User talk:Duk/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] POTD notification

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Radial engine.gif is scheduled to be Picture of the day on November 20, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 16:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The elephant in the room

Hey Duk. I am just wondering if too your knowledge, you know of anyone ever successfully arguing that someone is a partisan?

It seems like this is the "elephant in the room"--which everyone sees, but know one can mention. Certain editors will go around in groups (some people call them "cabals") and actively push their own narrow POV.

It is the worst when these groups of people put articles up for deletion. For example, certain editors will attempt to squelch 9/11 consipracy theories by putting these articles up for deletion--there voting record is clear--if an article is against their narrow POV, no matter how well written it is, it will be put up for deletion, and this little group will vote against it.

It is clear that certain editors are doing it because they are biased and slanted, but no wikieditor can actually bring this up. When another wikieditor brings it up, people scream WP:NPA.

Why is the word (insert title here) cabal so off limits? Why when anyone brings up the subject, they are heckled off the talk page?

What do you think? You can email me if you like. User:Travb AKA RWV 04:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your first question, too your knowledge, you know of anyone ever successfully arguing that someone is a partisan. Sure, see [1].
About the elephant in the room and Why is the word (insert title here) cabal so off limits. It usually doesn't do any good to label people or groups as having a POV agenda. Slapping labels on people like this, even if correct, will be seen as personal attacks. Instead, argue the facts of the case and resist the temptation to label people or engage in ad hominems.
If an editor or a group of editors is pushing a narrow POV then follow the dispute resolution process. I know it's a lot of work, but going through the trouble of presenting a case with evidence and diffs is what's needed to rise above (possibly subjective) accusations of POV pushing.
--Duk 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Duk, I knew if anyone knew about this, you would. Happy editing. RWV 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
your welcome, see ya in irc. --Duk 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA (reprise)

Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!

Atlant 14:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DumbBOT

Thanks! Actually, I wasn't aware someone were running such a script when I added the copyvio function to DumbBOT (it was then mentioned by User:Centrx on the bot approval discussion). Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:A little effort please

OK, I'll try to go a little slower in the future... Heimstern Läufer 07:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I take some issue with your choice of heading on my talk page. My edit was a little effort: effort to make sure new pages are up to our standards. Of course, I get things wrong sometimes, we all do. I'm just suggesting you rethink what you say to others on their talk pages. Heimstern Läufer 07:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your help

Thank you for your help on the Thermal death time article. It earned a DYK yesterday. I really appreciate it. Chris 14:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radial/rotory

I think your radial engine modelling could be used to illustrate a rotary engine--not a Wankel, but rather the type used on some early aircraft. In short, you'd keep the crank steady and rotate the cylinder case (which itself was attached to the propeller, it seems).

Yah, some day I may get around to it :) --Duk 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for Image:Radial engine.gif

Image:Radial engine.gif is great. If you could add the firing order of the cylnders that would be a nice improvement.

Thanks. I'm not planning to change it, but go ahead if you'd like to. I used Gimp + the animation package. It will let you modify the individual frames. --Duk 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing incomplete statement on article - Dow

I removed it because it was incomplete. I will add to instead, if you prefer.Jance 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gear Pumps

Hiya, I noticed you've made lots of edits to the gear pump article and I wondered if you could help me with a question. My Dad's having trouble with a hydraulic gear pump that operates a four post lift in a garage. The pump is driven by an electric motor. The old pump broke (it was too old to get an exact replacement) and when he fitted a new pump the oil seal on the drive shaft burst with the hydraulic pressure and filled the electric motor with oil. Do you know what could have caused this to happen? Thank you :o) Jilly 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear lord! I hope he wasn't under the lift when it broke. --Duk 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No, fortunately he wasn't - and neither was his car! His garage is covered in oil now though! Jilly 20:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks.

Oh yes. I surely did. But since you seem so shocked, I altered my statement. I cannot tell you how cynically amused I am that some personal attacks are okay while others are horrific. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

for the rest of this stimulating conversation...

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, I've tried to aid you in the past with feedback. It was met with hostility and disrespect. This was before the userbox war - the advice I gave was about how to get things done without pissing off the community and causing more harm than good. Only now, after losing your status are you claiming that you want feedback. I don't believe your motives are sincere and therefore choose not to participate. You can change my mind by putting aside your public spectacles and quietly writing an encyclopedia for a year or so. --Duk 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that you are unwilling to accept that I am acting in good faith. I shall not disturb you further. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

"Hey Elaragirl, have you ever edited under a different screen name? --Duk 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)"

No. And if you want to make such an assertation, I strongly encourage you to make a request at RFCU. Correctly suggesting I might have been uncivil is one thing. Correctly pointing out that my statement on the ArbCom Election was a direct personal attack is also just fine. Vague accusations of editing under another username, however, is neither constructive, nor corrective. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Now, we can be nice again. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ElaragirlTalk 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. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

[edit] *poke*

I am confused. --Cat out 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, aren't we all ;) --Duk 05:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Duk—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics Lab

I saw your name listed on Wikiproject Illustration or the list of graphic artists, and I thought I'd let you know that a Graphics Lab has been created on EN. Based on the highly successful French and German graphics labs, it seeks to better organise and coordinate our graphic design and photo-editing efforts. Up until now, there has been no common space on EN where users could ask for maps, charts and other SVG files to be created. What's more, the Graphics Lab has discussion boards, tips, tools and links; in sum, a good common workspace. Come help us out! The infrastucture is already in place, and now we need participants. :) --Zantastik talk 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Read your last message and I would tend to disagree.

I don't know the song but it appears the main part (better than half the song) appears in the article. I could citing one chorus but four choruses seem to be a bit much and a stretch of fair use. Ronbo76 05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've read fair use a number of times. . .

. . .even prior to your help. Usually when I ask for help, via helpme, I prefer a senior editor or admin type look at the page and edit appropriately. Since you said you can see both sides, maybe you could reestablish my helpme and ask for a second opinion on my talkpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC). And, I did read the talkpage. It seems the conversation seems to be dominated by the creator and one or two others. Ronbo76 05:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

No, the edit summary was not directed at you. I have absolutely no idea why you reverted the page and destroyed the content it included. I am not going to speculate on that and I'm certainly not going to try to find out whether you have any reason. If you write "because it wasn't sourced", I simply have nothing further to say about it. There are tons of articles that are not sourced and we accept that that is something that will eventually be put right. Because they are not controversial, and this article is not, it's not a pressing problem. In any case, this article is not being removed because of lack of sources. That is entirely spurious in this particular case.

As for WP:OWN, I explained on the talkpage that I was referring to the policy on banned users. One is directed not to reinstate their edits unless one is taking responsibility for them, so I stated that I was doing so. Because I would write "this is my edit" to make this clear, I wrote "this is my article" because the edit is a whole article. That is not exceptionable, Duk; I think you will see that when you think it through.

However, it seems clear to me that some of the editors involved -- I am not including you because as I say, I have no idea what motivated you and I'm not interested to find out -- are purely interested in conflict. In the case of Calton, I have a history and I daresay he intends to goad me by doing it. I am not interested though. I think it's a fairly good, interesting article, which no one involved would have any problem with at all were it written by a regular editor. But as so often in Wikipedia, that is not a consideration, and its being true cannot gain the day. All that will matter ultimately is that I am outnumbered. Sad but true. Grace Note 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Duk, if people fight to keep something out, eventually anyone who wants it in just gives up and the content is gone. Yes, I know it is technically not destroyed (the page is not deleted) but effectively it is gone. Thank you for finding sources. I genuinely believe it is an interesting article. If you wouldn't mind, and this article survives, could we reinstate the architecture one too, because I have inadvertently buried it and it should still be available, I think. I would do it myself but I'd rather stay away than be a focus of conflict for those who want it. Grace Note 03:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

Sorry, I was adding sources to the Coving article at exactly the same time as you when it came up with the 'edit conflict' screen asking me to edit again, which I did, though I forgot to include your reference or whatever you wrote. I'll try to find it and put it back in for you--Edchilvers 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs for coving

NYT [2]. HGTV [3] [4] is particularly good [5] not so good [6] San Diego Times [7] by one of Harrison's people but explains the development from "winding" and why you would try this approach [8] gives some detail on its use [9] a "coved" development [10] testimony that this concept is in use from someone who seems to have strong credentials


As for the architecture thing, it's a commonly used term in architecture. Google "coving" and you'll find plenty that you could choose from. Grace Note 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Duk, thanks for stepping up to the plate and fixing the article. Good work. -Will Beback · † · 08:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pickles

I've never even heard of the nickname before you "lied" to me. - Patricknoddy 7:39am, January 13, 2007

Wow, happy new year to you too! OK, maybe you didn't make this edit 29 months ago :) --Duk 16:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article 'Hydraulic system'

Hello Duk. The text versus imgages can be a problem some times but now it looks better. However there is more to come later next week. Could you please check the english wording/spelling that I have contributed with. Most of the article however is written by someone else. Regards, USER: Lidingo Sweden.

Sure, I'll check it as best I can. --Duk 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Test data on NRLMSISE-00

when you go to [[11]] just at the middle od the page it says:

You may also obtain direct MSIS model output (or test your codes) using the MSIS web interface found at NSSDC

so, it seems that they are using the NRLMSISE-00 model even it is identified as MSISE-90.

Anyhow, do you know how to access NRLMSISE-00 directly. Is there another page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for some very good research and valuable comments and links. I'm planning to say little more on the subject unless I'm attacked again. I have proved my point about the IRC admin channel, and many people (whose opinion matters to me) now seem to believe all I have ben saying was true. The channel is now thoroughly discredited and will never be a source of power again, and used by anyone of Wikipedian value - it is now basically finished - no one will ever believe a word that emanates from it again, no doubt a few little firecrackers will continue to pop on admins notice boards and such places but I think people can now evaluate such comments for themselves and see them for what they are dying embers of a former power base. Once again thanks for your support in this. I have appreciated it. Giano 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Duk 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref desk thank you

Thank you for helping me with the hydroelectricity question. Unlike the others, you actually provided links to support your answers, which is an excellent quality in a ref desk person. Wowz, thanks!--JDitto 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Duk 17:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Duk

Long time no talk, do you think I should go to the next step, meditation on this case: User:Travb/m.

The user went around a page protection intending to orphan the protected page. I have already been on WP:Third opinion and the editor condemned User:Mobile 01. Afterwards I found out that Bridgestone had been actively deleting material from the Firestone page (Firestone was bought out by Bridgestone).

Any suggestions or comments?

(later) nevermind, the checkuser is conclusive. : )

Travb (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trav, I'm not sure about the best course to follow here, you know more about the dispute resolution process than I do. I saw some of you earlier postings at the admin noticeboards. As for suggestions: the overview part of User:Travb/m is good - update it with a few links (Mobile 01 admitted openly that this was his strategy, for example) and with the checkuser results. The best way to get people's attention is with a concise hook, just like the intro you've made. Longer and disordered presentations won't be read unless you get people's attention first. Looks like you found another very interesting case. Good luck!
Sorry I can't help much. Going on a wikibreak :) Regards - Duk 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Your advice is always welcome and timely.
Heads up on this posting: User_talk:Cedars#I_hope_you_won.27t_leave. I was very careful in my wording about our relationship. If this statment is incorrect, or inflammatory in anyway, you can/I will change the statement, or you can/I will remove the statement. Always grateful and thankful.
I have watched your page, so please keep your comments here. Thanks. Travb (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC invitations

I saw your comments on the enormous thread about IRC invitations, and I was prompted to wonder whether you actually know what that means? It's IRC jargon for the method used to get into certain channels: if the channel is in "invite-only" mode, you have to invite yourself onto it. This is because in order to get access to the admins channel, you must identify yourself to the channel operators: you cannot get in "anonymously". There's quite an arcane process for going about this, which I won't bore you with. My point is that any admin can request admittance to the channel, and there would have to be a very good reason to refuse them: the "invitation-only" bit is a red herring. There are a few people who are not admins on this wiki, but as far as I recall they are the equivalent from elsewhere, such as commons (which is necessary for dealing with images sometimes) and meta; some are developers, in case urgent action at a lower level is required. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I was prompted to wonder whether you actually know what that means? -- please don't be condescending.
  • you have to invite yourself -- No, you have to be allowed admittance, please don't spin this thing.
  • any admin can request admittance to the channel -- I'm an admin and don't want to be associated with the place; The channel owner failed to confirm when asked (but implied) that he is not accountable to the wikipedia community, hasn't edited significantly in months, and let the problem at hand fester for months - making it orders of magnitude worse.
  • There are a few people who are not admins on -- you got that right, including a former disgraced arbitrator/admin with op rights (last I heard) who has no business being there, much less running the place.
Phil, thank you for the note, it was clearly offered with honorable intentions. --Duk 11:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
PS. ref --Duk 11:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you

[12] Thanks. Giano 19:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome. --Duk 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headlamp / Headlight

Hi, Duk. Thanks for your cleanup of the inappropriate move of Headlamp earlier today. I have gone through and reverted all the link changes he made to articles linking to Headlamp. I think the setup as it exists now is fine. Those looking for the caving variety of headlamp have their link right smack at the top of Headlamp; it seems to me a disambiguation page would be superfluous. If someone (such as PJBFlynn) feels strongly that there needs to be a disambiguation page, then certainly that would be a topic for discussion at talk:Headlamp, as it seems to me. --Scheinwerfermann 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. I think there could be some better disambiguation and naming of related articles. --Duk 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 27 February 2007, a fact from the article Ludlow Amendment, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomanganitalk 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Woah Duk, that was you who nominated the article? I thought it was the other guy who was working on the article. Thanks man. There are two people in this world, people like myself, who talk about getting things done, and people like yourself, who go out and do it. Thanks a lot. Travb (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

Comments to Mobile 01[13] I had warned her earlier about the image on her page. Travb (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey buddy, looks like you need a break. --Duk 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pressured Tanks at Falcon 1

Ah, yeah, wow, that's what I call a talk page! Just want to say thanks for erasing my fault about the LOX tank (since it's not a pressured tank)! Good that there are some people out there that still have a bit more knowledge ;) ColdCase 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome ! --Duk 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry if you misunderstood me...

...about the telescope thing. I don't have my copy of "Telescope optics" at hand and did not want to copy your proposed introduction without double-checking for accuracy (again, no distrust and no irony, it's just that I had long wanted to read it up myself). Your suggestion looks good to me and I would be pleased to read it in the article. Best wishes and happy editing, Kosebamse 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment

Hello. I noticed your comment on Gene Nygaard's talk page. Please disregard Gene's ludicrous accusations that me and user Darwinek work in some kind of a team. Me and Darwinek have common disagreements with Gene, that's all. And although I have Darwinek in good consideration, I acknowledge that some of his actions merited the arbcom remedies. Best regards, Húsönd 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Húsönd, my comment wasn't meant to be an endorsement of Gene's claim. I have no view on this claim one way or another - haven't looked into it and don't plan to.
There was another event I had in mind when writing that note; a while back Gene was give a block that I though was improper and I advocated for him. (it didn't have anything to do with you or Darwinek). I just wanted to point out to Gene that even though unjust blocks happen from time to time, things get taken care of in the long run. --Duk 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Jeff Merkey

[[14]] [[15]] [[16]]

Some old, same old. Take a look back into the past regarding Jeff's wikipedia behavior. It's remarkably similar.

And [[17]]. Labeling someone a disruptive troll because they insist that articles be properly documented seems a bit of a violation of NPA. Color me shocked that this is happening.

Looks like Jeff's latest edits were the right thing to do - moving contested text to the talk page. To User:64.139.4.129, why don't you try to find something productive to do around here. --Duk 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Duk, could you please do me a favor and detail what rules you are concerned that I've broken and perhaps explain the difference between what I've done and how I should behave on wikipedia? Further, do you suppose that Jeff would have moved that material if someone hadn't pointed out that it was libelous? I understand that someone, not t, has forwarded the original page edits to Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google) and David C. Drummond (Chief Legal Officer of Google). If you go back over the history of Jeff's edits, you'll see that this is far from the first time that this has happened. I'll bow out and let others keep watch, but you should consider this far from uncommon.
[18] --Duk 21:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)