User talk:cmh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hit the wall Cmh is currently wikibonked and is operating at a lower edit level than usual. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and the user should return to normal edit levels in time.

Contents

[edit] Hi

Just wanted to thank you for your contibutions to Wikipedia so far, and I hope you stay on as a regular contibutor! -- Samir ∙ TC 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Samir! cmh 17:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi from kingpomba

since you gave my brutus article a npov tag i would like to talk about this with you... also could you look over my Cain (software) article for me

Sure, see my replies on the articles (now copied to your talk page) cmh 14:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working Families for Wal-Mart

Would you be so kind as to point out on the discussion page what you regard as non-neutral, so that I can address it. I just started this article, but everything is from the newspaper article or the websites if the pr firm and the SEC. --Beth Wellington 19:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I've responded on the Talk page Talk:Working Families for Wal-Mart

Thanks Colin. Ottawa's a lovely city. Lucky you! As I wrote on the discussion page, I understand your comment that what was available "overwhelm[ed] the organization's information". At the time I did my initial search on google, there was no official website for the group. There is now and I am abstracting the information.--Beth Wellington 20:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "attagirl." (An American expression, not sure if it's used in Canada.) I'm the sole contributor to date. When I hadn't heard back from you, asked Rich, an admin I've worked with, to review it for NPOV problems. He made no changes, other than add to the talk page to ask if it was okay to remove the tag. I appreciate your doing so and the time you spent earlier in critiquing the article. If you have further suggestions or any information you want to add to the article, I'd be glad for the help.--Beth Wellington 20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. (We do have attagirl too here!) cmh 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Colin, I noticed you said you needed a source for the anonymous poster adding "Astroturfing" as a related link. The Center for Media and Democracy, publishers of PR Watch hs identified WFFWM as as front group here[1].

Will that source suffice? If not, I will consult the professor who teaches a course at University of Milwaukee (your fellow Canadian) on "Walmarting," as he's more familiar with the literature and the web citations I've found come from blogs or anti-Wal-mart groups. Or perhaps there could be a disclaimer, such as, "Wake-up Walmart has described WFFWM as a front group." (There's already a link to that item in the article.)

By the way, Astroturfing is defined as "In American politics and advertising, the term astroturfing describes formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior. The goal is the appearance of independent public reaction to a politician, political group, product, service, event, or similar entities by centrally orchestrating the behavior of many diverse and geographically distributed individuals."

There is certainly a public relations firm which admits this is a formal project. This may be more of an issue in the US where Congress is considering disclosure requirements for astroturfing, which in the public relations world goes by the more neutral term of "grassroots lobbying."

Will also post this to the article discussion page. Thanks for your help with this and your interest in maintaining the integrity of the article.--Beth Wellington 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references to Haj Amin al-Husseini's anti-semitism

Hello. I have answered on the talk page of the article about about your fear of fork npov. I would like to point out that I had started to gather the information far before the dispute started on that article (and more I am not involved [2]. More I added a link in the Haj Amin al-Husseini's article to this article so that everybody can be aware. Please note also there is no comment about what he would be or not. All are quotes from different people, each time with a good reference to the person who writes and to a place where one can check what was written. Christophe Greffe 19:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns regarding this POV article on its talk page. cmh 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
so did I :-) Christophe Greffe 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

"Is there a name for this kind of conversation? You know the kind where you wind up talking to someone who picks a random thing out of whatever you post, just so they can challenge it? I want a name so I can brandish it about whenever I'm stuck in a conversation like that"

The purpose of an AfD is not for everyone to drop by, vote, and leave; we're supposed to build a consensus. I will hold people accountable for what they say, and I will either defend or retract what I say. I do not challenge random things for fun, and I find the accusation deeply insulting. I respectfully ask you to retract that insult from the AfD page; it serves no purpose there. Melchoir 05:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough, the comment was in poor taste. I will take it down. Let me try being more constructive here: I am frustrated when it looks like someone wants the last word all the time. I think your comments on that posting are persistent beyond the point of facilitating a good debate on the issues. It's reasonable to rebut, yes, but sometimes people disagree with you and it comes off like badgering when you rebut and rebut and rebut. Pointing out technicalities is not going to change minds beyond a certain point, and constant badgering leads to people leaving (as DanielCD has) which is not consensus even if it looks like it. Look at that discussion dispassionately for a moment and you will see the frustration around some of your remarks. At the end of the day you can't transmit your opinion just by stating it over and over and over and over. You believe this page is good for WP, others don't. Fine, that is what AfD is for. Argue your point then let the chips fall. There's always another story to write. cmh 06:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I have actually learned the art of walking away elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I just couldn't let DanielCD's parting shot go unchallenged. He accused me essentially of making stuff up; for the record I had to demonstrate what I was talking about. I'm sorry to badger, but I don't rely on technicalities, and I wouldn't ever just state an opinion over and over; I actually reply to the individual editors on how I think they're wrong. There is a tendency for controversial AfDs to turn into straw polls when neither side is willing to challenge the other, and we can do better than that. I regret the hard feelings, but I don't know what else I should have done. Melchoir 06:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
"this kind of conversation?" I'm going to take you literally, and answer. Yes, it's called "nit-picking"[3]. --75.19.73.101 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exalead

Hi, I'm the author of this article or more exactly I've translated it from Francophone Wikipedia. You've proposed this article to be deleted because this is advertisement. I have to say that I don't know Exalead at all.

However, I've tried to make the article more neutral. I don't exactly know what I can write more on the article since the web site does not provide much information. But I think the subject is really worth an article. You can answer me rather on my Francophone User Talk Page on which I'm sure to read it today. ♦ Pabix ℹ 06:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I've replied on your talk page! cmh 14:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just got your message and read it. It was very nice of you to write in French. I'm going to search some stuff to add to the article. Have a good day! ♦ Pabix ℹ 14:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LSRfm.com

Can you have a look and check it please.

I think it is better than it was

The Station Manager who wrote the history bit thought it would be funny. I told him not to but .. Hey Stuff Happens

Bazza 14:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I've removed the tag and I'll make a few comments on the talk page for that article. cmh 16:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] weird pages

Thanks for the note. The page you mentioned was a manual screw-up, not a machine-assisted screw-up. I'm not sure how I did it. I think I accidentally pasted something. Anyway, I'll try to be more careful. Bucketsofg 12:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Demand Met: Talk:Ahmed Osman

Meanwhile, I'll note to you that I cited uses by Darwin and Stoker. So you should move on. —Gamahucheur 19:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Try something that wasn't published in the Victorian era. You also conveniently ignored the 'monotheist' thing. Joey 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • While this debate may be thrilling, I think it should be conducted on the talk page of the article. I assure you both that I am monitoring the talk page over there at the moment, so there is no need to respond to each other (or to my posts from there) over here. -- cmh 21:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Islamic Jihads

Page is not copyrighted and furthermore it is fair use.--CltFn 04:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

List are not copyrightable , besides I have altered them significantly, furthermore the page is not copyrighted , so quit tagging it copyvio, thank you --CltFn 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see discussion on the talk page of the article. -- cmh 05:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I did and your tagging is without merit. I have made my case , its a historical list , cannot be copyrighted , so now what? A waste of time good night, --CltFn 05:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Rest assured I am watching the talk page of that article so you do not need to post here to get my attention. Let's take the discussion over there, where I have suggested a "now what" while you were typing this message to me over here. In general, I need a few minutes (or even longer as I will be calling it a night shortly) to respond to your postings. I am assuming good faith on your part, please do me the same courtesy. -- cmh 05:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of page titles with multiple capitalizations

I don't think your redirect detection code is working. For example, the very first entries in the list — 'Abbas Al-Musawi and 'Abbas al-Musawi — are both redirects to the same page. Both of them have only one edit, so they've been redirects as long as they've existed — in fact, they were created by the same user at the same time, and have exactly the same content.

(I would've posted this on the list's talk page, but you've redirected it to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, where I don't think a technical issue like this really belongs.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Yes, you're right. I had some problems with pages containing single quotation marks at the start of the script development. I'm re-running those early pages now and I'll update the list. Thanks for pointing it out. The redirect is there to encourage people not to discuss the proposal in two places, so I appreciate you tracking me down. -- cmh 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious disambiguation candidates

I've started working with your list to knock off the obvious disambiguation candidates. I discovered your list when I disambiguated Guardian angel and checked What Links Here to fix any links to the new disambig page. I will continue working with your list to clean up any other obvious candidates. I won't touch the ones which may be controvertial as per discussions above. Do you want me to just cross them off as I go (as I did with Guardian Angel), or to move them to a separate list of completed disambig efforts? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Yes, crossing them off is probably a good idea. I still think it would be good to get a WikiProject going for this kind of thing, but my time available to edit has dropped off recently. Thanks for getting in touch. -- cmh 14:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CKCU Ottawa Folk Festival

Regarding your revert to restore Category:Ottawa to this article:

Why shouldn't this be in the Ottawa category?

See Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories. An article should not be in a category and its subcategory. In this case, Category:Ottawa is a higher-level category, and Category:Ottawa festivals is its subcategory (by way of Category:Culture of Ottawa). None of the other Ottawa festival articles have such duplication - if we duplicate for the Folk Festival, consistency demands all other Ottawa festivals (Tulip Festival etc) also be put in Category:Ottawa. And then this necessarily follows for all the other Ottawa subcategories. So the question is, do Ottawa festival articles meet these Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories#Reasons for duplication? Dl2000 23:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting my attention here. I'm copying the discussion to article talk page, let's continue there. -- cmh 00:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] successful catch there

whoop! good catch, i'm changing my regex sos that won't happen again. i'm definitely pulling an arm hair for penance! thanks! JoeBot 00:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hops

Hi. Thanks for getting in touch. Yep. I blended the hop information from RateBeer, BeerAdvocate and another source (can't recall now - did I list it?). I set about editing the information down to cut out any copyright implications, but never finished. Always intended to, but never got round to it. Always something else catches the attention! The basic information is not copyrightable, just the individual wording here and there. If you've looked at the RateBeer information and compared it to the article you'll notice differences, including different hops here and there. If you're up for finishing off the rewording, that would be great. And thanks for bringing the issue up. Happy editing! SilkTork 16:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a bit of editing and popped it back into the article. I did notice that there had been some additons to my original listing - I managed to catch those as well. I think people are now free to continue to develop the article without fear of copyright issues. SilkTork 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks... -- cmh 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objective-C

Thanks a lot for the awesome clarifications and additions in the Objective-C article! Nice work! – Mipadi 01:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. This is my bread and butter, so it's nice to be able to edit something I know for a change. -- cmh 01:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-production

The text now aligns with the title. Thanks Parasite 03:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Carl Bohm Article So Called Copyright Violation

You recently marked this article as a possible copyright violation. Why? Permission to copy, distribute etc under the GNU license free documentation act was granted by me, the copyright holder back in March of this year and approved by administrator Alabamaboy. Check the discussion page. Perhaps you want it on the main article page. Could you please take the article off this violation list. If you have any question, please contact me. My user name is Santo Neuenwelt and I am the owner and managing editor of Edition Silvertrust, the website from which this information was taken. Thanks very much for your help.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I did not notice the text on the talk page, but it is in the right place. I have removed the tag, replaced the content, and crossed it off the copyright violation list. -- cmh 02:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elaidic acid

Hi Cmh, I've created 2D and 3D images of elaidic acid for you to use on the trans fat page: Image:Elaidic-acid-3D-vdW.png and Image:Elaidic-acid-2D-skeletal.png. Enjoy!

Ben 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re: Sorry for the snarky remark

No worries. It's difficult to resist the urge to be snarky now and then. =) Powers T 12:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : close of Gregory Joseph Gould I

Done. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging in use article

You removed an inuse tag from the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Task Force article, and rightly so according to the talk page for that template. This leads to a couple of questions:

1) Why is there an in-use template that allows you to put in a date if it will be removed within two hours of someone making the last edit. It is very unlikely that anyone will be doing major edits constantly with less than a two hour break in-between. People need to sleep sometime unless they are using artificial stimulants to stay awake. If that is the case, they probably wouldn't be in a proper condition to be doing major edits. Why keep this template?

2) How does a person tag an article that they are in the middle of creating that they know will take many days so that is doesn't get tagged with stub, reference, incomplete info, non-categorized, etc. before the person has a chance to complete the article?

Epolk 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Replying on your talk page. -- cmh 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for quick reply. I think {{Underconstruction}} is what I was looking for as opposed to {{inuse}}.
Epolk 03:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Steve Irwin Pic

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I thought I'd reverted it about a minute later when I had second thoughts. I guess you beat me to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureFire (talk • contribs)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Wilhelm Normann.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wilhelm Normann.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duct tape occlusion therapy changes

Please see [4]. Pgr94 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Duct tape occlusion therapy. -- cmhTC 19:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trans Fat Page question

Hi, I am trying to figure out if hydrogenated oils are trans fat and if not, what are they? Saturated fats? I'm not referring to partially hydrogenated oils. Both hydrogenated oils and partially hydrogenated redirect to the Trans Fat article, so there should be some clear distinctions spelled out on the page.

From the discussion of Trans-fat free Crisco on the Crisco page, it seems that "fully" hydrogenated oils are not trans-fats, but that doesn't answer the question what they are. I mean, I have a PhD and I can't work wikipedia on this issue to find what I want to know.

Thanks! Ken --Kenmayer 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded at User_talk:Kenmayer -- cmhTC 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quickly recommend lock for Patrick Stewart

Please lock Patrick Stewart as soon as possible. It also requires fixes from the spam changes.--WhereAmI 03:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't you recommend it for lock? I will try to find an administrator, until then please keep changing it back. Thank you. I blame 4chan, and you should never go there.--WhereAmI 03:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Recommended at WP:RPP -- cmhTC 03:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I am still learning the ways of Wikipedia.--WhereAmI 04:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raag yaman

  • It looks like nonsense to me. I can't make head or tails of it; at the very least, it's a db-context. Danny Lilithborne 04:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campus radio

I changed the category because the old name, "College radio", is a US-exclusive term that cannot be used as the default international term. I solicited opinions from other users on how best to rename it, and "Student radio" was the consensus — both because it's a term that's internationally understood, and because all of the other university and college media categories (Category:Student newspapers, Category:Student magazines, Category:Student television stations) use the term "student", so it provides consistency. It was a tricky case, because there are a lot of different terms for the same thing, but we had to try to come up with the best neutral "umbrella term" we could, and "student" was the least problematic option.

Also, for what it's worth, I'm not sure I understand the distinction you see between "student format" and "campus format" — I just don't see how the terms necessarily imply different things from each other. Could you explain what you think the difference is? Bearcat 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose a different alternate name, you're free to do that anytime you want. I'm not convinced that the term "campus radio" has sufficiently broad international usage to serve as the default term, but if you'd like to propose it, be my guest. The bottom line, however, is that "college radio", as a US-exclusive term, was definitely an inappropriate name for the category.
I also still don't see how "student" implies anything different than "campus" does — at least to me, there isn't any possible name that doesn't potentially carry a false implication of "participation is restricted to people directly associated with this university". "College", "campus" and "student" all imply that restriction equally, if you don't know how that system really works — and none of the terms are ever actually used with the intention of implying such a restriction. So I just don't see that one term implies anything different than the other one does. Bearcat 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in picking a fight about this. I really don't particularly care what the category is named, as long as it's a neutral, internationally suitable term (which "college radio" absolutely, unequivocally wasn't, as you yourself recognize). If you want to propose a renaming discussion, go right ahead. If you're trying to get into a scrap about it, though, then go punch a pillow or something, because I'm not going to bite :-) Bearcat 19:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. A solution neither of us thought of. Excellent. (*grin*) Bearcat 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalizations: "Red carpet"

Hi,

just thought that you might want to comment in this discussion. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 12:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trans fat

Just to thank you for your sterling work on Trans fat. It's always good to know that there's someone keeping up the quality of a page. Nunquam Dormio 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neologisms within an article

I added further discussion to Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms#This guideline in a nutshell. The guideline is very concise, but sets the hurdle for using new language too high.H Bruthzoo 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lateral coital position

Hello !

I have given the drawing a try, but I am afraid that I am unsure myself how this position works :

  1. Does the girl have her hips on a horizontal axis and her shoulders on a vertical axis ?
  2. On your schema, are the positions of some of the limbs significant ? In the affirmative, which ones ?

Thank you in advance ! Rama 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trans fat alternatives

Is there a good discussion anywhere of the pros and cons of different alternatives to trans fats, esp. for industry? I've seen palm oil proposed as a good alternative, even though it is high in saturated fat. I've also seen coconut oil defended and canola and soybean oils attacked. But it's all very polarized. I have not seen a scientific article that compares all of these as alternatives to trans fat.

Thank you for any leads. And kudos for your hard and patient work on the trans fat article. Annodeus 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete tag

A tag has been placed on PhoneValet Message Center, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. pgillman 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete tag II

A tag has been placed on PhoneValet Message Center, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calltech 13:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)