyone was wondering. - Taxman Talk 19:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL noncompliance

Neither Yahoo nor Google had a place in the form to put contact info. I believe I included my email in the optional note for Google, but forgot to do so for Yahoo. Yahoo would have no way of contacting me; Google might, if they bother reading the note. I have not heard from Google though.

The thing to do is check to see if the searches still work. If so, Google and Yahoo have not taken any immediate action. Isomorphic 05:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for help on a major wiki project

I was wondering if you'd be interesting in helping out with www.Knowmore.org, a corporation search wiki we're trying to get off the ground. It's been heavily customized and is designed to help responsible consumers enter any product or company name and immediatly find information about that co. Let me know if you're interested! aim: knowmoreorg or bernard@knowmore.org

Maybe. Depends on the license. A creative commons or GFDL license that ensures the data would remain free would be a key requirement for me to contribute anything. In general, a consumer reports type database could be practical to have, but I can't see it being successful. Who knows. I'll check it out if I have a chance. - Taxman 23:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inline citations

Please see Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article#Inline citations. --mav

[edit] FAC Questions

I have some questions relating to the FAC. One, how long does a article stay on there? Two, once it is archived, who makes the decision to make the article featured. Third, will I be notified of the article's status? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket....references once again

Coming back to references on the cricket page... What we have done is add a website which mentions the official laws and regulations of cricket. On the cricket page we have interpreted the laws from the legalese jargon into a simple and fluid prose. At the same time we have detailed sites which point to the explanation of the sport. There aren't any statistics on the page nor are there any controversial topics to really be referencing. While having references for an article is a good thing to have, some pages can do with minimal references... such as sports, which have a high visibility on wikipedia and thus have long removed any incorrect matter through the wiki process. I hope this satisfies your mission for the reference criteria.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:57, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Puerto Rico

First of all let me thank you for your comments on the article in FAC. See, I was totally clueless as to what the inline reference was until you made me courious. I realized that you were right. You know live is a continuous learning process. I added my references and I truly hope that you now approve of the article. Take care, Tony the Marine

[edit] RFA

To let you know, I have replied to Raul's concerns on my RFA. ✏ OvenFresh² 18:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Diamond

Your talk about "repeated insults" is crap and you know it. Please withdraw your unwarranted personal attack on me immediately. Tannin 19:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's pretty clear from the talk page you've levelled a number of insults at the Diamond page, in a number of separate edits, and I even quoted them for you. If you don't think "mish-mash", "mockery", "scars of subdivision", "hacked about" etc. are insults, I'm not sure what I can help you with. You probably just don't like that I'm calling you out for being off base. As previously mentioned, you could have said the same thing with much less venom, and been more effective. Those insults support a claim of rudeness pretty well I'd say. I've been known to be wrong before though - Taxman Talk 19:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

You are flat-out wrong. An "insult" is directed at a person. At no time have I insulted you, or any other contrbutor to this page. Please remove your groundless accusations. Tannin 21:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be a rather strange reading of the meaning of the word insult, many of the definitions do not require the insult being levelled directly at a person. Besides, clearly many of your descriptions of the page's writing and editing could be considered as insults to the page authors too. Think of "mockery" and "hacked about", can't you see how that is basically saying the authors have no talent and no ability to write a FA? The authors are human too, and have feelings, and have worked very hard on that article. I suggest you re-read all of your comments, as if you were not involved at all, as if you didn't write them. Or try reading them as if they were directed at a page you wrote. Based on how little tolerance you have for my comments about your writing, I'd be surprised if you couldn't see how harsh and innapropriate your comments were. Or saddenned, because if you couldn't see how harsh and innapropriate your comments were at all, that would mean you have a complete lack of ability to empathize and understand how your writing comes across to others. I suppose that is possible, but I doubt it, so like I said take a step back and think about how your comments have come across. Further, you've still made no effort to offer specifics on what can be improved on the Diamond page itself, which if you were actually trying to help anything, you would be doing instead of spending more time discussing your past criticisms of the article. - Taxman Talk 11:44, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia. I'm particularly worried that the article goes into more detail than almost all readers would be interested in reading (not going into so much detail is a FAC criteria). Thus longer sections should be summarized and the detail spun off into daughter articles, allowing readers to zoom to that level of detail if they so choose. --mav 16:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Thanks for your very kind comment on List of cultural references in The Cantos. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:44, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think we agree on one big thing, better wikipedia articles; we just see different ways to get there. It has long been a source of regret to me that we have clashed so often over so little. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
That works both ways; but then we all learn a lot more from intelligent disagreement than from unthinking agreement, and you're definitely the former. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your vote, and also thanks for your championing of references

Hey Taxman, thanks for your kind words, and vote in support of my admin nomination. I also want to take this opportunity to thank you for all your good work to improve the verifiability of Wikipedia by working for more and better source citation and references. Verifiability, in my opinion is the most important issue facing Wikipedia, so thanks again. Paul August ☎ 16:47, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Taxman

Thanks for your support on my Adminship request.

[edit] User:Bank of Wikipedia

Have you looked in on this? Some interesting stuff going on with the Bank's rules that may interest you. Should you decide to open an account (free coin of cource) please mention my name (for the bounty of cource) ;-) hydnjo talk 19:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your case changes in EB2004 page 24

After a typically deferential discussion on Wikipedia talk:2004 Encyclopedia topics, the participants agreed that we would not "fix" the cases of the articles in the list, but we should create a WP article with the WP-standard case, and make a redirect from the capitalized version in the EB list. We even do this for outrageous word-orders and words with missing diacritics. It has a small upside and no downside. I think most of us have been carrying that out. I don't want to revert your changes, though, in case you have been aware of a different discussion? David Brooks 22:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.
I guess it just seems a red link that follows the naming conventions is more useful than one that doesn't.
Good point, but I've automated that process; see User:DavidBrooks/sandbox/EBfruit
Or are we assuming everyone that creates links from there will check the naming conventions too?
Yes we are. It's a pretty conscientious (but far too small) team. David Brooks 23:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC

An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as NPOV, No original research and Cite sources could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC#Alternate solution #9 by mav. Content subcommittee and comment. Thank you! --mav 02:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references - history of computing hardware

You said " please leave me a message when a few references have been added "

I added a list of 14 books I've used, mainly for information I've put on the pages for particular early computers.

[edit] Diesel fuel

I saw your post on the Wikiprojects-Chemistry page. It sounds like I might be able to help a little bit with your diesel fuel project. Are you in the process of expanding those articles? --HappyCamper 17:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well the primary goal was to satisfy my curiosity :). I don't mind helping to expand them, but my chemistry knowledge is probably too low to help much. As I said I can't find any good sources I can comprehend. Ideally, though yes, we would have all the same info for the cycloalkanes and components of diesel as we do for the straight chain alkanes. - Taxman Talk 17:44, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Heat of fusion...Let's take a block of ice as an example. You place it on a pan, and heat it up gently. In ideal conditions, when ice just begins to melt, the temperature of the ice and the water that has melted is 0 degrees Celsius. The ice and water will stay at 0 Celsius until the entire block of ice melts. The amount of energy you added to make the ice go about this transformation is the heat of fusion. Alternatively, if you were now to take that pan of water and placed it back in the freezer, the amount of energy you need to remove to make it all back to ice is also the heat of fusion. Of course, the sign of the energy would be different. So heat of fusion is a measure of how much energy difference is between the solid state and liquid state of a substance at it's melting/freezing point.
As for a list of melting/boiling points for common alkane compounds, you can usually find these in general chemistry textbooks. The standardized texts tend to be very technical and research oriented. If you like, I can send you a pdf of something which you might find useful, although I don't know how to attach files through Wikipedia mail. I'll try and find a good list for you to start with - the one I have right now is more than 10 pages, and maybe only 20 lines would be of interest to you. Maybe send me an e-mail and we can go from there? --HappyCamper 00:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Request for References - Irish Houses of Parliament

I haven't taken a prominent part in writing this but I have added two useful references to this featured article. There are probably others, especially about the architectural aspects of the topic. David | Talk 13:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 14:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FARC proposal

Nichalp has expressed his approval of a compromise solution that I proposed that is similar to a suggestion made by Piotrus. Please comment if you have the chance. Thanks. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel

I can't remember what I was doing with that article. Had something to do with moving the page history. Do what you think is best. :) --mav 02:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MARMOT

The RFC against User:MARMOT has been created. As per our previous discussion, if you would be so kind as to certify it and move it from "proposed" to "approved", I would appreciate it. Thanks. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I should tell you where you could find said RFC. It is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MARMOT. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think we've got no choice but to send this thing to ArbCom. It's a cookie-cutter example of a ban, and I hate to have to give ArbCom a rather pointless case, but it's looking like this is what we are going to be forced to do, anyway. Your thoughts? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I said on the RFC page. No sense wasting any more time. The RFC just basically accomplished gathering the original evidence and his behavior there makes it even more clear. - Taxman Talk 18:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Alrighty; can I chat with you on IRC? I'll be just a moment; I'm in Windows right now (was playing Battlefield 1942) but this is more important; I'm switching to Linux right now. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
That's fine; I'm going to create the ArbCom page now. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Okay; the RFAr has been created. You may find it here. Please provide a response (500 words or less) in the appropriate area. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Galileo Galilei, references

I recently came back to the Galileo article after a long hiatus and found your note about the project to improve references. I completely agree that it's not well documented, particularly for a featured article on a controversial subject. I have little time currently to devote to improving it, but I intend to hack away.

I have some difficulty, though, deciding on the appropriate level of references to achieve checkability without undue pedantry or clutter. Looking at the page for Project Fact and Reference Check, I saw that the J. S.Bach article was a special target in May, and Egyptian pyramids before that; so I looked at them for examples of good practice. It hasn't helped me much. The footnotes seem, frankly, rather spotty, with a note for something as widely known and uncontroversial as Bach's birthday, but considerable gaps elsewhere (e.g., construction techniques for the pyramids).

If there are a couple of articles that people on the project see as exemplary, I'd appreciate hearing of them, either on my Talk page or on that of the article.

BTW, in-line superscript numbered footnotes seem to be favored. While I admire the elegance of the templates that generate these, I'm dubious of their value when there may be multiple references to different pages in a book: one would get into a two-step process to track down what the actual reference is, and ibid.s and op. cit.s don't always work well. (Perhaps good examples would convince me.) --Dandrake 01:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an ideal system yet, as it hasn't reached a high enough priority for someone to write the code for it. The manually number footnote systems allow multiple references to the same book and allows page numbers I believe, so that might work for you. Also, you may want to check out the invisible note system as a way to have the notes not clutter up the text, but still contain all the information you want. Since there is not ideal system that meets everyone's needs, any system that does what you want is acceptable. Anything is better than nothing. As for what level of checkability, I would say just prioritize the article/subject from two standpoints: most important to the topic, and most contentious. Start with the highest priority facts and find the highest quality references for them, and work down. Twenty plus or more would eventually be great, but a start is better than none. Thank you for you interest and efforts. - Taxman Talk 11:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] krill

hallo taxman! thank you for the help 62 is right - Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 14:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Milius NPOV

thanks for the advice. i actually removed the questionable pov once and the original editor reverted them but i think after i put up the npov template he realized his error. original quotes are logged in the talk page and history if you're interested. -Seasee

wondering if i could get some advice or comment on the page...the original editor has actually mostly reverted to the previous disputed npov article with the argument of "This is tongue in cheek, just like the movie. If some Wikipedians can't handle that; tough." Talk:John Milius. thanks again. -Seasee 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] response from London

Uwe wants to share this with you (from his talk page):

[edit] Hello Kils

Just would like to state that i have very much enjoyed being involved in a project of this nature. To see the speed of co-operation between various people was (Uwe, Lupo and Salleman and all others) fantastic. It was a complete buzz to go off researching about a scientific subject and coming to some understanding and appreciation of a creature that i would have no knowledge or interest in otherwise. I would like to say that it takes a damn good teacher to get others interested in what they teach and i for one, if only in a rudimentary and general way have found the subject of Krill and sorrounding issues of ecology and environment fascinating. I think that says a lot about your willingness to let others participate in something which you obviously have great knowledge in and could easily have been a lot less humble with. At some point i will put up some informtion on my home page so at least people know a little more about me. Am going to try to extend the article on Ice-algae so any info you may have would be good. I hope the article on Antartic Krill gets featured as i think it is now very good.

Wikiversity sounds like a good idea but will need more time to go through the proposal (not too sure what help i could be).

Once again thanks Uwe! Yakuzai 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that feels good

Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 02:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

I'm on IRC at the moment. Would you be able to come on? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

No sorry. It's fairly rare that I'm available to do that. Weekends and late nights are it. - Taxman Talk 22:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

"Oh dear, a rejection. Tough break, huh, Linuxbeak?"

[edit] Antarctic krill

hallo Taxman! is the article ok now? if you have some more suggestions we will work on it ;-) Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 00:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

thank you for your cooperation, will expand the terms - we want to make the article understandable for everybody - for the bio-bable we have our publications and textbooks - what country are you in? best regards Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 15:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I will put the explaination into the article as suggested. We like to know from where all the contributions came. Great Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, Canada (I am German, living in the US since 11 years, invited because of what we did on the hatching web - the main krill image was the first critter on the web ever, I think in 1993, served from the first NeXT in Kiel University - students made later http://www.fishbase.org (28 000 fishes, 11 million hits per month) and OBIS (umbrella for >5 million sites) - all this, also the hatching of the Web itself, was only possible because of the cooperation between countries - keep up with your fine work for the great idea of Wikipedia Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 15:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship nomination offer

Thank you for your offer to nominate me for admin status, I accept. I hope I am able to live up to the trust you are showing me. --Allen3 talk 01:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] De-adminning.

I agree that all those problems would plague any system of de-adminning. And it's rare that there's an admin who acts badly enough to need it. It probably wouldn't hurt if there were a temporary deadminning for those who do wrong -- where they have clearly breached policy, but yes, I agree that it would be open slather and we'd end up seeing hundreds of hours spent on fighting over whether this or that admin broke this or that rule. It's bad enough as it is with RfCs and arbitration. However, I thought Sam Spade's suggestion had some merit (you don't often find yourself writing that!). The downside is that it would formalise elevation to adminship as a popularity contest, but let's face it, it pretty much is. If it were "no big deal", Eequor would be a shoo-in. Grace Note 03:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No Eequor would not be a shoe in. It appears you were not around when all the behavior that has made everyone so angry occurred. To an extent the adminship process is about popularity, but for the greater part it is about selecting trusted members of the community. - Taxman Talk 12:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware of Eequor's behaviour. But that was a long time ago. I'm saying that if it were "no big deal", she would now get in. Grace Note 02:36, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uh, no. And much of it wasn't a long time ago. - Taxman Talk June 28, 2005 12:28 (UTC)

Taxman: I just happened to notice your comments on Gracenote's talk page - "If you have a magic system to avoid enough problems that it would be worth the cost let me know." Quite frankly, the best system I can think of to avoid all the problems you mentioned is the one used in Guanaco's case, where the arbcom required him to reapply for his admin powers. Because the arbcom filters out the frivolous requests, it avoids all of the problems you described, while still giving the community the final say in the matter. But as far as having everyone reapply every year, it's a nonstarter - there's simply too many admins (just under 500 -- roughly 10x as many as when I started) and it would be *terribly* suspectible to sockpuppetry, and it is guarenteed to lead to hard feelings (just think of the ensuing circus if RickK or Snowspinner would have to reapply). →Raul654 08:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my comments were mostly an exercise for the reader to demonstrate that while having a good system would be great, there probably aren't any that are worth the cost. The one used for Guanaco worked fine, pissed off a few people for sure, but did work. The only issue with that system is that would be very rare to happen which means there is no simple system to de-admin. As I've thought it out though, I do think that is likely the only way that wouldn't be a disaster, as Sam's proposal certainly would. - Taxman Talk 12:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sam's proposal is simply that admins must maintain support. He doesn't call for a revote every year, but rather for an ongoing tally. What, I think, Raul simply doesn't take into account is that the "hard feelings" that would be displayed if Snowspinner or RickK were required to survive an ongoing vote are partly caused by their actions. Raul might support those actions but that doesn't mean that they do not ever upset other editors. Raul may be a wikilord but that doesn't necessarily make him its conscience -- far from it, since he is not likely to suffer from bullying or abuse of admin powers himself. Grace Note 02:36, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What you need to understand is that under Sam's proposal, and probably almost any other de-admin process, good admins who have made every edit in the best of faith but have blocked or otherwise thwarted problem users would be subject to unending harassment just as much as any other admins. If you feel any admins have abused their power, then build a list of evidence where they have, and take it to the proper channels, such as Rfc or Arbcom. That would be much more productive than whining about Raul being a "wikilord". But frankly your unfounded support of problem users makes you look bad. We're here to build something great, not make sure every editor that has vandalized a page is happy. - Taxman Talk June 28, 2005 12:28 (UTC)
"Unending harassment"? We're talking about one page. I'm not really fussed about whether I "look bad", by the way, Taxman. I'm not a schoolboy and even when I was, being "popular" wasn't top of my list of aims. Achieving the goals of the project is much more important to me than making a friend of Raul. I have not supported "problem users". I simply do not think their unceasing harassment actually helps build anything, let alone something great. And far from supporting them, I have deprecated their behaviour on many occasions. It seems that what you want is that anyone involved should join in with kicking in the teeth of bad users, and that any attempt to see a fair go, or to desire all users not to ratchet up tension or unpleasantness, is simply supporting the bad -- so much for Wikilove, hey? My point was in any case that there is no point making a list of evidence and taking it to the Arbcom, since the "wikilords" has supported and will support bad admins (you have noted, I think it was you anyway, elsewhere that there have only been two instances of deadminning, as though that were an indication that there was no problem -- rather than that there is a perceived problem that is unaddressed). It would be much more reasonable to allow a more inclusive process to decide. I am aware though, and you needn't waste your precious time in telling me, that reason is a rara avis in WP. Grace Note 4 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

[edit] Further request

I like the article and the improvements, but I am a perfectionist, so I'll offer what advice I can, because my knowledge in the subject is zero and that perspective may be helpful. It came to me that I don't know what if any of the features in this article are unique to Antarctic Krill or whether all krill display such behaviors/abilities. Such as filter feeding; I assume all krill, but then why so much focus on that in this article and not in krill? - Taxman Talk 19:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

thank you for your comment - most is specific to Antarctic krill. Some we moved over to krill and other articles, like filter feeding. No other krill has such an amazing fine/large filter and is so big. Fisheries is also about Antarctic krill. Also on the other species is not so much knowledge (to my knowledge), but we hope with this project that other scientists will add more of their works soon (I asked some already, but most are still sceptical, say too few Wikipedia editors work under a real identity (and for the other reasons we can talk on interest over SKYPE user uwekils or the phone (I call you back 609 748 9693)) - time will change that, I am sure) - for the time I think it has developed into a great page, much much better than all other articles on the Web, inclusive Britannica and Encarta or Brockhaus - Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 19:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican Jumping Beans

Hey! Check out the reference desk - I just uploaded two images. Enjoy! --HappyCamper 21:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you point me to a place where I can request a Wikipedian to help delete the two images I uploaded? They are Image:MexicanBean1.JPG and Image:MexicanBean2.JPG. Another user SebastianHelm has created a Image:MexicanJumpingBeans.JPG based on the former which I think serves a better purpose for the article than the two I uploaded. The naming of the new image I think is also better. --HappyCamper 19:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll re-upload a better picture of the beans once I figure out how to use my digital camera properly. Is the new MediaWiki designed to keep a record of previously deleted pictures? If you go to the old bean picture pages, MediaWiki seems to know what size the deleted pictures were! --HappyCamper 28 June 2005 13:50 (UTC)
Apparently they are kept around at least for a while. As an administrator, when I go to the page now, I actually still see the picture, and am allowed to undelete it. I guess they work just like articles, where they are kept in the database until various disk processes like compression or backup or whatever clear them out, perhaps images go sooner though. As you can see, I don't work with images much, I just did these per your request. - Taxman Talk June 28, 2005 14:18 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

From Wikipedia talk:No original research:So please, focus your energy on doing that, and adding quality content, instead of arguing on talk pages. - Taxman Talk 20:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

If someone wrote such a message to you would you think it resonable given that Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, reports: Main namespace edits:

  • 931 Taxman 1569 130 –

All namespaces:

  • 644 Taxman 3446 299

In the same page you will find my name under

  • 364 Philip Baird Shearer 4020 380 ↑ 9
  • 369 Philip Baird Shearer 5890 689

--Philip Baird Shearer 14:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, well if you take something out of context, don't expect it to have the same meaning. The rest of that comment, and your bit that I was responding to were important. Besides, if you think edit counting is the way to determin a quality contributor, I've got some ocean front land in Iowa to sell you too. - Taxman Talk June 28, 2005 12:17 (UTC)

[edit] Marmot

Nobody has told me yet what those reasons are. They could be good, could be bad, I wouldn't know. Everyking 04:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my RfA

Hello, I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for participating in my RfA! You (Talk) June 28, 2005 23:25 (UTC)

[edit] monobook.js

Wikipedia:Protection policy#How:

There is no need to protect personal css and js pages like user/monobook.css or user/cologneblue.js. Only the account associated with these pages is able to edit them.

--cesarb 29 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't go look for that because I also don't see any harm in protecting it, but good to know. - Taxman Talk June 29, 2005 19:10 (UTC)

[edit] re:Marmot IP

I didn't find out myself, the information about his IP was listed on WP:ANI, it's no longer on the main ANI page but I believe it is still archived. Jtkiefer June 29, 2005 22:23 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk pix

Yeah no worries, of course I'll put them on the right page, but as much as I'd like to say I ahve unlimited wiki time, I don't and therefore things may be done just a little slowly. --Fir0002 June 29, 2005 23:04 (UTC)

[edit] Just a heads up

Heya Taxman...just letting you know that Alkivar has been nominated for an adminship. He's the guy that told you to "bite me" on a vfd page. Very short fuse...and he got turned down 3 months ago for a similar reason. Just letting you know. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alkivar 2 is the vote. --Woohookitty 30 June 2005 00:26 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia

The article has been improved drasticaly, I think this is a good enough reason to reopen the FA status of this article. To be fair I am notifying all parties involved with the article on old candidacy. If I forgot one of you, its not intentional. Thats all for now --Cool Cat My Talk 1 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

[edit] FAC Criteria

Thanks for your comment, but I think I'll not be too bothered by the FAC rules. However, in the future, I'll point out at least one thing that the author can do better before I put up any FAC opposition. Deryck C.

[edit] RfA Thanks

I just wanted to say thank you once again for my nomination for adminship. While there is still a little time left, it appears as though the nomination will be successful. --Allen3 talk July 1, 2005 14:34 (UTC)

[edit] Calvin and Hobbes references

Taxman, I just wanted to let you know I've added some references to the Calvin and Hobbes article. More can be added still, but I think the article's much better sourced now than it was before. Have a look if you like. Alanyst 2 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)

That is an excellent improvement, thank you. - Taxman Talk July 2, 2005 12:22 (UTC)

[edit] importance of labour economics

please i want to know what are the importance of labour economics to the human resource pesonnel.my e-mail address is wahabenson@yahoo.com.you can please forward it to me. urs faithfully, abdul wahab.

[edit] Karelin and WSJ quote

It may take me a little time, but I'll get the reference. It was in the WSJ within the last week, so I shouldn't have too much trouble getting it. Dale Arnett 8 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)

[edit] Impending block

Dude, not to be persnickety, but I hope you know what you're doing. You might, for one thing, cite the page (and precise passage) of policy you believe I am about to violate. I mean, you wouldn't want people to think you were 'taking the law into your own hands' by doing an "unauthorized" or "improper" block.

On the other hand, maybe I who have erstwhile been such a stalwart upholder of Wikipedia policy have gone temporarily insane. If so, I'd be unaware of it. You can either try to clue me in, or just take emergency action. Whichever you, in your considered judgment as an Administrator, think is best. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 14:42 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going to block you, but editing others comments just because you disagree is vandalism. It makes it look like they said that. The nominators comments are clearly their opinion, and are left to stand are they are. People are smart enough to not take them on full face value and instead take other facts into account. What I did was warn you and ask you to reconsider your disruptive editing. Please just say your piece, leave the page alone, and we'll all be fine. - Taxman Talk July 8, 2005 14:48 (UTC)
I trusted you and Wf, but you guys misled me. The policy cited applies to anonymous IPs: Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other users' signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits.
Furthermore, applying strikeout to comments is NOT "changing" them. Especially when there is no question about who marked out the text. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Really, stop the wikilawyering. I don't care if you do cite wiki policy section 201(c)(4)(f). And I didn't cite the above policy, so I didn't mislead you at all, but there are several that don't allow changing other people's comments. If the comment appears different than he wrote it, and his name still appears as signing the edit that is a change. In any case you're being disruptive, you know it, so let it go. Go find some way to improve Wikipedia instead. - Taxman Talk July 8, 2005 15:56 (UTC)

Lest anyone misunderstand, let all come nigh and hear: it was I and not he who applied the HTML Strikeout tags to his comment above. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 16:24 (UTC)
Since we're specifically talking about this and I've asked you not to strikeout people's comments, what would make you think it is ok to do to mine? Ok don't answer that, it's rhetorical. Leave me alone, and stop disrupting to make a point. - Taxman Talk July 8, 2005 16:28 (UTC)

Please avoid personal remarks. I don't appreciate being labeled as "wikilawyering" or "disruptive". Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 16:56 (UTC)

They are not personal remarks. I didn't call you something; I referred to your behavior. That is an important difference. If you don't want your behavior referred to as those, don't do it. You may be a wonderful person, I wouldn't really know. I suspect you are above average since you also make positive contributions to Wikipedia, but your actions in this case have not been helpful, and that is what I was highlighting. - Taxman Talk July 8, 2005 18:25 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your vote on Talrias' RFA

Thanks for your vote on my RFA, I'm grateful for your support. I'm going to do some more thinking about the adminship thing, would you like me to notify you of any new ideas I have? Talrias (t | e | c) 9 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)

Yes, you're very welcome. Now don't prove me wrong! :) Sure, though the best bet is to either add a note to the RfA talk page linking to any new ideas or proposals, or just have the discussion there. Many people including myself watchlist the RfA page so we'll see it. Personally I think most of the complaining is just from people that have been rightly or mostly rightly sanctioned and are just bitter. They take advantage of the fact that we want to assume good faith and treat everyone fairly. Though I'm also willing to consider ideas for improvement if possible of course. - Taxman Talk July 9, 2005 13:51 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Borlaug

Can you please take a look at the latest version of the article and reply with your comments? It has been greatly revised. It's approaching the bottom of the FAC page and all this work might end up in vain. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, I've been meaning to get to it. - Taxman Talk July 9, 2005 14:12 (UTC)
(Diff) I've expanded the criticisms of his work, adding seven more oft-cited criticisms (although I believe most of them have been refuted). Let me know if you consider this a step in the neutral direction and how much more you believe should be added. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

I was just coming here to ask Taxman the same thing. Taxman - how does the article look to you now? I'm reluctant to promote it while you still have an outstanding objection. →Raul654 16:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Can you give it just a little more time? I think it is a lot better, and I anticipate we can get it resolved soon. I've just had a bit of difficulty finding the time to re review, etc. - Taxman Talk 17:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that shouldn't be a problem. →Raul654 17:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've made your suggested changes. Would it be POV to add in Borlaug's dismissals of at least some of these criticisms? Otherwise it seems like these are all left open-ended to the reader. --brian0918™ 19:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm just imagining some kid writing a paper for school about him, and adding in that his work has all of these drawbacks, when many of these drawbacks cited by critics are either not real or based on suspect data. Imagine if this article was instead about the Big Bang Theory, and it was 50% "evidence for the Big Bang" and 50% "criticisms of the Big Bang", but 90% of those criticisms were simply the result of bad science (this scenario is more real than imagined...). The article would be neutral, but absolutely incomplete. (This is comparable to having a 3 on 3 debate on evolution vs. Young Earth Creationism; the evolution-side is vastly underrepresented, while the YEC side is... fully represented) --brian0918™ 22:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Right, which is why I am certainly not advocating for anywhere near 50% opf the space for criticisms. But it can't be denied that there are serious drawbacks to intensive farming, and spending a paragraph discussing them as facts is not a POV problem. No, I've not dug into the science but it does seem like you are trying to support your own POV (which also happens to be Borlaug's) by finding reasons the criticisms are not valid and not finding the valid criticisms/drawbacks that are there. That said, I think the article is reasonable now, where the crtiticisms and drawbacks are there and are not hidden, but also don't take up a large portion of the article. If you have detailed unequivocable science that shows that the criticisms are junk, then maybe we should carry on a more detailed discussion on the article's talk page about that, but that honestly doesn't seem to be the case. - Taxman Talk 22:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I certainly wasn't planning on sticking in random POV "rebuttals". I had planned on adding, as you said, unequivocable refutations of those oft-cited criticisms that have no actual basis. Compare this to, for example, adding to the Dragonfly article the fact that dragonflies don't sting, despite what everyone believes (ie criticisms). --brian0918™ 22:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, but since I don't know what you're referring to, I guess I'd prefer you laid it out in a bit more detail on the article's talk page. - Taxman Talk 23:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lesch-Nyhan Werner Catel

Here is a reference to the original source where Dr. Catel described Lesh-Nyhan syndrom:

W. Catel, J. Schmidt: Über familiäre gichtische Diathese in Verbindung mit zerebralen und renalen Symptomen bei einem Kleinkind. Deutsche medicinische Wochenschrift, Stuttgart, 1959, 84: 2145-2147.

Apparently correct. Searching for that paper leads to this link. Not the most reputable source I guess and it could be made up, since it is the only search result, but I also don't understand German so I can't read the paper to refute. Thanks for digging that up. The anon just added it without any other comment. If that was you, sorry, but thanks for backing it up. - Taxman Talk 23:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Nope, wasn't me. I am not all that familiar with German medical journals, but DMW seems to be pretty solid. I have not read the cited article though. I am in the US and my local institutions do not have it, but I might look into obtaining a copy. Osmodiar 11:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
That would be great. And as long as you found the listing and know it was actually in that journal, go ahead and add it back into the article if you like. - Taxman Talk 12:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sealand

Hi. Just wondered if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Sealand, as you seem to have an interest in the article. UncleEd is making some perplexing changes that I'm having to continually revert, by deleting details about Sealand's location and history, making it impossible for the reader to understand the context of the article's subject and subtly inserting his POV. I tried to message him, but he ignored me. --Centauri 00:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references (on Chess)

There are thousands of books on chess, it is impossible to list them all. Still I added a few books, which contain enough information to verify content of the article on chess (and many other chess-related articles). Andreas Kaufmann 18:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

These books are real references, they can be used to verify about 80% of information in this article. Certainly, recent events (after 1990) are not covered by these books. Andreas Kaufmann 21:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The difference I was trying to get at is that if they have been used to verify the material, they can be called references. If they are available to, or someone could, but hasn't, they are not proper references, and should go in a further reading section instead. In any case thanks for gathering them, some further reading listing great sources is much better than nothing. - Taxman Talk 21:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ghost shrimp

hallo Taxman! - done - maybe you can take a look here and vote if you like it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Krill#.5B.5BKrill.5D.5D - best greetings Uwe Kils Image:heringmini.jpg 02:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hubbert peak

Hi Taxman. I just read your comments on the Hubberts Curve page. You were right on with your comment about USGS comments not taking growth into acount. I spent several years during and after the energy crisis of the late 70’s working in the field of energy conservation consulting with a firm called Claude Terry and Associates. We did a lot of work with building owners and managers but also helped several state governments craft energy conservation policy for the built environment.

One of the things that I learned is tied in with Kuntzler’s assertions that world oil has peaked. At the time I did not know the name of the theory but had seen the underlying math and it is really irrefutable. The math is based on the same theory that drives compounding interest.

When demand is growing at a constant rate of growth the required amount of the item in demand will double in a given period of time. And then that amount will double again in that same period of time. And then that amount will double again in that same period of time, and so on. The growth of the supply has to be logarithmic in order to keep up with the demand. This is why conservation is so important. It is actually a source of fuel. For every gallon of gas that we ‘put off’ using now through conservation we will have up to the equivalent energy of 4 or 5 gallons in the future.

American energy consumption (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, wood, etc.) had generally followed an eight percent rate of increase between 1900 and 1974. This meant that the amount of those commodities doubled every 10 years for 70 plus years. In other words, the US used more oil in each succeeding 10 year period than it had used in all previous history. American oil production peaked in 1974 and the growth in demand hit the inability to produce more and we had a contraction. For the next twenty years or so we recovered by combining stringent conservation programs with global exploration (and exploitation). Growth in demand dropped to around 1.5 percent. This gave us a huge space in which to maneuver because the doubling period for a 1.5% growth rate is around 45 years.

Now our growth rate is back up around 4 to 5 % and, more importantly, world demand growth is up around 7 to 8%. The implication of this is that the world will use more oil in the next 10 years than it has in all previous history.

In my opinion this is the most significant issue in the world today. I suspect that some of the more intelligent of the oilmen who are running our country today also understand the theory and its implications for the future. They give lip service to an hydrogen economy but refuse to promote conservation as a policy, they will not subsidize full scale development of the hydrogen economy and have implied that conservation, along with improving air quality, will destroy the economy. In my recollection the opposite is true. Uncontrolled growth of demand wrecked the economy along with the energy crisis of 1974. The economy boomed and grew tremendously along with the great improvements in conservation and air quality that took place after 1974.

So why is the government hiding the truth?

Keep up the good work.

RMMLA --63.148.155.4 21:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you (long) comment. I moved it down for chronological consistency. What you have said seems to be true, though I don't know the growth numbers specifically, they sound about right. Why are they hiding the truth? My guess is it is because the truth hurts, and if people knew how quickly we may really run out, there may be economic disruptions now. Politicians prefer negative results to occur after they are out of office. There is also the small possibility of finding more reserves that we know now, so if they are wrong about when it will run out, that would look really bad. In the end I think no govt employee really wants to take the heat in saying we're going to run out sooner rather than later. This is all just speculation since it's so hard to find the real numbers in this case. By the way, why not stick around here and get a user name? :) - Taxman Talk 21:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From krill to shrimps...

Hello Taxman,

thanks for the help over at krill; I think we've now covered most of our bases there. (Actually I think the section on ecology could benefit from some expansion, but I have a hard time finding reliable general sources, that is, ones that are not specific to the Antarctic krill, and so I'll leave it alone for the time being.) I'm planning to get shrimp farm featured next—but probably only in mid-August as I'll be away for some time in the next few weeks. Lupo 16:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC) (P.S.: If I had a nice image at hand for a "Midwife"-award, I'd grant you one for your invaluable help to bring articles up to a decent quality! :-)

Yes, I think it is in great shape now. I would definitely say my contribution there has been relatively minor, but glad I was able to help. - Taxman Talk 16:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] duh....

Yet why then have you the need to delete my comment? TTLightningRod

Don't worry, it lives on in the history. But adding an oppose 4 days after the vote has been closed is kind of like kicking a guy while he is down. There's no need for that. Follow RfA in the future if you like and if he is nominated again, add your voice then. That is the appropriate time, not now. - Taxman Talk 12:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The RfA for that user is far from "down". Leaving an impotent comment in a stale RfA discussion is my foolish choice, deletion by someone else is simply revisionism. Please reconsider your action. Thank you. TTLightningRod
Sorry if I offended you, as that was not my intent, but for the reasons I gave, I felt the comment was innapropriate. The decision had already been made and nothing was to be gained from further comments on that page about WMC. If you really disagree, add a note to the talk page, not the voting part. - Taxman Talk 14:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Directing to the talk page would seems fair enough. Yet if I may still point out, the page in question is not a "snap-shot" and thus is not locked or protected from further collaboration. That it suggests a start and stop date for RfA action or inaction, in no way brackets the ability of people to dialogue ad nauseam if they so choose, and the date/time stamp of such comments can always be taken into consideration. Yes, I do have an interest in where the person in question is going, and my comment about the actor was put in a very particular place. Certainly no real offense Taxman, do take care and be well. TTLightningRod

[edit] zuiderzee construction photos

I have an entire photoalbum that my grandfather documented as an engineer/architect detailing :het grootste drooglesingwerk ter werld, Koningshaven te Rotterdam. the album is well documented and dated,1927. anyone interested, would like to share...

I'm not sure why you directed this to me, but feel free to contribute those photos to the Zuiderzee Works article or better, to the Wikimedia commons repository at [7]. It sounds like they would be a great contribution. I'm not too familiar with commons, but spend some time learning how to contribute there and you'll do fine. - Taxman Talk 12:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] fishflies

From the article mayfly, which you have edited:


It often happens that all the mayflies in a population mature at once, and for a day or two in the springtime, mayflies will be everywhere, dancing around each other in large groups, or resting on every available surface.

Both immature and adult mayflies are an important part of the food chain, particularly for carnivorous fish like trout.

Mayflies are also an industrial nuisance, as the large population of dead adults can clog the intakes of air and water supply systems. A good example of this is found in the nuclear industry when plants located near fresh water can have their cooling water intakes clogged by the corpses.

If you live along a certain stretch of the Mississippi River you know what fishflies are. I do not want to deface the fine article, but something needs to be added, perhaps another article, about the nuisance that gazillions of mayflies/fishflies do on a certain day in June (not May). By the millions, these winged-genitalia arise from the river, get downright sexual with lights, and by dawn, leave a huge pile of dead ones around or on any light left on overnight. A few perseverate to invade one's storm windows and die there.

I'm not sure there's much encyclopedic that needs to be added about that, but feel free to edit the article. But try to avoid original research. To do that, you'd have to do some research and refer to a published source documenting the nuisance. As long as you try to make good contributions and adhere to the basic guidelines, you won't be defacing anything. - Taxman Talk 12:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln/Vote

I have added the proposal you suggested to the list of choices at Talk:Lincoln/Vote. Do you want to vote now? —Lowellian (talk) 08:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. - Taxman Talk 14:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind words on my RFA. This is indeed an encyclopedia we are building. Whether I become an admin or not, I expect to continue spending the majority of my time here contributing encyclopedic content. -- JamesTeterenko 21:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uriah923 copyvios

Uriah923's copyvios are worse than you think—they seem to be hidden attempts to add links to omni nrd dot com. Uriah923 had previously been adding links to the site in ext links; when I removed many of them, he got huffy and said that the links didn't violate WP policy, so they should remain. tregoweth 18:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Moved discussion out to Uriah's talk page. He's causing the issue, so lets discuss there. - Taxman Talk 02:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battery electric vehicle

Please feel free to edit the article to a state where you can remove the "Totally Objectionable" article tag. Meantime, I will be going over it line by line to remove your stated objections. Adding a tag is easy - editing requires effort!

Well, the article was pretty egregiously POV. It has been being worked on and improved in the last few days, so that tag was needed, and did result in improvements. That said, thanks for nudging me into making some improvements of my own. Also, why not consider logging in, so we can respond to you more easily? - Taxman Talk 15:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sealand

Thanks for your comments on the Sealand page. I am new to editing around here, trying to "be bold" while providing useful info. :)

[edit] Tom Brinkman

You were kind enough to support my nomination of Helen Gandy as a featured article and I wonder if you would look at my newest FAC, Tom Brinkman. The voting page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman. PedanticallySpeaking 14:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Much belated response...

If you are still interested, I've left a message for you on Talk:Orbital hybridisation. I completely overlooked the little message you left for me well over 1 month ago on my talk page! I'm not sure how much time I would devote to that article. Right now, I'm trying to set up a WikiProject Polymers. A lot of these science articles can benefit from a top-down approach for organizing these things I think, so I thought I would experiment with this a bit... --HappyCamper 15:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm always interested, which is what makes me an addict, so I can sympathize. I should really stick to topics of which I have access to good textbooks or references though. :) Don't worry about perfecting that article, I just thought that what was in the article is a fairly glaring mischaracterisation of the situation, and I wanted to see if we could get it fixed. Incidentally, I've been creating a few chemistry stubs for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and editing related articles, but since I'm not a chemist, you may want to check them over for accuracy and obvious problems. - Taxman Talk 15:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Better than to vote more often though is to find users who are great contributors and ask them if they would mind being nominated. We have a lot that aren't admins, but should be, and wouldn't even be controversial. They just don't get nominated.

[edit] On tax evasion? ;)

I haven't seen you edit in FAC for quite sometime now, so I thought I would pop in here and message you to see if your still with wiki. User:Nichalp/sg 18:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas, did you see the note at the top of this page? Lupo 06:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
yes, I did see the message. But Taxman was active in WP till the 9th, whereas he's been inactive in FAC and other prominent areas for a long time now. User:Nichalp/sg 18:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
If you saw the message I'm not sure how you would wonder if I'm still with the wiki. I made many edits just before posting the message, and a few on the 8th and 9th during vacation, which was the sole reason for the message. In any case, I just happen to be focusing on the missing articles project and not on other areas. FAC specifically takes a lot of time to review an article properly, and while it is one of the more important things on the Wiki I am getting a little frustrated at all the complaining about legitimate objections. I'll do it when I can or on ones I feel are important, but that's about it. Other than that, I'm happy to be working towards making this thing great, and like I said, I expect to be a long term contributor. - Taxman Talk 02:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I updated the Cathedral towns table to include St. Edmundsbury cathedral which was missing. I also added the fact that Oban and Perth in Scotland have Anglican Cathedrals as do 4 towns in Northern Ireland which also have Anglican Cathedrals.

Thanks, but I'm not sure how I'm connected to any of that. In any case keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 02:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Henson Memorial

I was actually at the memorial service at the cathedral of St. John the Divine in Manhattan.

There was a musical performance by the core group of Muppet performers. A handful of "Jim's favorite songs" were performed by Frank Oz, Jerry Nelson, Dave Goelz,Steve Whitmire (wearing a Kermit green suit, as he was to be the future voice of Kermit) Kevin Clash and Richard Hunt. Songs included, Coddleston Pie, You Are my Sunshine, Lydia the Tattoed Lady and more. The performance culminated with the song If Just One Person Believes in You. This song was begun by Richard Hunt working the Muppet Scooter. As each verse progressed each puppeteer reached behind and revealed their Muppet to join in and as the song drew to it's final verses all the Muppet performers holding Muppets they made famous joined the core group onstage and finished the song to a tearful standing ovation.

Big Bird , earlier in the memorial service, sang, It's Not Easy Being Green alone, not with Kermit as mentioned on the site. He was wearing a Kermit green bow tie and at the songs conclusion, obviously broken up, he gazed upwards and said, "Thank you Kermit."

Hope this info adds to the page regarding Jim Henson.

Chris

I don't really have any connection to that article other than making a request that it be referenced properly so I copied this information to the Jim Henson article talk page. Hopefully someone there can make use of it. The key would be to have a source that the info can be verified from, or else it is original research. Thanks - Taxman Talk 02:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] chemistry=> reply

I inserted one more reference in the Cyclodecapentaene article so that it is complete, I try to look out for newest articles that appear in the literature (angewandte, JACS, chemical communications) that are of interest for wiki, when possible I include material from organic Syntheses and I scan several open source journals as well. For the basic background stuff I use the regular textbooks (March, Carey/Sundberg etc.) but not always include them in the references. I will try to improve on this.

Great. Yeah try to cite all your sources each time. It really helps with Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you use a good textbook and all those others, that's great. - Taxman Talk 20:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I did have a look at the missing articles section: a lot of it is covered under a slightly different name and a lot of stuff I have never heard off! (what is the origin of this list?) I will try to do my share getting this list sorted out. V8rik 20:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of them just need redirects to our coverage of the related topic, which also works when the topic doesn't really need it's own subject. That particular list is collated from the Weissenstein encyclopedias including scienceworld.wolfram.com. - Taxman Talk 20:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Taxman!

Thanks for thinking of me for adminship - I really appreciate it! Sure, I'll take up your nomination and do my best to answer the questions. I could also use the opportunity for feedback too. See you around! --HappyCamper 23:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hindi

Good to know you're learning Hindi. I'll try and fix it. I'm a little busy at the moment, do you need it urgently? If not I'll correct/append to it in a couple of hours time. User:Nichalp/sg 14:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

That would be more than fine thank you. - Taxman Talk 16:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I hope your browser settings are OK and you've read Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts. User:Nichalp/sg 15:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well I get them to show up right most of the time, but thanks for the link, that will hopefully help me get any oddball ones working. - Taxman Talk 16:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I've replaced all the images with text. It was more challenging than I thought. Certain characters were missing, and to generate them you'd have to type in a set of characters. I just came to realise this. (Its like typing dubloo to get the alphabet W). Also, in the unicode rendering for devanagiri, there are a few characters we've never been taught in school, and some characters extinct in modern usage. User:Nichalp/sg 11:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
That is great, thank you very much. I downloaded the Hindi unicode chart, and it certainly has some extra ones. It's meant to be all inclusive of anything that could be used in Hindi. I think a lot of the oddball ones are used in bringing in sounds from other languages. It notes some are for transcribing from Dravidian. If you don't have the chart, I can try and find where I got it from. But I see that the page source just has the Hindi characters, not the Unicode, how did you do that if you didn't enter the Unicode codes? - Taxman Talk 13:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know there was a chart. I used the "character map" in windows, and with "Arial Unicode MS" as my font, I selected one character at a time, and then pasted it to WP. I've noticed some bots do conversion from alphabet to numerals, Chhobot is one. User:Yann 's page in the Hindi WP has a link to a javascript site which renders both the number and character at the same time. User:Nichalp/sg 20:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Oh wow, I'm sorry, I didn't reallize that. I thought you might already have your system set up to type Hindi. Well, here is the standard Devanagari Unicode chart, I found again. I didn't even think about character map, but trying it I see it does tell the unicode at the bottom of the window too. Man that thing is a pain to select one at a time. Yeah, I see too that the bots do that. I suppose it is better to have the codes in the wiki source then, but there has got to be a better way. I don't know if I would be able to use Yann's tool if it is in Hindi. - Taxman Talk 20:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah it is a big pain, that's why I never contribute to the hi: WP. That pdf map only shows the mapped characters. There are some characters that are unmapped and have to be generated by a combination of keystrokes. See the following example.
??? (Trre) is an alphabet. But to generate it you have to type: 
 ? + ? + ?  [त्र]
This is Yann's keyboard: [8]. User:Nichalp/sg 15:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. I did actually set up the keyboard settings for Hindi so I can type directly, but without either a new keyboard or an overlay of some sort, it's not too helpful because I'd have to blindly memorize where the characters are. That makes Yann's keyboard pretty useful because I can see them, and as I'm just beginning, I don't need to type much anyway. I had actually just figured out that halant (्) because you need it in a lot of things as simple as "Hindi" and "Achchhaa" to suppress the middle vowels. Is that how all the conjuncts are written? For ex what this page calls special conjuncts, I see त्र there, but I don't know what characters combine in some of those. And I see that's one spot where Yann's editor doesn't work because those don't combine for me using that, but it does show up correctly here. Anyway, thanks a lot for the help. Learning is going slowly but it is fun. - Taxman Talk 16:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


That page is good, it has the characters, but doesn't have the unicode unfortunately.

On another note, I'm not sure if you're aware, but almost basic all Hindi tutorials are incorrect as far as the teaching of the root consonant is concerned. I'll explain it below:

A consonant in its nascent form exists as " ?? " (just like nascent oxygen), [note the character with the halant]. When ?? is combined with the vowel ? , only then does it become the ? as you know it and pronounce it. See this table:

  • ?? + ? = ?
  • ?? + ? = ??
  • ?? + ? = ??
  • and so on ...

User:Nichalp/sg 18:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

That does make sense. Isn't that basically equivalent though to saying the consonsants have the ? unless removed or modified? It's like pronouncing the English alphabet, the letter b isn't really "bee" of course. Is there a point where that distinction becomes important? In any case, it does make the situation clearer. - Taxman Talk 19:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments contd..

I'm not sure if the distinction becomes important at a given point, as Devnagiri is phonetically very sound, if you come to know all its 50(?) odd characters. I've never come across a situation where the pronounciation of an English or French word cannot be exactly written in Hindi. For example, its very difficult to write the French pronounciation for Lune (the moon) in English, but in Devnagiri it can be written as ????? .
PS: Note that this char: ? (x0933) is not a Hindi character. It is an exclusive Marathi character. User:Nichalp/sg 01:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
There are some other characters which might interest you. Compare ? and ?? ; ? and ?? . (See those dots carefully). The 'F' and the 'Z' sounds are not native to Hindi. To get these sounds, the dots were borrowed from Urdu. My Hindi teacher in school gave me this above Urdu information; I haven't cross-verified so it may not be 100% accurate.
  • Now the ? in Hindi correctly renders as the English equivalent of ph. Thus ??? (the word for flower) is Phool (P & H are pronounced à la "Winne the Pooh" style; it does not render as a hard F). However, contemporary Hindi usage has rendered the ? akin to the English 'F'.
  • To get the hard F, the dot is used ?? (x095E). eg. ?????? (the word for storm/cyclone) is pronounced as Toofan.
  • In a similar manner, ? is "J" in English. But with the dot added, it becomes 'Z'. Therefore ????? (the word for land/ground) is not Jameen but Zameen.
I hope the above information was not too taxing? [pun intended] ;) User:Nichalp/sg 07:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well a bit ahead of where I am now, but I'll get there. - Taxman Talk 20:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shrimp farm

Hi Taxman! I have seen your reply to Nicholas (concerning FAC). May I ask you all the same to take a look at shrimp farm and help improve it? I'd appreciate your comments... Lupo 08:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I will see what I can do. - Taxman Talk 20:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A nice, bright and shiny barnstar

A token of appreciation for your well rounded, due diligent, and consistent efforts. May it bring you only the best there is! --HappyCamper
A token of appreciation for your well rounded, due diligent, and consistent efforts. May it bring you only the best there is! --HappyCamper

Hi Taxman! I wanted to thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Since August 21, 2003, you have made close to 6000 quality edits, participated in innumerable collaborations, and even nominated a few of Wikipedians for adminship! I am very grateful to be one of those nominees. Thank you for your genuine appreciation and acknowledgement.

I felt for a while it would be apt to give you - on the eve of your second anniversary on Wikipedia - a nice, bright and shiny barnstar for all your efforts. Your contributions are truly high calibre and exemplary - I hope you treasure the barnstar, and may it bring you only the best there is on Wikipedia!

Indeed, I think it was a coincidence that everything almost coincided together. I wish you the best, and I'll see you around! I really enjoyed our brief collaboration on orbital hybridisation the other day, and yes, I do intend to fix up LCAO! :-) --HappyCamper 15:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you much. I'm honored you noticed my two years here, and I'll treasure my barnstar always. - Taxman Talk 20:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again for nominating me for administrator - your well wishes mean a lot to me. I'll be sure to use those new functions wisely. Let me know if you ever need an extra hand, whether it be writing articles, or other administrative stuff. See you around! :-) --HappyCamper 01:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent discussion

In the EB discussion page, you may have noticed alinktothepast posted 100% BS. Well I asked him to do so as part of a prank. EB previously thought they were posting anonymously. Taking advantage of this, we decided to plant misinfo with the hilarious intent of trying to fool Britannica into believing a secret Encarta-Wikipedia alliance was in the works. It might not be salvageable now...but please do not reveal we are bullshitting.

lots of issues | leave me a message 00:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I think you just let the cat out of the bag. I won't say anything else, but anyway how do you know about EB, and are they making valuable contributions or sabotage? - Taxman Talk 13:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krag-Petersson

Hello.

I apologise for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but you was so helpfull to leave comments when the article on the Krag-Petersson was listed on WP:PR. Since I've just nominated it for FAC, I would be gratefull if you could take the time to look it over and leave a comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Krag-Petersson.

Thank you for your time

WegianWarrior 09:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotery

Hello, Taxman. I was disappointed that you dismissed my efforts on behalf of the Krag-P article so imperiously, with "very limited time to make that edit" (how about waiting to post till you did have time?). I'd examined WeganWarrior's references carefully, from more than a mere technical standpoint, and my main point wasn't that those over-numerous footnotes give too much information, but that they don't give enough. Please give this bit another chance:

"I can't tell what information they're references for, from the way they're placed in the text. It sort of looks like statements like "The function of the extractor was particularly praised in the official reports" are referenced by a mere entry in column--I don't have the source, but it seems surprising. WW, is that it, or are the notes meant merely to indicate where in a column some particular model (or, uh, part of a model...? a measurement..?) appears?"

WW hasn't replied to the question, unsurprisingly, after you let him know my incorrect comments and wrong advice could be safely disregarded. I still don't know what statements in the text his notes are supposed to reference, or what type of info is likely to be found in the "columns" they point to. This makes them extremely imprecise notes. They look precise, but that's the decorative aspect. The article is otherwise well done, but it's going to be an FA with incomplete, uninformative references. Oh, and laid out with the obsolete "ibid" formula, also, as I pointed out. That looks bad, but is after all a formal detail that can be fixed by later editors. The information gap can't. Bishonen | talk 14:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well that does clear it up. Thank you for being willing to try again. And I apologize for dismissing your comments. My response was more to Peter, but where my response to your message was coming from was that Peter started with "There's no value in keeping them", and " Referencing things like uncontroversial historical dates and effective range of rifles with footnotes really serves no purpose." and you come back with "here [Peter]'s just, well, right.". Then I missed the crux of what you've explained above, because you seemed to be not just saying they weren't done right, but that they weren't needed at all too. By all means, please detail your objections to the way his footnotes aren't informative, and ask him to improve them, but please don't ask him to remove citations that tell us specifically and by page number where we can verify the material. - Taxman Talk 14:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scimitar's RfA

Hey, thanks for supporting me. Sorry I couldn't cite any specific examples- I was looking through my early Vfd edit history, and although I found some borderline-asinine stuff, nothing too horrific appeared. Thanks again.--Scimitar parley 17:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well we all make mistakes. It appears you've learned, so just keep up the good work and congrats. If you'd really like to be a peach, help me keep an eye on the situation at Talk:Hubbert peak theory. Read from the top to get an idea of what is going on. - Taxman Talk 22:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Uriah923

Blech. Yeah, I respect your decision. I guess I didn't see myself as "involved," per se, because he was just a spammer and I was cleaning it up. Just like if I clean up after a vandal, I can still block them. I blocked for 48 hours because this user has a history of warnings against spam, but you're right that it was his first block. Also, for the extent of this guy's spamming, take a look at my recent contributions removing them, (a ton) and I'm not done. Plus he's been using at least one other account as an anon to do the same. But I wasn't even going to block him since he wasn't adding any recently and we were in a dialogue, until, after I had been cleaning it up for more than 30 minutes, he started to revert me. I just needed a block so I could actually get rid of the spam. I feel severely trolled. He keeps repeating himself and saying no one's giving any reasons, but doesn't respond to Zora's and my (reasoned) arguments on Talk:Muhammad where most of the discusion took place. So, anyway, thanks for any help, and if I feel the urge to block again I'll take it to ANI. And sorry that my impatience got the better of me. Dmcdevit·t 21:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well I may have unblocked a little quickly, but we seem to have come to a reasonable agreement about how to move forward at least. If you can check that and help make sure that discussion occurs, that would be helpful. You looked more involved at first, but later I reallized you were probably only being civil on the relevant talk pages discussing the disputed behavior. Certainly though a warning on his talk page to stop would have been good along with mentioning you've listed the issue on AN/I. I also wasn't aware of the other account and anon edits. Having that in front of me on his talk page may have helped to. I have made it clear I will make sure he gets blocked if he adds them again now that he has been notified. In the end, no big deal, thanks for your work, and depending on the outcome, there may be a lot more links to remove. I think it's probably best to wait on that unless you have clear evidence they were added in bad faith or by sockpuppets, etc. - Taxman Talk 22:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan American World Airways - Request to look at FAC

I talked to Raul654 recently about the article's not getting much attention on the FAC and he suggested that I talk to you about it. Can you look at the article and comment on it? Thanks. Pentawing 00:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

So he threw me under the bus eh? :) Maybe I should start rejecting these requests though so I don't get a rep. But ok I'll have a look. And you may be sorry anyway because I can be a tough critic. - Taxman Talk 02:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments (even though they are tough, it is better than nothing). Anyways, I went through the article once more and attempted to address your concerns. Can you look at it again and tell me if anything more is needed? Thanks. Pentawing 17:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Haha, didn't he tell you I was a tough critic? :) I'm probably also being a bit harder on it since there's substantially only you as the primary contributor, so it doesn't have the benefit of a lot of people working on it. I went and updated my comments based on the changes. Looks quite good, so with those last few things to take care of you should be fine. - Taxman Talk 18:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Finished going through the new sources. Can you note your thoughts on the FAC listing? Thanks. Pentawing 23:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I went through the sources, but only to confirm information (I didn't add anything new). Exactly how am I to use the new sources and how much improvement is needed? Thanks. Pentawing 23:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Oh I don't know, and I'm not trying to be a hard ass, it's just you're the only one writing the article. So if you say you went through them, but nothing in the article is incorrect, mis-emphasized and nothing is cited, how is anybody to know? I don't want you to make random, stupid changes, and I don't want to say you have to cite 5.3 facts to get my support. If you understand what I'm getting at, you can make the appropriate changes. - Taxman Talk 23:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific (though you said you aren't sure yourself)? I am a bit unclear of what you meant. Pentawing 23:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
My "I don't know" was saying I don't know how to say. It's not a quantifiable thing I'm looking for. Basically it should be clear the source was used to improve the article, but not in a way that it's just to satisfy the objection and fail to improve the article. I'm not sure there's a more specific way to say it. - Taxman Talk 23:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am going through the last new source that I have (Skygods), which chronicles the rise and fall of the airline. Some of the information that caught my attention included how people (especially pilots) saw the airline (as a glamorous company worth working for), and the airline's downfall, notably the uneasiness between employees after the Pan Am - National merger. Should I include this somehow? Or do you see other improvements that are necessary? Hopefully, I will be finished by the end of this week. Thanks. Pentawing 01:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hubbert peak theory

Sure, Taxman, I'll take a look when I next get a chance (which may not be until tomorrow). Andre (talk) 01:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotery II

I accept your apology. Thank you. But I'm not going to open any dialogue about notes and references with WeganWarrior; since you and I disagree, I think it would only worry him pointlessly, plus take time for me that I can't well spare. My opinion of the article's referencing is all of a piece and well represented by my original post on Featured article candidates/Krag-Petersson: yes, I think Peter Isotalo is right in this case; yes, including in the remarks you quote above. I do ask you to reconsider standing guard to the death over these crappy ibid notes. Compare ALoan's vote. Compare this section of Cite your sources.

But my day job is quite enough infested with footnotes and references, I'd just rather not spend Wikipedia time arguing about them. I see myself as mainly an article contributor. I've been flattered that you've often supported them on FAC, btw. Their references are complete, IMO, but they're minimal, or optimized. See for instance in Colley Cibber, how the amount of detail in the parenthetical references varies? Page numbers are supplied iff the info can't be easily located in the source by other means. Lean and mean. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well what you've outlined about how they are used incorrectly is valuable and is different from telling him to take them out, so telling him how to fix them so they are correct would be valuable, and I don't think the guy is so worried that he would crack over it or anything. But looking at Cribber, I see you have at least 15 inline cites, and your lean and mean style is just fine as long as you are right in how easily someone else could locate the material, which I'm sure you are. So what I get from that is your saying WW should pull out his references is more about the way he uses them than that he does. But that they should be used I do find to be among the most important things we can work on here, and certainly worth carrying the torch. We are an encyclopedia, but as a Wiki, we have zero or negative inherent reliability/trust. The only way we can combat that, short of a formal review board or formal peer review process that vets articles fact by fact, is to use the tools of verifiability such as citations. I've yet to hear a compelling argument on any drawbacks to increased verifiability and citations for our articles. Asthetics is the only one I hear, and frankly I just don't see how that is important enough. Sorry you have to use them all the time and are sick of them. I will though take under extreme advisement that you were very unhappy with the way I went about it, and will try harder to handle it better in the future. I do value your opinion and contributions. - Taxman Talk 20:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam

Thanks for your participating in eliminating the ON link spam. If you check my edits, you'll see I've made a habit of going after link spam for a while. Over on User_talk:Dmcdevit I've just made a proposal about maybe setting up a WikiProject to go after link spam. I'd appreciate your input, if you're interested. Jdavidb 17:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting ions and other miscellaneous notes

Hi Taxman! I'm not sure if dianion is notable enough to write an article about it other than to say it is an ion with a charge of 2-. I suppose we can make a list of notable dianions? I rarely come across this term, and in fact, the last time I recall seeing this was when the pentalene question came up on the reference desk. I've posted a short response there if you are interested.

Well the point I was making is we don't include the word anywhere. I guess that we don't need an article, but at least cover it in ion and make dianion a redirect. - Taxman Talk 15:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

There are zwitterions too :-) --> it comes from German; "zwei" meaning "two".

On aonther front, if you get a chance, could you glance through phase-shift keying and see if there are other changes you would recommend? Also, what do you think of the new reference desk? It's capacity has more than doubled, and if you look at the talk page there's a really interesting graph of the number of edits done on a per month basis. --HappyCamper 14:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I can have a look. What kind of advice are you looking for? If the goal is to have it be a featured article I can tell you what it needs for that. As for the reference desk I saw that graph and that is pretty nuts. There is definitely some extra overhead and maintenance, and it is harder to keep an eye on new questions, but based on the traffic it looks like we had to do something. - Taxman Talk 15:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Let's try for some featured article advice! :-) As for the RD, I'm going to wait until the end of September to issue a new graph. I want to see what the real impact of splitting the page did. --HappyCamper 16:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About my RfA

Hi Taxman. You chose to be neutral on my RfA, but I appreciate the fact that you made your concerns public. I just would like to assure you that I will still work my best on Wikipedia, in order to prove wrong any fears you may still have about me. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 08:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Which I certainly appreciate. Voting neatural doesn't take anything away from your chances of being promoted, which is why I did it. - Taxman Talk 23:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Brettingham

Hi, Taxman. Since you supported Matthew Brettingham on FAC in January, I was wondering if you might be interested in weighing in on its FARC nomination. Best, Bishonen | talk 11:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BBC television drama

I was wondering if by any chance you could have a look at the BBC television drama piece, which I've been mostly responsible for, and is currently up on FAC. It's been up there for nearly a week and a half in fact and hasn't attracted a huge number of comments. I've addressed the issues that have been raised so far, but I felt it could really do with the input of someone such as yourself who always seems to be really on the ball with picking out what needs to be added or changed with featured candidates. Thanks. Angmering 15:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, I prioritize my time on Wikipedia based on topics I find important or interesting. Pop culture treads somewhere near the bottom of the barrel for me. No offense, but I can't help wishing people would spend time on more valuable topics. That said, I have three other articles I've agreed to review and I'll have to get to those first. But since I'm sure you've read the above and know I'm a tough critic already, I'll do my best to get to this one too. - Taxman Talk 15:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, cheers. For what it's worth, I've always held that there's quite a difference between writing about the 'fictional' side of television, radio, films etc (which I agree isn't excactly the most valuable content Wikipedia could have) and the 'reality' of people, organisations and culture that went into producing them, which I think *is* valuable, especially when it's such an important, long-lasting and large scale operation as the one covered in this particular topic. But anyway, that's hardly a debate for here! :-) Angmering 15:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
That's a decent point, and proof that it is good there are people that think differently. It takes all types. In any case, I have gone and reviewed it, so see what you can do with what I wrote. - Taxman Talk 18:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time and effort to do that, especially considering it's not an area you're particularly keen on - I really appreciate it. From what you've said over there I don't think this'll make it through FAC this time around, but hopefully at some point in the future it might be ready. Anyway, thanks again! Angmering 18:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually that's the opposite of what I was thinking. If you successfully address the concerns I laid out I am confident it will be promoted. Raul654 decides the consensus on articles and will generally give more time to articles where it is clear suggestions are being worked on. - Taxman Talk 19:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I've gone through and merged shorter paragraphs into larger ones where it seems appropriate - I've also bulked up that short paragraph at the end of the lead section, so hopefully that's better. I've also expanded the children's drama section as much as I'm able to for the time being, and had a good stab at tying-in the book references to the text which was researched from them. Angmering 13:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My edit to your user page

Hi. I just edited your user page to fix a small typo. Hope you don't mind. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:40, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Haha, that's pretty funny, especially the edit summary. How did you happen to come upon my user page? And specifically, I corrected it to what I should have written in the first place. The Uni considers it one degree in two different things. - Taxman Talk 16:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I was reading your response on "the in-law question" at the RD. I wanted to check where you're from since you quoted an Indian example. That's how I ended up reading that. Once, some user felt bad when I edited his user page. So, I was looking for a precedent before I edited yours just to be safe ;) I get from your talk page that you're learning Hindi. Is it over the web? If so, how do you manage that? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I thought it might be that. I at least appreciate the message, because you're right, many people don't like anyone touching their user page, though I don't mind for helpful things like that. As for Hindi, yes so far it is all online, though I have people I can practice with once I get the basics down. Following the links at the bottom of our Hindi article and some searching of my own I was able to fairly quickly put together some pretty helpful sites to learn the language. I'm starting with memorizing the script characters and I almost have that, then I need to figure out how they combine (the conjuncts, etc), because I still can't read a given hindi word and tell all the characters that are in it. If you'd like to help flesh out the Hindi Wikibook, I can at least help with telling you what I need to learn, and then contribute more as I progress. - Taxman Talk 17:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Good to see your interest in learning Hindi. Though I've learnt Hindi, I'm not a native speaker. I'll try to help with the Hindi Wikibook, if I get some free time between editing here and the Tamil Wikipedia. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Any help would be great. I thought you might be a native speaker because you remarked on my learning the language. Maybe I'll try to see what I can improve and then get you and any other willing Hindi speakers to fix my mistakes. :) I'll try the same for Hindi since that article misses a lot of things important for a language article like grammar, word order, etc. - Taxman Talk

[edit] Matthew Brettingham FARC

Thanks for the support. I'm afraid, with historical figures, I always give all the information I have, with an explanation for anything that is often repeated but generally accepted as untrue, or for ambiguities and disputed facts give a (hopefully unbiased) balanced and sourced assessment of both sides and leave people to draw their own conclusions. I have to admit to being unclear what is essayish or what is not. Anyway it is a featured article, and because of the much appreciated support looks set to remain one. Thanks Giano | talk 18:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well if I get a chance I'll try to note what I saw that made me think that way, and hopefully TBSDY will be forthcoming with that too. If we do that, and you improve the article where possible, we'll all be better off. - Taxman Talk 18:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Taxman:
image:WikiThanks.png Thanks for support and your confidence in me in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 19:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ahh quite welcome. I'm sure you'll use your new powers wisely. - Taxman Talk 20:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gerfriedc

Hello,

I appreciate your endevour but I find it unfair: - I'm investing time/money in writing articels - I'm linking towards wikipedia in my websites BUT - other may use my wikipedia articles without any benefit for me - I can't use the discussion section to acquire wikipedia writers to give their preferences for my work...

CONSEQUENCE

I will build my own content on my own sites if the mutual networking is not acceptable...

a taxpayer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Gerfriedc (talk • contribs) 18:03, September 6, 2005.

I'm just one user/administrator on this site, but I believe my understanding of our policies is clear on this point. The GFDL and similar creative commons licenses allow the creation of a public good that benefits everyone and no one can make unfree once it is free. That is very powerful and is clearly very successful. People choose to contribute or not contribute but either way, the GFDL is the rule. All text contributions must at least be under that license. So yes, that means people can use any contributions, including yours, without direct benefit to you. You benefit by having that information improved and expanded by others. And no, you can't advertise your site on a bunch of Wikipedia pages because that is considered spam, as it only benefits you. It's part of our policy for just the reason I told you, but you removed it from your talk page. We are a very popular website, and external links can only make it into the article if they add value to it. I can point you to the full policy if you like. That said, we would appreciate your contributions, but they have to be made under the GFDL and all that entails, just like the big notice at the bottom of the page says. - Taxman Talk 22:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


I think you are to strict - I DID NOT SPAM because I did not enter the link on the content pages but only in the discussion section (which is only usde by authors) and secondly its not a commercial site we do. We have 24 partners with 15 languages and could translate the content into all the languages- so I really have something to offer for you. So could you please reconsider and talk with other admins - I can't believe that this is the rule.

--Gerfriedc 17:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to discuss it on the general discussion board called the village pump in the policy section. But you have to understand, we get this all the time, and can't let people put lots of links to their pet projects all over the place. And yes, putting it on lots of talk pages is basically the same. If you had put it on one or two, I wouldn't have said much. But all it is is a survey, no content. There are plenty of alternative energy discussion boards that are appropriate for posting a link to your survey, Wikipedia just isn't one of them. Actually, if you want to post one comment and link to your survey on Talk:Future energy development, essentially the main alternative energy article, go ahead, but not more than that. Like I said, try other sites for advertising. - Taxman Talk 18:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Ashlee simpson comments

You're welcome, but I moved comments to the FAC entry to avoid back and forth commenting. I hope you don't mind. I'll check there every once in a while. - Taxman Talk 04:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the comments

Thanks for the comments, Taxman on Karma in Hinduism.

Raj2004 22:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bhutan

I've commented on the 6 references on Bhutan on FAC. I did clean up some paragraphs and address some of your points, but I'm not sure which paragraphs you found staggered. If you could point them out, it would be great. Regards, and I'm off to bed, User:Nichalp/sg 19:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re [9] -you are one step from being reported -read this carefully.

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&diff=22962113&oldid=22961898

I don't approve of what you are doing in the removal of a candidacy on the FA page:

the 1st removal was a technical error by Nichalp and he allowed a revert (he is an admin, so his allowing me counts here)

the 2nd was a premature act on the part of Z Scout 370 and my revert of such was allowed by Mark (aka Raul654), the Fac editor

the 3rd revert was Mark's and arguably valid, but after I reverted him, he allowed it, so your case of "four: editors is shallow, most especially since you are including yourself

Yes, I understand concensus, but this is an admin decision -while concensus counts, here, policy (as I understand it -I could be wrong) dictates that Mark gets to make the decision, and your decision to pull the candidacy prematurely indicates you are fearful that you don’t have a case: Even as we speak, there are improvements going on in the article in the image "Fair Use" issue -even though the "fair use" of a small portion of images is legally permitted; Additionally, I took four photos myself and posted & released them under GNU -if you don't believe me, look at the "proof" photos with me at the grave site

you are the one being disruptive; if the article is bound to fail, it will, but there is no harm in allowing the post to remain

however, in the interests of civility, I will yield to your actions because I am honest enough to admit that I don't know if you are permitted to do what appears to be vandalism; -- Show me where in the policy that you have the right to remove a candidacy -that is a privilege, according to the rules, only allowed for me -and I have a good mind to report you for vandalism, but since I am sure that my "legality" approach (though probably right) would be counterproductive, and I would win the battle and lose the war. So, I will abstain -for now, but I would like an explanation other than "it's going to fail." (You might try citing the rules or policy.) I await your answer, but I will not tarry forever. Cheers.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Your characterization above is blatantly incorrect by the way. You assert that Nichalp removed the nom for technical reasons, but it's just as likely he was following the consensus that it was renominated too soon. His and other's letting your revert stand establishes nothing. Many experienced Wikipedians just like to avoid edit wars. You however are more than willing to revert multiple times. That's the problem. Also Raul's was the second revert, not the third. You should have let that stand, but didn't, so Zscout and I backed it up. 4 reverts is 4 reverts and is inappropriate. Letting them stand means nothing. - Taxman Talk 08:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I will translate -I am not trying to cause trouble, but unless you can cite a rule or policy to justify you actions, you will be reported: I understand the policy to allow me to withdraw the candidacy or the Fac editor (Mark aka Raul654) can remove it -no one else. If you are correct and can cite the policy for your actions, then all is well ,and I shall not complain about your action, but, instead apologize for my oversight.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Report me all you want, but you'd be better off not making threats. I believe I have acted in good faith for the best interests of Wikipedia and there's nothing in stone that only you can remove the nomination. See, instead of the Wikilawyering, I just go for common sense. There are so many objections on the page, and so many people have explained repeatedly that your renomination so quickly was inappropriate, that after you reverted 4 editors (yes including myself) common sense kicks in and makes removal obvious. That people let it stay after you reverted them is only trying to be polite. I saw a clear case of disruption and that you would keep reverting (in violation of the 3RR by the way), so I was willing to remove it one more time. You really need to step away from the FAC nom for a little while, relax and let the article improve. There are many more problems with the article but no one even gets to those because you shout them down repeatedly. If I thought you would listen, I would detail them. Actually, most of them have already been stated by others, you just ignore them. Please re-read all the FAC objections, there's a lot to work on. Suffice it to say there is ample reason to remove the nomination. The person whose job it is to do that already did, and you blatantly disregarded that. That's where I'm on really solid ground. - Taxman Talk 08:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that Mark's removal gives your actions some basis, but Mark was logged on long after I reverted him, and he did not object, so this indicates maybe I have a point; Yes, Mark is polite, I will agree, but he would not be afraid to remove the nomination if it were truly bad.
  • You say I ignored the objections, but instead you also say I shouted others down. Now, which is it? Did I read the dissents or not? (I indeed read every single word and replied to every objection -except in rare cases where I had already answered the question.)
  • Contra: Have you read my arguments? I wonder if you have, so please tell me honestly, have you read the whole page (It is not long now, but it is getting that way.) Have you really read the whole page -or not? Tell me, please, and be honest.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Just stop this, seriously, you're going to give yourself a heart attack at a young age. Again, that he didn't object establishes zero validity for your case. It should be so obvious that you shouldn't have reverted Mark and kept reverting that we shouldn't even be having this conversation. Your second point is not mutually exclusive. You have shouted people down and ignored the actual message of their comments by not implementing any of them. That the page is protected and you and no one else can edit the page is even further evidence against the FAC nom being valid. You don't know it, because you don't have much experience here, but being in the middle of a dispute (protected) is considered incontrovertible evidence the article is not suitable to be promoted. We told you that and you ignored it. And finally, I said I re-read the article, and the FAC nom and the talk page and I did. From re-reading the article it is evident there are a number of problems, many of which have been pointed out in the FAC noms. All that said, I appreciate your energy and efforts to improve the article. You are however, going about it in a very poor way, this conversation being evidence of that. - Taxman Talk 09:09, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your genuine concern, and, yes, the article is not perfect, but please note two things if you could:
  • (1) Mark (aka Raul654), the Fac editor, had raised NUMEROUS objections, and our combined teamwork addressed ALL of Mark's objections -and SOME of the objections of other editors. (See the prior review from last week for details if you wish) -My efforts to create ANEW a references section and also drive way out to Clearwater and take pics (photos which showed with me in the grave site to prove I made the trip) indicate "progress" of an unprecedented magnitude, but that alone is not sufficient:
  • (2) The actual "State" of the article is what is important: It was nearly Featured Article status in the past three reviews (close votes hither and yon) -and now it is exceptionally close, and, by some accounts, there.
  • Thank you also for reading the actual objections; Right or wrong, I think I addressed ALL the problems of import. The article is not perfect, but is is quality for Featured Status, probably why so many people link to it and raise its google.com rating to THIRD in the world -right under Terri’s Fight and Abstract Appeal, lol. ALSO, the numerous positive feedback in the past three reviews (yes, there was positive feedback all three times) are also indacatory of good quality, I add.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Lots of articles have good qualities and people will point them out because they are true. That does not mean the article meets the FA criteria. In the last round, within 24 hours there were 15 objections and 2 supports including yours which is implied by the nomination anyway. The first one has a similar ratio with a couple more supports. And again again again, google ranking does not mean quality. I can show you stub, poorly written Wikipedia articles that have high google ranking. And even if google did indicate quality, it doesn't mean it meets the FA criteria. The fact remains that there are a number of valid objections left. Work on those, resolve the current dispute till the article is no longer protected, and then wait to let the article settle. I guarantee you the article will not pass if you keep renominating it before these issues have been addressed. It probably won't make it if you wait less than a month because people want to see that much time as evidence of stability. Waiting a month to renominate has been established and upheld so many times that your ignoring it was a big part of the problem here. That the template message doesn't include that doesn't matter. The template is just being terse. Now, please stop replying here unless you need me to clarify something in order to improve the article. That should be the focus, not unending arguments about why it should be nominated. - Taxman Talk 10:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for offer of help + Brief Replies + Req. For Help

  • If you want to get technical, the more important part you were incorrect about is that Mark's removal was 2nd, not 3rd. An important distinction considering his role and your continued reverts. Incorrect is incorrect. Yes I missed that comment from Nicholas, which means I missed one part of it, but the overall point stands. - Taxman Talk 13:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Immediately above, you say, "In the last round, within 24 hours there were 15 objections and 2 supports including yours which is implied by the nomination anyway. The first one has a similar ratio with a couple more supports." This also is incorrect: Here at the Revision as of 00:02, 1 September 2005, we find the last vote count before ZScout370 convinced me it was merely informal and not binding: Just like the unsigned user who alleged it was "12-3," (was that you?), you also are vastly and cosmically incorrect on the numbers: The final vote at that point was 6 for -- 11 against -- 3 undecided, and you can check my math; As a "Tax" man, you can work the calculator: A 15-2 ratio is 11.76% support; contra a 35.3% in the 11-6 case. Wow!
  • For what actually matters--that the article was far from being a successful nomination--12% and 35% are very similar ratios. they both represent a consensus against promoting and that there are real problems with the article. So when you're calculating percentages and comparing the differences (and being condescending about it), but you fail to realize they both amount to the same thing, you are the one missing the forest. The forest is that the percentages don't matter but substantial oppose votes do mean there is a problem. - Taxman Talk 13:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Besides, did you see the new news; While I understand the limitations of Fair Use, it is not a problem. You mean well but miss so many small points that it may cloud your "big picture."
  • I didn't, and fair use is always going to be a problem for Wikipedia. It is simply incompatible with the GFDL and our mission. But that's entirely separate from the fact that an article may be promoted with some amount of fair use images that are deemed an acceptable compromise at some level. - Taxman Talk 13:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Waiting a month to renominate..." Sorry - I did not know the convention; "Now, please stop replying here unless you need me to clarify something in order to improve the article." Yes! We need people to go to the talk page and participate in the vote to resolve the minor conflict and unlock the page -but please read that page better than this one; you are very bright, and dedicated but missed many nuances that I caught immediately above. "...in order to improve the article. That should be the focus, not unending arguments about why it should be nominated." Thank you. Please help out in Talk:Terri_Schiavo if you can. Cheers.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We informed you of the convention quite a number of times, and the reasoning behind it. And again, instead of doing something more productive you decide to spend a lot of time crafting a condescending reply to me. You and the article would and will be better served if you'd instead spend the effort on making the article as neutral and factually accurate as possible. Your behavior in the FAC nomination process casts serious doubt that you have the ability to put aside your personal views in order to reach NPOV. I'd like that you'd prove me wrong by actions, not more arguments. The factual part, it appears you're willing to go to great efforts to achieve. So while I will still help resolve any outstanding issues, your replay certainly makes me not want to. - Taxman Talk 13:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My mistake -but you're right on the big pic...

I looked at the vote count again, Taxman, and it wasn't 6-11, but 7-10, upon closer inspection (amid my typos on the page, and also my mistake at counting yesterday). --Boris blue had changed his (her?) mind and the vote wasn't updated. Boris had initially "opposed" because he thought Feature Article status would "lower" the article or something.

However, the larger point is not missed: Seven For -- Ten Against is still less than fifty percent as you pointed out --However, apparently the Talk:Terri Schiavo talk page is heating up; For all out disagreements of the details, I think I accomplished review if Schiavo in the recent FA-nomination, so your removal didn't hurt thing -and your good intentions are not forgotten: I have no complaint any longer and withdraw my former complaint (e.g. consider my arguments w/ you closed) --now, maybe I can look at matters of substance. See you later. And thank you for your concern and efforts!

  • :-)

~~~ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--GordonWattsDotCom 18:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

What? I never said such a thing! The guy who thought the FA status would 'lower' the article was another voter, Silver-something. Borisblue 04:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry if I misquoted you, BorisB, it's been a hectic week; I may search the archives to see what happened & who said what, --but the memory of that comment (true or false) is resident in my over-worked brain. Sorry again for that...--GordonWattsDotCom 04:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hi Taxman. Thanks for your strong support on my RfA, especially since you like to see a little longer in service. I was very surprised to see such wide ranging support. Thanks also for your comments on Phase-shift keying, I do plan to get back around to dealing with the article. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning my way around the new buttons. Thanks again, Splash 18:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I tend not to keep much of an eye on new admins other than if you make it on AN for screwing up, so just use your common sense, and if you're less than totally sure what to do, read the relevant policy again before you do it. If you do that and stay relatively conservative till you ge the hang of it, you'll be fine. - Taxman Talk 12:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ahem

A relation of yours? : User:Taxwoman? Template:Wink . Let me know on my Talk, its difficult to monitor your page now. User:Nichalp/sg 19:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Haha, I'm pretty sure no, but that's funny. - Taxman Talk 12:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
There was a particular User:Taxman's kid blocked some time ago. So this completes the Tax family. ;) User:Nichalp/sg 12:36, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Question

So, Taxman, ever since I "met" you on FAC, I've considered you something of an authority on matters WP, and specifically WP articles. I'm hoping you could answer a question for me. I'm working on an article on an important medical subject. There is actually an article on the subject already on WP. It's very poorly written (from the science standpoint; the prose is alright, I guess). In fact, quite a bit of it is not actually focused on the subject, but a related topic. What I want to know is, if and when I finish mine, can I just replace the current one by pasting mine over it? I've assumed that would be ok to do, this being a wiki and all. Plus, the page is a "quiet" one (ie. no raging controversy on it, there are maybe a couple of minor edits every two weeks or so by anon IPs to fix typos, add other language wiki links etc.) But I just wanted to be sure, you know? What I've read in the policy pages seem to indicate no problem. Thanks—encephalonέγκέφαλος 16:54:50, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Oh, well thanks for the vote of confidence. I don't think I'm really an authority, but I do try to stay up with the important policies and learn the best practices. In that case, I think the better thing to do is not to wait until your article is perfect and then spring it on the other page, but to just go in right away and start fixing it up to where you think it should be. If the content there is good, but on a related topic, move that material to a name that reflects the material and follows the Wikipedia:Naming conventions. It's often best to start a discussion on the talk page and contact the primary author if there is one first, in case someone there has strong feelings about the topic. You may still prefer to perfect your article in a subpage and then move it in when it is done, but at least notify on the talk page. I still think it is better to just start working on the article where it is and improving it as you go so that you can get input from others as you do. - Taxman Talk 17:49, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. The reason I've wanted to finish a version of the article first is so that it will be apparent why I changed the whole article, ie. if I placed it on the page bit by bit it wouldn't be as clear why the changes were necessary. Furthermore, the current page needs major restructuring, and if I pasted parts of my work there, the article would be incomprehensible before I got it all done. But I was planning on writing a good explanation on the Talk page, and I think that would explain things pretty well. (The current Talkpage is a red link actually). Anyway, as always, thank you very much, Taxman.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 18:23:12, 2005-09-11 (UTC) PS. It was amusing to read about your family you never knew existed. :)
Well that makes sense too, so I think either way would be fine. I do think though that good edits are fairly obvious and you can tell when an article is getting good, referenced material added to it and unreferenced material removed. In any case if you'd rather wait till you finish, you're right, that would make the need for the improvment pretty obvious. If you elucidate the need on the talk page that covers the same ground I'd think. - Taxman Talk 18:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How I read the talk comments: Diff-by-Diff

Thank you for your heads up on the notice of your new (but seperate) cemments; I don't miss much, because I scroll through the page history diff-by-diff, and I even see if/when there is a typo and a subsequent correction. Now, getting Wagon to allow proper reporting of the facts in the Schiavo talk page is a different story. See you in talk.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your continued interest and feedback, and rest assured I'm not trying to offend you, but please see this parma-link diff in which I created a whole new section and objected to having been misquoted by you and Marskell, and am upset that your are arguing against a position that I do not support. Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 00:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Well the response there was very far from being related to trying to actually improve the article. Though I'm not terribly stressed yet, I've made the logical choice that editing there is not worth the stress it would cause. When the talk page is some huge number of Kb and very little of it is productive, there is a problem. Focus on the article is needed, as there are many issue that have been identified as needing to be fixed. - Taxman Talk 20:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autobiography FAC

Taxman, could you give this another look when you have a chance? Me & Everyking have worked hard to resolve the objections here (and we think we have for the most part). I think we've reached a good comprimise. Thanks! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA fac

I only put this back on again because ZScout took it off because he thought it was the reason I took off. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reason I took off was because people like User:Giano believed that I was doing bad faith editing for submitting an article to FARC. Basically, I've had enough of that. I don't need to be stressed about a volunteer organisation. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I am in fact working on another article. It's MDAC, and you possibly can't get any less controversial (or tedious) than this! - 203.134.166.99 08:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Well good for you, and have fun with that--if possible :). I still don't see the reasoning behind replacing the nomination, but if you think it's worth it go for it. - Taxman Talk 20:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derivatives Security page

hi Taxman, you mentioned in the discussion page of Derivatives Securities that you were going to move it to Derivatives (finance) once all the links were sorted. I've just done this, though I'm not sure what to do with the links to User pages, Category pages and the Redirect ones (am quite new here..); on the discussion page I've also added some more comments. Thanks! - DocendoDiscimus 10:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I made the move, so check the changes I made to the lead and the comments I left on the talk page. Also, try to use edit summaries, even when doing repetetive edits. - Taxman Talk 20:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kammerlader

Hi. I applogies for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but some time ago you was helpfull with comments on one of 'my' other articles on old Norwegian rifles and I wondered if you might be interested in helping out peer reviewing the article on the Kammerlader. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 11:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I did leave my comments there, so see what you can do to implement them. I think you already knew I was a tough critic, so you can't say you weren't warned, you asked for it. :) And thanks for the direct link. Saves loading time when the database is sloow. - Taxman Talk 20:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marshall Plan

I noticed your comments, and thank you for the praise given the article. I do plan on soon listing it on FAC; however, there is a book that I used when I first worked on the article back in 2004 that I have not yet been able to get a hold of. I want to get some exact page references and double check a few assertions before I send Marshall Plan to FAC. I hope to get this done in the next few days. - SimonP 20:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. That kind of dedication is one of the most valuable things Wikipedia can have. Not always terribly exciting, but very important. I'll look forward to seeing it when you get a chance to get your source. - Taxman Talk 20:37, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ON

I really am on a wikibreak, but let me just make a quick reply. Frankly, I don't feel like giving Uriah the time of day. Considering he stopped making any contributions when challenged about the spam, he has long since passed into trollhood. I feel he has been disingenuous all along, and I'm starting to fear he never had any intention of accepting the community view. I was hoping he'd just get tired and go away, but he really thinks we're stupid. I don't know if anyone's mentioned this before, and I wouldn't except that it's public knowledge and important to this case, but Uriah is one of the three administrators on ON [10]. So every time I see him play innocent it kills me. What's most blood-curdling is that spamming Wikipedia works well [11]. (The real irony here is that before long WP talk pages will show up first in a Google search for ON) If I had seen a valid contribution without an ON link, wouldn't feel quite feel so harsh, but right now I'm ready to rollback everything on sight. I think I saw Zora agree somewhere too. I don't think it's worth it to talk to him anymore. Dmcdevit·t 22:03, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hey, sorry about the username puns. I was in a funny mood that day. Came across many funny things on WP that day including a gelid-dustbin. And you can link me up with Santa on 6-Dec. ;) User:Nichalp/sg 07:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Saw you don't have any stars or clutter on your user page: So here you go:

I award you this Barnstar for your username, the funny derivatives I'm managed to find, and taking it all in good spirit.

Here's a gelid dustbin for you to use, imported from Bhutan. :) Throw all my trash in it. PS I made the image from another photo.

User:Nichalp/sg 12:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Haha, you don't have to be sorry you know. I was just kidding you. As for my gelid dustbin I will treasure it forever along with my other barnstars that live on in my talk page history :). - Taxman Talk 13:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

Gordon has agreed to two edits per day (only one revert) and five talk posts of no more than fifty words--so long as it applies to everyone. Fair enough; I have a few tweaks in mind but will also agree to the terms. I'm sure FuelWagon will as well if he knows he won't have to clip Gordon's edits more than twice a day. I suggest unlocking and posting at the top of talk "In the interests of stability, any editor using this page is obliged to..." etc. Marskell 11:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S-mine

If you're referring to the paragraph that migrated downwards, I think that someone else did that. It was a logical move, I thought, and created an opportunity to insert a few sentences at the top about the issues I raised on the nomination page. Tony 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry. The database wouldn't finish loading before I had to close it, so I didn't see all the diffs. I jumped to a conclusion it seems, sorry. The article has impressively improved though, so that's good. Anyway, thanks for the response. - Taxman Talk 01:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo memorial sect.

Aloha. I reverted to correct the errors that User:Marskell introduced into Terri Schiavo [12] (there is no such word as "momentos"). I don't think that reverting to an error-free version is harmful and I think that User:Marskell should be a little more careful when editing an article. --Viriditas | Talk 12:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response, but that is very weak reasoning. Fix the error, don't undo the whole edit. It is that kind of editing that makes contentious articles tougher. Please try to help the article instead. - Taxman Talk 16:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inactive admins

I support the idea, but considering it was opposed in the past, I think the discussion needs to be advertised more widely before action is taken on it. There also needs to be a policy about what will happen to returning admins. I would rather they went through RfA on their return rather than granting them adminship automatically, since I see the issue as being one of someone who has been gone for years returning and being untrusted/unknown and not being aware of the new policies, rather than being an issue of security. Stewards don't generally take action on their own wikis, so it would be best to put in a request to another steward at m:requests for permissions rather than asking me. Angela. 17:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the response. I've left a summary at RFA where the discussion started. I unfortunately don't have the time to carry the proposal through, but hopefully with that information someone can. - Taxman Talk 18:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

Enjoy your well-earned break, get what needs doing in the real world done, and come back when you're ready to save the world again. Your good work is appreciated by the community. Guettarda 21:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikibreak and come back raring to have go again. Oh, and I'm simply dying to add some puns, but I'm restraining myself this time (with chains and handcuffs et al). Nice work with the FA analysis. I'd made a FA checklist a few days earlier, its here user:Nichalp/Checklist, but yours is better. I we should all sit together and have the rules synthesised, point by point. User:Nichalp/sg 15:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks guys, but you both cheated :) You're supposed to follow the request first--I guess I'll make it a general request. I'll not be able to participate in additional synthesis, but I do think my advice or something developed from it should be linked from the bottom of the criteria as a "here's more advice on how to meet these and how they are judged". If you'd like to help with that, that would be great, but I know you've got a lot of other good things you work on. My goal was to discuss only the most important things that are missed because people don't understand the criteria. Anyway, thanks for all your help and I'll be back as Ahnold says. - Taxman Talk 15:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hindi

Hey, you were supposed to be on a ***break! I'll be bach! so soon? Ok here are some points:

  • ष = Shh not ssa, (note श = Sh)
  • ष्ट्र = ShTrruh, राष्ट्र = Rashtrruh (see Maharashtra) See also note below:
  • द्दे = Muuddé ( द्द is not a very common conjunct (at least I've hardly seen it around))

I can't fault you for the Jaanavar point. This is a big problem with the transliteration of Hindi into English. I'll illustrate it with this example:
If you notice राम is transcribed in two ways: as Ram, and Rama. Both are partially correct, its just that the Eng alphabet does not have the exact phonetic reproduction. Remember what I told you earlier on: म is actually म् + अ so the pronounciation is something like muuh so राम is actually pronounced as Ramuh with the uh suffix pronounced very softly. That uh bit is usually represented by a in English; that's why we get Rama.

Think of it this way: Stop is pronounced as Stopper.

Therefore Maharashtra will be "Maharashtrrruh" and not "Maharashtraaa"

Endnote: I'd like to add this: pronounciations rendered as Ram and Maharashtraaa are perfectly valid in contemporary Hindi usage. What I've told you in the above para is the 'pure' Hindi pronounciation.

भारत के प्रधानमंत्री डॉक्टर मनमोहन सिंह ने संयुक्त राष्ट्र महासभा में कहा है कि भारत जम्मू- कश्मीर या कहीं और आतंकवाद के मुद्दे पर कभी नहीं झुकेगा.
India's Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has stated in the UN General Assembly that India will not bow down to terror in Jammu & Kashmir or anywhere else.

Enlightenment gained now :)? PS what is your browser screen resolution? User:Nichalp/sg 06:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No response? Was hoping for some feedback. Was the above information informative? Would also like to know yr browser resolution. User:Nichalp/sg 04:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh sorry. Even if it doesn't look like it I am focusing on things outside the Wiki. That is very helpful, especially confirming the shtra conjunct, and the translation. As for the missing a, that was partly helpful, but even if you know the अ is transliterated as an a and pronounced as uh, that still doesn't explain why there is no uh sound when pronouncing some words like janavar/janvar. Is that just a speech/regional/dialect difference where people sometimes pronounce the uh and some don't? Or are there certain words where it is just not pronounced and you have to know that? My browser is at 1024x768, but 800x600 on my other computer until I update the video driver. Thanks for the help. What part of India are you from/live in now again? - Taxman Talk 13:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Januhwar :: say that fast repeatedly. You'll notice a that uh part has a tendendancy to get swallowed. This thing is not unique to Hindi; many words in English when spoken at a faster rate do tend to eat up some syllables. Oh yes, you can say it differs region to region. The purest Hindi is spoken in Madhya Pradesh. Geographically speaking, Delhi is roughly at the centre of the Hindi heartland; as one moves away, the level of Hindi proficiency decreases. I asked you about the resolution as it had to do with the short paragraphs problem you had with the Bhutan article. I've believe you viewed the page on the higher resolution, because at low resolutions it doesn't look bad at all. Me: Born and brought up in Bombay. User:Nichalp/sg 13:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, yes now that does make sense. As for the screen resolution, I see your point, but for encyclopedic writing, I've never any prose that didn't cover an idea better and flow better if short paragraphs were eliminated. And I forgot to just check your user page, it says you are in Bombay right there. So do you speak Marathi too, or is Hindi really pretty dominant there? - Taxman Talk 21:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Getting harder to check for replies here. Bambaiya Hindi, a bastardised version is the primary language spoken on the streets. Marathi is also common, so too English, Gujarati and some other languages. User:Nichalp/sg 11:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SEO?

  1. . Please don't revert additions from other users to my talk psge. Thank you.
  2. . If you've really blocked a user you are in dispute with that is very poor form, to put it mildly.

Thank you. Secretlondon 17:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting the talk pages instead of removing the link probably wasn't my best idea. I'll go fix that in a seconf. I believe I am very justified in the block, but I am writing it up on the AN for review. - Taxman Talk 17:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] At it again

I'm back at it again with my Bruce Johnson article, nominated as a FAC. He's Ohio's lieutenant governor and already at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson are votes opposing. I know I am a pest, but I find when I don't go out and ask folks such as yourself--you voted for another of my FACs--for their votes, my FAC's invariably are defeated. So I'd be grateful if you'd put your two cents worth in. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 18:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for pointing out there was a place for me to sign.

/me eagerly grabs pen :)

Jdavidb 20:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I thought you were on Wikibreak. :) I had decided to try to help keep an eye on Uriah for you. :) Although I'm glad you're still doing it, as you're probably doing a better job than me. ;) Jdavidb 20:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EB11

Hi, I have replied to your post about this on the Wikisource page you wrote on. Apwoolrich 19:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Break

Image:WikiThanks.png When you come back from your break, please let me know? :-) All the best, HappyCamper 21:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Will do. I'm mostly out now, though the wiki addiction is strong. :) I just want to make sure Uriah doesn't keep up the advertising campaign. - Taxman Talk 20:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uriah, etc.

Sorry, I seem to have stepped into a hornets' nest here. My comments on the individual link are at Talk:History of Islam. I am not actively interested in adding it to the article, I am merely explaining why I did so on one occasion. I was unaware of any larger issue. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, I was just trying to explain the issue quickly and not force you to wade into the whole saga. I do recommend removing the ON link you've placed on that talk page, but I haven't done it myself out of respect for you. - Taxman Talk 19:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hi

Thanks for the kind words. I certainly enjoyed my break, hope you are yours. A large part of me believes that this project is doomed to fail, but I think I may as well go down with it, at this stage. Filiocht | Consensus is not achieved through voting 07:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I go back and forth on the issue. What I've come to think is that the 100% open editing Wiki can get to a fairly high level of quality about most if not all things. So far the average quality of articles is increasing relatively quickly. A different tack will probably have to be taken to get to a truly higher level of quality for each article though. What would probably work would be an invitation only Wiki for people that have demonstrated good editing ability. Then take it to the next level and have articles formally peer reviewed. Since we have a free license that is possible, but since it represents a fork, it would involve duplicated effort, and a formal peer review process may require funding. It's probably best not to undertake that until most articles aren't improving. But I take the long view on it, so maybe in a few years a project like that would make sense. In the meantime if we try to adhere to best practices I think we can get a long ways. And the free license is what will save it in the end. Even if this project folds, the content is still free to improve later. - Taxman Talk 18:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this last point is crucial; if the worst happens, the content can be reused. I'd be against forking at the moment, but a couple of years down the line something along the lines of what you suggest may well be the answer. Meanwhile, we can only do the best we can. This, I know, is what you always strive for, anyway. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon's block

Hi, Taxman. I was hoping you wouldn't block Gordon, but I saw it coming (!) and I respect your decision. You may not have noticed that he has been stalked and impersonated in the last few hours – undoubtedly by the person who was stalking me.

It seems to be an open proxy in Thailand, and new sockpuppets are springing up every day. Personal information about me was posted (though the home address was incorrect), threats, hints of letter bombs and ricin. Then a blog was set up, threatening me, and impersonating Gordon (supposedly vengeful because I hadn't supported his RfA), with instructions on letter bombs, ricin, etc., and where to send them. A message was left for me, alerting me to the blog. Several people complained and the blog was removed. Now it seems that a new blog has been set up, this time more pointedly directed at Gordon.

It's unfortunate that the block coincides with this stalking, but I realize that can't be helped. Perhaps if you're online, you could keep an eye out in the next twelve hours and see that any new attacks are removed as soon as possible? The administrators have been absolutely fantastic about dealing with it in my case. Thanks. Ann Heneghan (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh well sorry to hear about that. I'm not quite sure what motives that kind of crap. I won't be able to monitor it unfortunately, but if you would like to place as much information as you can about the IP, the issue, etc on the administrators noticeboard the IP's can be blocked and possibly the issue taken care of quicker than I could anyway. Yes, perhaps unfortunate timing, but I think it is important to be even handed. We would have blocked someone else, so even though most of us try to bend over backwards for Gordon to accomodate his style, I ended up deciding it wouldn't be right in this case. We all agreed to it so it should stand. - Taxman Talk 18:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Func has already posted the info on Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. I've e-mailed arin-contact@google.com to complain about the new blog. They took down the one about me very promptly, but this one isn't death threats, so they may not do anything. In any case, judging by Gordon's recent posts to his talk page, I think he's more worried about recent changes to the Terri Schiavo article than about the blog. Thanks again. Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heya

I know you're on a wikibreak, but any chance of giving the MDAC article the once over again? Not sure what other copyedits need to be done. - 203.134.166.99 08:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maoririder Arbitration case

Hello,

The Arbitration case to which you added comment has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uriah's user page

I would lean toward the idea that we allow Wikipedians to put whatever they want on their user page, even links to their own site. I recognize Uriah is trying to push boundaries, but I would think this is where he should find the boundary is. I wouldn't think that a bunch of links from some Wikipedian's user page would affect search engines that much (if it does, I'd say the search engines need to correct their weighting algorithms).

I would think we let people have a little bit of play space on their user page, to customize and "decorate" as they see fit. Jdavidb 20:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the AN, but in this case, I think his motives are so clearly against what Wikipedia is looking for that the no advertising policy should take precedence here. It's not as important to let people put whatever they want on their user page as it is to avoid exploitation of Wikipedia. Especially when the agreement was that he not mention or promote ON anywhere. That said, if the consensus is to let him have the links anyway someone can second guess my block. I would recommend against it since it would send the wrong message. Why not point HappyCamper to the AN entry and see what he thinks. Feel free to copy this comment there too. - Taxman Talk 20:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm cool with it coming out either way. :) Time will tell if Uriah will ever do much on Wikipedia besides try to link to ON. I'll ping HappyCamper and see if he wants to offer an opinion. Jdavidb 21:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you are wrong on this. Plenty of responsible users use their user pages to point to what they do outside of Wikipedia. Unless he goes so far as to effectively turn his user page into an extensive link farm, it seems perfectly appropriate that he point to work he is proud of having done elsewhere, even if you are unimpressed with it. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I could be. But if your are willing to dig into the history of contributions you'll see how much time has been wasted assuming good faith and having him remove the reasons to do that. What responsible users do and what users who are only looking to exploit Wikipedia for themselves are two different things. In any case, the discussion is ongoing on the AN, so that's probably the better place. - Taxman Talk 23:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It will probably be a matter of hours before we find out what Uriah will do with being unblocked. And, hey, by the end of the week it looks like I may be an admin and there can be one more person to make sure he keeps in line. :) Jdavidb 23:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The first thing I did was post on that admin notification board. Check it out and weigh in. Uriah923 04:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your hard feelings against Uriah, but why did you delete my link to ON on my user page? I coded the entire site from scratch and would like to have it in my user page. I don't think this is exploiting wiki. I think it'd be nice to have it there so that when I do make edits in categories pertaining to web design, computers, math, etc., people know that I've got a foundation to stand on. I think it's clear that you've decided to disciminate against the ON site based on your interactions with Uriah who is neither the owner or designer of the site, just a very enthusiastic user. I say this because you left the link on my user page to my personal site, but deleted the link to ON. I've got no problems with your decisions to remove ON content from entries on wiki, but I don't see why it has to extend to my user page. I agree with both Jdavidb and Jmabel above. MarkMcB 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you and Brandon are two separate people? You're exactly the same. If you had wanted this to end in a better way for your site, I would have recommended encouraging Brandon to stop his promotion-at-all-costs campaign to link to ON. He had many chances to do so, and he does list promotion of ON as one of his roles as administrator of your site, so I'm sure you have some influence over his actions. Instead he repeatedly chose to waste an extraordinarily large amount of people's time explaining our policies to him. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion of your site. I presumed and it turned out I was correct that your personal site has a link to ON, so that should suffice for anyone interested. Overall, no one cares what your background is, nor do they need a link to ON to find out. All that really matters is the quality of research and references you use in your Wikipedia edits. Seriously, I am so tired of wasting time on this issue. Go advertise elsewhere. - Taxman Talk 21:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
In the old days sites that engaged in spamming campaigns got added to a block filter and were universally disallowed on all MediaWiki sites. There are still sites listed in that filter that are there because I got them put there, like paperless archives dot com. We're well within our rights to prohibit link spammers from doing any promotion of their site at all, even on their user page. Please do not construe me to be in any kind of disagreement with Taxman on the issue. Jdavidb 23:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Taxman, do what you like to my user page. I'm not too worried about it, I just think it's overkill. I did ask Uriah to stop adding ON links once I was aware of the issue. I'm sorry I don't spend my life on Wikipedia checking to see if anyone I know is using the site inappropriately. I don't know what else you want me to say here. For what it's worth, I'm only writing to mention that the link I added on my user page was not intended as advertisement ... just a link to something I created, much like my homepage. I'll not mention ON anymore on my user page if it's that big of a deal. In the future, if you have issues with a user of ON dropping links on wiki, please shoot me a note before you do something so drastic. My email is in the footer of every ON page.MarkMcB 20:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for being reasonable, and it is unfortunately a big problem, though hopefully it's over. And I will email you if need be, but again, hopefully there won't be. - Taxman Talk 23:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dil To Pagal Hai

Hey, that was me that messed up, I think. One misses a lot watching a movie when one only understands a few words of Hindi and has to rely on subtitles. Thanks for catching it. Zora 20:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat, I just happened to know Auntie and Uncle don't mean actual family. I later looked in the edit history and if it makes you feel better, you only made half the problem by taking the leap from Plumcouch's calling them Aunt and Uncle and changing that to cousin :). Do you watch much Hindi film? Dil To was only the second I've ever seen. - Taxman Talk 22:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I watch LOTS of Hindi movies. Not as many as the guys who grew up watching them at the village cinema or on Indian TV, but a lot for a gora.
Interestingly enough, I live in Hawai'i, where it is extremely common for close family friends to become "Auntie" and "Uncle". My daughter has an Auntie Vicki and an Uncle Don who are no relation whatsoever. I just didn't know that this usage was common in India too. Zora 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nafaanra

Hi Taxman,

I'm writing this message to you because you are one of the editors who supported Nafaanra language on its way to become a Featured Article. Back in February, quite a few of you asked for sound recordings. I am really excited to let you know that User:Alafo, who came across Wikipedia when googling for Nafaanra, the native language of his wife, has provided us with some fine recordings of the language. I have just added them to the article so that all of us can enjoy the sounds of Nafaanra from Ghana. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You can't be serious

This is a joke, right? There is no way what you removed can be construed to be SEO related. Uriah923 20:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you've ruined any semblance of a reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. Again, read the edit summary. If promoting ON wasn't your primary interest, having that there wouldn't matter and you would have dropped this issue long ago. - Taxman Talk 21:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Uriah, my thought is that you couldn't have been serious in adding them in in the first place. You were clearly trying to be silly or make the fact that your previous attempts to promote that site were rebuffed out to be unfair or simply to push the limits.

Don't try to split hairs between "search engine optimization" and "promoting your site." Don't try to push the limits. Don't try to do anything other than build a good encyclopedia. Do that for a while and give people as much evidence as you can that you will go out of your way to do the right thing and avoid any appearance of impropriety, and maybe you'll find that you're not quite so curtailed around here. Jdavidb 21:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA!

My dear Taxman, I simply wanted to drop by, now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. Your beautiful words towards me and my work, and your trust, gave me strength and cheered me up a lot; I really felt encouraged by them. You'll always have a Valenciana friend in me. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe? 20:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo! :) And you're welcome. Just make sure to keep up on the intent of the policies and do your best which I'm sure you will. I loved Valencia when I was there even though I was just a tourist. Though I only spoke just functional enough Castellano, everyone in Valencia and the Baleares was very friendly. - Taxman Talk 12:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My first block

I know you're on a break, but I would appreciate it if you could comment on the following, if you have time. I performed my first block last night, of 70.245.131.60 (talk • contribs), who was link spamming and had already received the final warning template for spam. He emailed me this morning; here is the exchange:

On October 3, 2005, JamesKLambert wrote:

Jdavidb,

I was trying to post relevant external links to your site when I noticed this message from “chris.lawson” telling me that, “If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing… This is your last warning. The next time you insert a commercial link you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.”

After that I registered, which I did not even know was an option when I first posted, and then recieved a message telling me that I had been blocked for, “continuously spamming link after final warning given by Fvw.”

1) I don’t know who Fvw is but I saw no messages from him/her.

2) Everything I posted were thoughtful, constructive links to valid information on a site where I presently have nothing for sale. Most of the articles I posted were on film and media that I wrote while getting my MFA in documentary film. I have knowledge, research and insights that anyone interested in these topics would find interesting.

3) Several of your film articles have external links to the Internet Movie Database, which is run by and for the benefit of Amazon.com! That is a HIGHLY commercial site with less in-depth information than the articles I was offering. This most certainly was NOT “spam.”

I seriously hope that you will reconsider your position here and explain to me how my work is somehow less valid than the links you already have posted to your articles.

James Lambert jkl@1971films.com

The issue is not really whether the sites are commercial but whether you are promoting your own site or not. You cannot use Wikipedia to promote your own site, and you definitely should not go around posting it to bunches and bunches of articles, as you did.

You should have discussed this issue with the person who warned you before you continued to post links and got blocked, not afterward.

It is not appropriate to link to your own site on Wikipedia. If your site is really that good, someone else will notice it and link to it. I follow this own standard for my own websites which I run; I have websites which would be of interest to readers of a select few articles, but I do not link to them, because that would be me promoting my own sites rather than me working to build good encyclopedia articles. I am simply too close to the issue to make an unbiased judgment about whether or not those links could enhance the articles. If all you want to use Wikipedia for is gaining visibility for your site, that does not help us. We are interested in your help if you want to work to build a quality encyclopedia.

If you have registered for an account, that account is probably currently not blocked. But if you persist in linking to your own site, you will be blocked. If you find that your new account is blocked, I will unblock it on the condition that you agree not to link to 1971films.com and that you edit for two weeks without adding any links at all.

jdb

Any comments? Am I out of line? Are the conditions I gave him for me unblocking him (which I admit I made up out of whole cloth) too strict? Or too lenient? Should I go ask opinions at WP:AN? Jdavidb 14:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the user's edits in question, but your block seems fine, unless the user is being honest that they never saw the warnings. That is possible if he was editing from different IP's. Now that you have a discussion and the user appears conciencious, I would add links to the verifiability policy, the external links policy, and the spam policies. Explain the better kind of references we are looking for and that IMDB is about the bottom of the barrel for what we are looking for but it suffices because it is a very well known site, so its not a very good comparison. It's promotion of one's own site that is not allowed, exactly as you explained. If the guy got his degree in documentary film he also likely has actual good references and could add a lot of verifiable material we would want. So as long as the user is discussing and you have made it clear, I would unblock now, since you already have his attention and just explain that adding more links would result in not being able to edit anymore. That should encourage good participation. No real need for AN review yet I'd think. - Taxman Talk 14:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I just sent this, and I'm about to unblock:

Hi, James,

I talked to another admin, and he recommended that I go ahead and unblock your IP since you do appear conscientious and there was some doubt about whether or not you saw the warnings before. As I said in my previous message, if you've already created an account I believe you should be able to edit using it already.

This unblocking is being performed in good faith, assuming that you will agree to follow Wikipedia policy. This means you must not continue to use Wikipedia to promote your site. Self-promotion is not allowed. If you go back to adding links, we'll have to block you again.

We are, however, definitely looking for high quality, verified and sourced, material. Rather than linking to your site, we would find it very useful if you would add information to articles and credit the primary sources that you yourself used in your research. That kind of contribution is invaluable to Wikipedia.

Here are some links to some Wikipedia policies you should be familiar with. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. I encourage you to propose changes you are unsure about on article talk pages first, or ask me. In the end, Wikipedia articles have to be written by consensus of the editors, so we work together to find good compromises that address all the relevant issues.

Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:External_links Wikipedia:Spam Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

jdb

BTW, I went and modified a couple of the spam templates this morning to try to be more proactive in addressing the responses that link spammers often offer, such as "but my site isn't commercial!" Jdavidb 15:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of Michigan - comment needed

Though you are on Wikibreak, you did mention the need for an article to follow the Wikipedia Summary guideline. If you have a chance, can you look at the article and comment whether the article does meet the criteria? Thanks. Pentawing 01:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uriah923

Hello. I'm contacting you to ask you why you have so adamant in removing User:Uriah923's links to ON pages on his userpage. Although they may not be ideal for use in articles, I think he ought to be able to have them on his userpage. --Merovingian (t) (c) 04:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

For the short version, it's basically because of the extraordinary amount of valuable editor's time that he has wasted in pursuing his promotional campaign. You'd have to check his contributions and follow the progression of events in depth to reallize how bad the problem got. So I feel that our no advertising policy should take precedence over some non consensus "right" to link to any given site on one's user page. If you check the WP:AN archives, you'll see others basically agree. If he wants to contribute usefully without linking or promoting that site great, if not, we don't need to waste more time. We are building an encyclopedia and that should take precedence. - Taxman Talk 13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand, but Uriah923 has completely abandoned the promotion of ON in articles. I'm simply asking you to allow him to have such links on his userpage. While it's not directly related to building of the project, ON is important to him. Also, it's not just Uriah923. Many userpages have irrelevant external links on them. Take a look at mine for example; your persistence on Uriah's userpage would be similar to somebody removing external links from my webpage because they fear I'd be pushing right-wing hackism into Wikipedia. I'm hoping you'll reconsider your position against Uriah. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm saddened that you would spend time advocating for a user that has chosen repeatedly to waste so much time that could have been used productively. Bring the discussion on the AN back out of archive and discuss it there if you like, though I'd prefer you wouldn't. I refuse to waste more time on the issue, I've stated my opinion and I stand by it. - Taxman Talk 11:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Could you simply let his userpage go? That's all I ask. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
This conversation ended abruptly. Uriah923 14:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I truncated it with this edit because I thought my point had already been made very clearly and I wanted to reduce the amount of time being wasted on the issue. That seems to finally have made my point clear. - Taxman Talk 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Removing stuff from your talk page, huh? In your own words, "you should reallize it reflects badly on you, as if you have something to hide." Uriah923 21:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oilfield articles

I didn't want those definition/stubs that he created removed, I wanted HIM to fix them. WikiDon 01:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't "fix" blatant copyvios. They have to be deleted. And don't worry there are plenty of others that need to be checked and fixed. - Taxman Talk 12:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I re-created the pages using info straight from my brain (which isn't copyrighted). Add another mark in the things-Uriah923-has-done-for-Wikipedia-although-he-is-still-not-allowed-to-use-his-userpage-as-he-sees-fit-like-everyone-else column. Uriah923 14:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Well that's good and Wikipedia appreciates all positive contributions. But you only recreated them after they were deleted for being blatant copyright violations (a very serious problem). You should have long ago gone back and removed the copyright violations of your own accord, not waited until they were discovered. Instead you highlighted the copyright violation articles on your userpage as if you had written them. And you still should go back and fix any others that are still copyvios. You certainly don't deserve some sort of extra credit for doing something that should have been done long ago. - Taxman Talk 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
What articles are there that are "still copyvios?" Man, I really get the feeling it bothers you that I'm still around and making positive contributions to WP. Not that it bothers me, though... On the contrary, I think I might kind of like it. Uriah923 21:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Go away?

That's not an appropriate comment to make in a discussion. I assumed you were a rational individual, but telling someone to go away because they disagree with you is not rational at all.--Walter Görlitz 13:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with disagreeing with you. It had to do with your willingness to disrupt and continue to disrupt no matter what. That is flatly against Wikipedia policy. If you want to contribute pick something besides the useless BC/BCE debate. Debating on it for each article is an absolute and total waste of time. - Taxman Talk 17:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You are once again misrepresenting my position. You do not seem to believe that the will of the group should be imposed on the article in question. If the debate is useless, then don't continue it. The position was settled when many interested parties stated their will on the subject. If you wish to find a more usefull task, fine one. I personally believe that my time is currently being well spent. I am not not planning on changing the page unless those who should change the page are unwilling to follow the group consensus.--Walter Görlitz 18:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In hindsight "go away" [13] was of course innapropriate to say to anyone, even someone being disruptive, so I apologize. But let it be pointed out that Walter's method would have a contentious issue debated for hours on end and voted on for tens of thousands of pages individually. The compromise of not debating it on individual pages would of course not. I think which one is the better course of action that would lead to more productive efforts towards Wikipedia's goals is obvious. - Taxman Talk 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Kashmir earthquake

Image:WikiThanks.png Indian subcontinent earthquakes list Thank you for your contribution at 2005 Kashmir earthquake.
Please keep it up!!!- P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail .

[edit] Sueca

Hi, my dear Taxman! I'll gladly add some information to that article, as you requested. I've reviewed the lines you translated and I find it accurate enough, although posseïx can be translated to a more simple "has" in that context, in a more vague sense which does not denote ownership or possession. I can add more information and perhaps a picture, since I live just 15 kilometres away from Sueca, so I'll get to work right away. Thanks for your trust in me, Taxman! Hugs, Shauri smile! 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks. But if you have a way of finding out specifically what they're relationship with that coastline is, that would be even better. Maybe they do own it, maybe they just have rights, etc. I look forward to seeing the article, and if you have a digital camera, some pictures of the town would be fabu of course. - Taxman Talk 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:130.49.221.74

Hi

The user behind that IP is User:Andrew Lin, who is banned (not blocked) by a mix of admin and community concensus for vandalism, POV-pushing and sockpuppetry - he's not to be invited back, no matter how good his edits are - they're all to be reverted. Although I guess that was a relatively form block notice you gave him. --Kiand 20:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many many thanks

Taxman,

Thank you so much for your work to contain Walter Gorlitz on diamond. Your intervention is invaluable to me and others, who do not always have the stomach to deal with issues and editors like these in such a protracted, excruciating way. It's things like this that make me fear that Wikipedia will degenerate into rule of the mob, and make participating in Wikipedia lose its appeal. So again, thank you, and bravo. Your efforts do not go unappreciated. - Bantman 16:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Sorry I did not know my computer was being used to edit wiki. Although this is not a valid excuse I will not let it happen again. But I ask you, what happened that was counted as vandalising?

Well, since you appear to have created an account to leave the above message, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but it may be due to this. In either case repetitively reverting an article to add offtopic discussion is vandalism. Stick to editing within the [spirit of the] policies and you'll be fine. - Taxman Talk 23:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Script on Coin

Hello,

I hope I have posted this question in the right place. A library patron at the Fresno County Library brought in what he thinks is a foreign coin. He would like to know the language on the coin. He did some research and looked through the sections for Arabic-speaking countries in the 2005 Standard Catalog of World Coins, but to no avail. In my opinion, the coin looks much older than to have been minted in recent years, but there appears to be no date on it. Also, several scholars in the field of Arab studies have looked at it and think the language may be Urdu, but they aren't sure. Both sides of the coin have been scanned and can be found here, along with a more lengthy description. Any information is very much appreciated.

--205.247.237.96 21:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a wee bit difficult to read, but the first side says something like rāj kūbsīwä, and the second says rāj ‘ās. This makes me think that it's Urdu, which I can't read. --Gareth Hughes 21:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Which sounds about right. You can try searching those in this Hindi/Urdu dictionary. Raj is of course royalty, reign or kingdom, and if it was raja, that's a king or ruler. kūbsīwä doesn't come up as anything for me, even kub as the start doesn't come up with much. Gareth, do you have any other ideas of what that might be? ās comes back as "as", so that may be something like "as (the) kingdom", etc. Based on the lack of numbers it is probably a medal of some sort. - Taxman Talk 13:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

--Carmen 22:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been on extended WikiVacation, and just saw this. There's an "a'in" or a "ghain" at the end of the first inscription that hasn't been commented on. And it could be three words, making it "Raj ko Basiyo'" or "Raj ko Basiyogh" or something. The thing is, even if this is from South Asia (India/Pakistan/Bangladesha area), there's a good chance it is in Persian--or a local title/phrase rendered in Persian/Farsi script.

Sorry I can't say much more.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

I'm sorry you found reason to be neutral on my request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future. ALKIVAR™ 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name and timestamp

The order of the sup and small tags in your signature do evil things to Firefox. Please close the tags in reverse order. --Adamrush 22:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's rather unfortunate. It has been working fine for a long time. The issue appears to be a recently introduced bug, as it's been happening to others. I changed the order in my signature, but that doesn't matter for all the one's already existing. I don't know how to write a bot to change the rest. - Taxman Talk 23:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Hi, Taxman. I noticed that your signature didn't have properly nested tags, and on my browser, the text following your signature became progressively smaller until it was unreadable. So instead of using this:

[[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small>

Please consider this:

[[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup>

Thank you! :) Regards, Sango123 (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of Michigan - another user's concern

You probably noticed from the article's talk page that an anon user is trying to contact me concerning your edits to the article (see my talk page under "University of Michigan - rankings concern" or something similar where I placed the message). I have to note that, from the anon's editing history, he is focused on U-M, notably for rankings and people). Nevertheless, he becomes sensitive whenever any information he adds is removed. I am hoping that you could contact him and try to resolve this situation. Last time, I nearly got into a conflict with him, which led to an impromptu manual of style. Thanks. Pentawing 04:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Should I place the discussion back on the U-M article talk page? Pentawing 04:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Never mind. I moved the discussion back to the article's talk page (it might be better for the anon user). Pentawing 05:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ON

User talk:Uriah923#ON proposal Redwolf24 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw my comment on my talk page, so I'll comment here. Redwolf stated, "Obviously enough you can talk about ON with myself and Taxman, even before he accepts this." I am bringing up the subject as allowed by that statement.
As you and Redwolf agreed, I have added links on my user page to the articles I've authored.
As for the other "freedoms," I have only one way in which I'd like to use them. There are three articles on O-Nerd that I think add original content and quality information and, therefore, could be good external links (not references). Two of them previously had support from admins but were removed due to the blanket decision. The other I just think is a good and very academic article that would add a lot to the corresponding WP article. I would like to suggest these for you and Redwolf to review. If you'd like me to send the suggestion via email to avoid listing the links on a page, I can do that - whatever you guys think is proper. I don't want to overstep any boundaries or cause any trouble. If you review the articles and find they would not make good external links, then that's the end of the issue - no discussion necessary (unless you have questions).
Let me know what you think. Uriah923 17:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Patrulla 81

G'day Taxman,

good call on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrulla 81. Guess I jumped the gun on that one. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO RfA

Though you opposed my promotion at this time I wanted to thank you just the same for taking the time to voice your opinion. I'll do all I can to ensure that your opinion of me improves for the better.--MONGO 09:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/x/User_talk%7ETaxman_Archive1_fc60.html"