User talk:Goochelaar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Italian phonology
Credo tu abbia ragione. Ti ho risposto nella mia pagina di discussione. Artwik 15:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome! I hope you'll have fun here. Thanks for your contributions in algebra! --AxelBoldt
Welcome to Wikipedia, Daniele! Grand to see another mathematician. --LMS
[edit] User categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Italy page as living in or being associated with Italy. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Italy for instructions. --Army1987 17:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] You're Welcome...
for the cleaning up, Goochelaar! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] HG Wells
Thanks for catching the vandalism to H. G. Wells that I missed. I lost that revision from the vandal... which is exactly what he/she had hoped.
Thanks again
--KNHaw 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Roma Termini
Thanks for clarifying the name issue! - Classical geographer 12:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jef Raskin
Apologies for the vandalism. The offending IP (169.244.143.155) has been blocked from my proxy server.
~nhjm449
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] afd for you
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyes of Magic. One more unknown play from this spamming turkish... Clem23 20:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Planetary Gemologist
The redirect link from Planetary Gemologist was Speedy'ed when I moved the article to my User space for protection. The actual article was never AfD'ed. The page was held in my user-space for evidence during a AfD on another article by the same author that seems to want to promote his own celebrity on Wikipedia. Now that it has been returned to its original spot, please feel free to propose a speedy deletion or AfD review. -- Emana 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Geoffrey Giuliano
I've had several previous encounters with editors who obsessively edit a single article for the purpose of conveying a specific POV. They generally ignore all attempts to get them to work collaboratively and abide by Wikipedia policies.
One way we can respond is that we just keep reverting his edits. Often these people give up after a while when they realize that, as I said in my most recent edit summary, we can indeed outlast them. They go away and find something other than Wikipedia to occupy their time.
Another possibility is to block the problem user. This happened recently on Reuben Singh. There the user was determined to do character assassination, instead of puffery, but the pattern was otherwise the same. The user was blocked, and the article semi-protected so that he couldn't readily return to it with an anonymous IP. A few days ago it was unprotected, and so far all is well.
In the case of Geoffrey Giuliano, the author or his devotee (I'm not sure which it is) has used multiple IP addresses but not, I think, a registered account. Therefore, blocking wouldn't help. If the vandal persists for a few more days, then we'll be justified in seeking semi-protection (see Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy). Until then, we'll see if he gets the message with the help of a few more reversions. JamesMLane t c 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is a tough one, isn't it? My suggestion would be to give a week after the AfD closes and try to immediately revert whenever the article gets edited in a POV/vanity way. (I'll watchlist it too if need be.) If these anons keep on adding the stuff back, and you keep reverting, at that point you can probably ask for it to be semi-protected. Chances are, the anons will give up at that point - few people other than dedicated POV warriors and flat-out vandals will keep on trying to play ball.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- See, the process worked. As Dmz5 and I had hoped, Notinsane gave up. Of course, it would have been better if he had remained to contribute in a collaborative way, but I never held out much hope for that. At least he stopped making trouble. As Wired magazine wrote about Wikipedia, "Given enough eyeballs, all thugs are callow." JamesMLane t c 20:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
No problem. SteveO 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ciao
Ciao Daniele,
sono poetry62. Ti ho dato risposta nella mia pagina utente in merito a quanto dicevi sulle Giubbe Rosse. Scopro adesso che sei italiano, non me lo aspettavo!
Voglio chiederti una cortesia pero': perche' non mi aiuti a sviluppare, migliorare quelle pagine?
Mi sembra che le Giubbe Rosse lo meritino ampiamente...
ciao
[edit] None of the above
It is not vandalism if it is the truth.--138.162.0.45 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Being polite is like talking to the wind. I tried that & I was steamrolled. But don't worry. I've found new life at Wikipedia. It is not a far fall from gnome to troll.--138.162.0.45 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In reverting my "vandalism" on her page, you reverted some genuine grammar corrections.--138.162.0.45 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Dude we sent in those GOOD reviews of Giuliano's work and you said you would include them . You have not. WHY ONLY THE BAD ONES. Is that fair?
And if I were Geoffrey Giuliano and I knew things to be true or not would this be vandalism. Repeating info you find on line is madness. The net is accurate. PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE BEING RUINED FROM ALL THIS. And I cant get anyone's attention. Wiki is a cult withoutr reason or compassion
Giuliano
[edit] Fruttero
Ciao! Thanks for inquiring. I think, it's because in Encyclopedias I have there's not such a massive translation of foreign titles. Just when needed, or when there's an English translation. Also, Wikipedia bibliographies tend to refrain from citing publisher, date,, location etc. Ciao and let me know (PS, I stopped editing the article as I was corresponding with a girl...) --Attilios 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
For the work on Peter Cameron Rich Farmbrough, 12:15 17 August 2007 (GMT).
[edit] GURPS books
Thanks for your efforts for the GURPS books. I'm not so familiar with them myself, but would hate to see all the information lost. I would suggest, however, in merging information into the List of GURPS books we should probably avoid incorporating the potentially troublesome aspects in the original articles like being the inspiration of, or source of, twenty novels. If we can't locate sources to insert into the original article (thereby establishing its notability), I think this can just end up "transferring" some of the notability problems onto the "List" article itself. In my opinion, if we can't locate sources, we should probably limit the information on a supplement to a short description of it. But this is one guys opinion. Thanks again. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the best thing to do at this point is to do the redirecting and such that has been talked about on Talk:List of GURPS books. I see that the editor involved in instigating all appears to be a strong deletionist. I also don't know if you've noticed but, for example, {{notability}} tags have been placed on Steve Jackson Games, Graeme Davis, S. John Ross, and David L. Pulver, the last three being writers of GURPS supplements (amongst other things). (So as I've mentioned elsewhere, a systematic "attack", for lack of a better word, on all things GURPS.) I've started to try and give some sources for notability on some of these articles too, but have a real job to do as well. :) I have actually e-mailed Daid Pulver to ask him if he's been interviewed for any (well-known) magazine. I'm tempted to do the same for the other guys, but haven't yet done so.
Feel free to take one on yourself (but don't feel obligated). Obviously there should be lots of info in various magazines and such on Steve Jackson Games, as well as these other guys. For example, Graeme Davis was one of the original developers of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay! I've mentioned the {{notability}} tag on Graeme Davis on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Role-playing games but have received, at best, a lukewarm response. It's a bit frustrating when you encounter people who only want to delete things without (seemingly) bothering to help make them better. If no one else has done so, I'll probably mention the new tags elsewhere on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games page later, but am not sure what to expect from them now. Everyone wants to talk, but on one seems to want to do anything. Anyhow, ranting off... --Craw-daddy | T | 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey. You might want to consider editing your comment to downgrade your example in the Collins RfC to something more restrained. I know you're not actually accusing him of anything, but pedophilia is such a massively sensitive issue that it might well draw attention away from your actual argument. --Kizor 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. You can always bring up the matter in a more conservative way, if you want, but it might be best to take a break to get some distance and cool off. You can also ask someone else for help... just not me. The monkey on my back is throwing feces right now. --Kizor 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Toaff
Dear Goochelaar. I'd appreciate your own view on this issue. Mine is that, as an old medieval dictum says: 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate' which, in Wikispeak translates: 'Pages should not be multiplied, as if they were the progeny of Genesis, unless absolutely necessary'.
I was working on the Toaff page, when Beit Or created a separate page suggesting that this was an improvement. I am not convinced. True, the draft is bulky (I could paste it into the Toaff talk page eventually) but should be able to be winnowed down to a few pages once all the chapters have been described. Other editors, for example, on the Oriental Culture and Languages pages, tell me brief biographical pages are usually eliminated unless they are expanded enough to justify their existence in Wiki. Without a discussion of the 'Bloodlibel' book on his bio page, Toaff, by this criterion, will also eventually be dropped.
My suggestion then is that the separate page be cancelled, and that, if acceptable, I proceed over the next week or so, to provide a chapter by chapter breakdown of the work. My work on the Toaff page is highly provisory, and requires some patience, since the synopsis is being posted there so that others, who haven't read the book (which is no longer in print) if they are so minded, can use my précis to get an idea of the book, ask me to elaborate or prune, then edit it all in turn and discuss it without leaving the article to a survey of gossip about it at third or fourth hand. It's materia prima for all those who wish eventually to give a brief run-down of the book. Regards Nishidani 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SteveJacksonManToMan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SteveJacksonManToMan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair use rationale added. --Goochelaar 08:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your name
Out of curiosity, how did you come up with this name? It's Dutch for "conjurer", but according to your user page you don't speak Dutch. Melsaran (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't speak Dutch (only a few words, absorbed when I spent six months in Ghent). Goochelaar is a name I chose long ago for a magic-using character in a role-playing game, believing it to mean something like "wizard". When I discovered the correct meaning, the character name, and later the nickname, remained the same. Now I am going to answer you about dwarves, Warcraft and the like. Happy editing, Goochelaar 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I remember coming across your name on my watchlist before, and today it happened again (for the record, this time it was the Maths Reference Desk). Since I'm Dutch, I wondered again what prompted you to pick this name. Like the last time, I first checked your user page and only then looked here. Perhaps you could add a short note to your user page, but of course that's entirely up to you, as it's no trouble at all for me to look here instead of there. Anyway, happy editing :-) Phaunt (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gurps4e.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gurps4e.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GURPSFantasyBestiary.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GURPSFantasyBestiary.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GURPSIlluminati.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GURPSIlluminati.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Don Giovanni
Sorry if my note on the talk page was rather abrupt. I looked at your text and I thought "But I'm SURE it's "dal", so I looked in my Viking Opera Guide, and it said "dal", then I checked Google ("about 19,100" for "dal" and "about 543" for "del"), then I went for an online libretto ... then I saw that Italian is your madrelingua so I checked some more.... Best wishes! --GuillaumeTell (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Andrew Jackson
Hello, Please consider visiting WP:RFD#Presidency redirects if you are interested in getting the Presidency of Andrew Jackson redirect deleted. Thanks =) --MosheA (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you!
 |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
| Thanks for answering my math question about equivalent fractions! More specifically, for explaining in such great detail!
Ye Olde Luke 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Do you have the Angier version or the Borden version?
Well, here's a mystery! I agree with you about the turn, but it appears that my copy of the novel does not match yours. I have a TOR edition. It's TOR's first edition published in September 1997, and a softcover. Part Two ends on page 134 and covers the quasi-corporeal Angier's attempt on Bordens' life, and it's called 15 (chapter?). It is preceded by a three-paragraph "14". It definitely doesn't have 39 chapters or parts to it. So, did you get your version from Borden(s) or Angier? lol.
I'm going to scan through the whole thing tonight and see where the three parts are described, however, what page number did you find it on?
Jim Dunning | talk 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Happy Boxing Day!
Jim Dunning is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Enjoy the day after as well!
Jim Dunning | talk 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dossena
In effetti, era strano che non ci fosse ancora una voce. Purtroppo adesso non ho molto tempo per lavorarci sopra, e ho messo soprattutto l'esito di ricerche bibliografiche online. Un tempo conoscevo sua figlia, ma da un po' l'ho persa di vista. Se riesco a rimettermi in contatto con lei, cercherò di avere qualche notizia in più, in particolare riguardo alla data di nascita precisa. Buon anno anche a te. --Vermondo (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Schools and A7
Whether or not schools are notable is a rather controversial issue - there have been several failed proposals to define whether or not a school is notable. Because they can be controversial, it's best to use another deletion process (like AfD) to delete them because then the article can be reviewed by more people. (This is noted at Wikipedia:CSD#A7.)
Speedy deletion shouldn't be used on appliances, fictional characters etc. For those, there's proposed deletion or articles for deletion. WT:CSD frequently gets proposals to expand A7 to include things like fictional characters, but they never get consensus. Hut 8.5 10:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] From Talk:Algorithm
I noticed your comment there about Harvard references. Since the name of the author appears in the citation, you need to scroll and click less with Harvard references than with footnotes - once you know what publication "Smith 1984" is, you never need to look at the reference list again to know which source is being used when you see that in an inline citation. This makes it easier to see potentially outdated or biased sources, since the author and date can't be hidden inside footnotes. It also lets readers who are familiar with the sources tell instantly if a fact is being cited to a standard reference (a common textbook) or an uncommon reference (since the reader won't recognize the name in that case). Of course the links from the inline citations to the reference section are convenient, and I would like to use them more. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What's wrong with a fanzine?
See WP:EL. In general, we do not want links except where they provide extra, verifiable information. Fanzines do not generally fulfil this requirement. --John (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Italy-USA Foundation
I included the sources, the official website. Thanks. Scott335 (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Salvatore Cusato aka Casco
Hi there. I just declined the speedy on Salvatore Cusato aka Casco as I couldn't find evidence of a previous AFD - I could see that the article had been deleted as the result of a PROD once before but this does not qualify it for a {{db-repost}}. If there is an AFD (perhaps it is under a different spelling which is why I couldn't see it?) just drop a note on my talk page and I will reconsider the deletion. kind regards, nancy (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy Deletion of London Parachute School
I have re-added the page London Parachute School as I do not believe, it meets the criterea you cited. If you still feel it has no place on Wikipedia then you may propose it for deletion at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Unfourtunteyl I didn't get the message re: speedy deletion in time. Thanks -- Rehnn83 Talk 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The irony article.
Greetings, I added the Mark Twain thing. You removed my adds but you didn't remove this 1:
At the age of 23, basketball star "Pistol" Pete Maravich told a Pennsylvania reporter, "I don't want to play 10 years [in the NBA] and then die of a heart attack when I'm 40." In 1988 he collapsed and died of a heart attack at age 40, after playing 10 NBA seasons.
By the above, Pete Maravich predicted his death, the same way Mark Twain did. So logically, if you removed the Mark Twain thing, you should also remove that.
The reason I added the Mark Twain thing was because of seeing the Pete Maravich. If the Pete Maravich isn't fit for the article, then I would see how Mark Twain isn't either. Basically, I feel either both of them should be there, or both of them removed.
But if your argument was that Pete Maravich predicting his death is relevant but not Mark Twain predicting his death, then I would have a problem, and would like to see your reasoning.
In any event, I don't care to touch that article or revert to my edit, since I believe in only doing things once and talking about it, but just simply seeing your reasoning, so for the article, the honor is yours. Neal (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Anonymous user 72.241.104.7
Hi Goochelaar - a few days ago, you reminded anonymous user 72.241.104.7 not to engage in wholesale deletions of anonymous articles, many of which were (in your estimation) clearly Wikipedia-worthy. He or she apologised on his/her discussion page. However, I'm sorry to report that he/she has emerged once again, doing the same thing, under the anonymous number 72.241.101.20. It is clear that the same person is involved in these wholesale comments, as two of the articles he/she has attacked are Gerald Shapiro and Gary Forrester, neither of whom is remotely related to each other in any way. Both names appear in both anonymous contribution lists. I have an interest in this, because I have been very involved in the development of the Gary Forrester after an earlier go-round that was flawed because of self-edits and disorganized content. With the assistance of a number of Wikipedia editors, we have got the article into pretty good shape, I feel. You will find a very brief discussion of the latest attacks on Zagalejo's talk page, where the anonymous user makes some comments that are just plain factually inaccurate. What do you advise? We are happy to keep improving the article, if need be. The goal is to get the facts clear, with ample citation to sources, which we believe has been largely achieved - but there is always room for improvement. Cheers,--Georgette.mccallum (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation?
Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
