User talk:MacGyverMagic/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sig help

Thanks, to use the sig do i just put the 4 ~s again? Ill try it now, so if it works dont bother replying. - Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 03:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] accusations of sock puppets and minority scientific views

Thanks for your comments on my User talk:Ray Tomes page. The problem is a little moot now as the Harmonics Theory pages were deleted. All the same, I would appreciate your advice. It is quite clear to me that there are many people that are threatened by information that undermines their belief systems. They think that they are scientific but in fact act very emotionally when they are unable to defend arguements against them. This is a particular problem with minority scientific views. It applies equally as well outside wikipedia as in it, and has lead a nobel lauriate, Josephson, to speak out on the difficulty of getting new views aired.

In the case of Harmonics theory, the people voting for deletion were almost all uninformed of the subject matter but found it objectionable. Those that were informed (in some cases invited by me because they were) spoke in favour of keeping the article. It seems to me that the present procedure is rather daft in this case - the invited experts votes were ignored because they were not regular wikipedians. The ignorant people's votes were counted becaue they were regular - many only took a quick scan, voted and never returned to read the discussion. There really ought to be some better method than this, don't you think?

I really don't know where to go to make these thoughts known. I know of a number of other similar articles deleted which I have nothing to do with. Of course alternative views should be clearly labelled as such. However for the majority view to say that all other views are to crushed is more like the inquisition or communist china than the modern free world. As a further example, Halton Arp, a very much acliamed astronomer left the US because he was stopped from having access to telescopes because he kept finding evidence against so-called "standard" cosmology. Any thoughts? Ray Tomes 04:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation User:NoPuzzleStranger vs. User:Tobias Conradi

thanks for comming in. The prob is I do not want lies about me going around. I asked him to provide stats for his claims, I myself did a lot of work to provide them. I had long talk he stopped talking. I even would have liked Arbitration, but it says I need mediation first. Now at least he did some work to provide stats, maybe because of your post at his page (thanks a lot!!) and he corrected one of his statements, but added new false claims. BTW: I have no problem that he says I moved pages unilaterally. This is right, I did it. I was bold in beginning, but after complaints came in, I started to try to talk with relevant contributers first. best regards and thanks for your work in Mediation Commitee Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A question in response to your kind HelpDesk remark

I recently authored two articles. Say that the article is titled "A B". Oddly, when I search for "A" or "B" separately, it doesn't show my page for "A B". Only when I search for "A B" will it find the page.

Shouldn't this be immediately updated or am I doing something wrong in my page?

Or is there a delay time before some index gets updated?

1. There is a delay in the updating of the indexes 2. If you want to find something, by not using the full title of the page, you should click "search" instead of "go". The "Go" button will look for a page with the exact same name as the string you typed. - Mgm|(talk) 07:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

...

Thanks for your reply.

It does work on GO, but it's been nearly four days since I entered the article. Using search doesn't find it or anything in it. Say the article is entitled "FIRSTNAME LASTNAME". If I put in 'FIRSTNAME LASTNAME' (no quotes) and hit enter or click GO, it finds the page. But if I enter simply 'LASTNAME', or 'FIRSTNAME LASTNAME' (no quotes), and hit SEARCH it doesn't find the pages or anything within them at all.

One would think that after four days the searching would work.

Help!

This is really critical.

Many Thanks in advance.

Wikiklrsc 23:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletes

I am sorry. I have only come across "{{delete because}}" when trolling the code pages. Prior to that, and searching for the delete protocols, I had only come across the "delete" template. Given that you feel that my behaviour is inappropriate, I will, of course, cease-and-desist from proposing deletions forthwith. Simon Cursitor 11:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that – I'll supply a reason in future. BTW Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion states that {{d}} or {{db|Reason}} may be used:

"Non-admins can ask for an admin to delete such a page … by adding either a {{delete}} or {{deletebecause|Reason}} header."

Perhaps Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion should be updated to state that only {{db|Reason}} must be used. --Bruce1ee (Talk) 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Benoît hasty speedy

You are correct. I saw the four word Newpage and rushed to judgment. Had I followed the link or reviewed this user's contributions I wouldn't have been so speedy to speedy. Also, I (almost) always use {{db}} so, double fault on this one. Thanks for fixing it up and for calling it to my attention. hydnjo talk 20:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on searching

Searching

"I've added another note anonymously on the help desk. Basically, some things are delayed more than we want to. Updating indexes requires some manual actions on the part of developers, I believe and I'm not sure how often it's done. You could try searching Wikipedia using Google or Yahoo! - they usually update sooner. But I wouldn't worry about this. It may take some time, but eventually your article is gonna be found. with a "search" query too. Can you find it using WikiWax (http://www.wikiwax.com)? - Mgm|(talk) 08:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)"

Thanks for your kind response. I did try to look the articles up on WikiWax, as you suggested, but they didn't show up. The article is linked to an existing known and indexed article. Using Google doesn't find the entry on Wikipedia. Is there some way else you meant? Thanks for your help. Any further ideas would be appreciated! I hadn't expected the article not to be indexed after nearly five days! It appears to be in the right namespace. BTW, I am not sure how to send messages in Wiki, so pardon the re-posting here. Wikiklrsc 20:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) (talk)

"You might not know how to post messages in wikipedia, but that last one reached me fine. I think your best shot is asking one of the developers why it's so slow. - Mgm|(talk) 20:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)"

Again, many thanks. One just chooses a random developer? BTW, has it been your experience that it takes so long to update the indexes? Nearly five days and counting? Wikiklrsc 21:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Talk)

[edit] response from Japan?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Antarctic_krill

did you see who gave the picture of the day? take care Uwe Kils 23:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gmail screenshot

Do you mind if this image is deleted ? -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 12:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the image and added a note in reference desk. -- Sundar 12:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Did you know

Are you done yet? Can this be unprotected? Lupo 08:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NavBoxes

I'm sorry, but I don't quite see the point in asking on a template talk page if it should be deleted, before TFD'ing it. I've actually done this some time in the past. But first, nobody much reads template talk pages. Second, if someone reads that talk page, it'd likely be someone who uses it, so he's going to argue against deleting it. And third, the discussion you're asking for is exactly what TFD is for.

However, I have noticed that consensus tends to like navboxes, so I would certainly think twice or thrice before proposing any such for deletion again. Yours, R adiant _>|< 10:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are of course right that those people should be notified. The question is, however, which people to notify (someone recently got angry at me because I nominated his favorite category for deletion, but of course I had no way of knowing that it was his favorite cat...) Notifying the creator of a template would be easy, but not relevant if it's an old template. Notifying recent editors sounds fair, but those are likely to have it on their watchlist in the first place. I suppose the best solution is checking whatlinkshere, following every link, and seeing whether the link actually means the template is added there and whether it was done recently, and if so, contact that user. But that's a lot of work and prone to mistakes. In other words I agree with you in principle but I don't really see a practical way about it. Suggestions welcome. R adiant _>|< 10:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Net Change Tools

Comment by AlMac

I hope my remarks are not inappropriate, or me trying to help solve a problem that has long since been resolved.

I think there is need for some software tools to assist with navigation, and of course other kinds of tools may have much higher priority to develop.

On the "What links here" options, we might like one that also has what links to what links to what links to ... in which we could key in some # to limit how many levels deep we want to see the linking info.

Along with each link, we might also want to see the date time stamp of the last time that was changed / updated and by whom.

The color coding of the links and the info might have an addition in this reality. Right now the link itself is

blue if it exists
red if proposed topic not yet populated

Perhaps some variation might be practical if the content is still a stub

but for the annotation of nested links, I was thinking something related to our browser keeping track of when was the last time we personally accessed some link ... has it changed since the last time we looked at it?

In software development, there is the concept of Net Changes = what all has changed in this software package between versions or over multiple versions, and instead of listing tens of thousands of source code tweaks, place the chart of changes in a format that is readable by non-technical people.

I think something similar needed when checking on changes to this Encyclopaedia.

You need to be able to put in some date range, such as date and time of some complaint about content, for a starting date, so as to limit what is shown in the linkages to only include what changes occurred after the complaint. AlMac 28 June 2005 22:00 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Spoiler-about

Radiant misunderstood and misstated the template's intended application. I've attempted to clarify this matter on both the templates for deletion page and the spoiler warning page, and I would sincerely appreciate it if you would reassess the template's validity. Thanks for your time! —Lifeisunfair 10:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for following up on this! —Lifeisunfair 12:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monofibre has been undeleted

Hi Mgm. Just to let you know, monofibre, an article you speedy deleted on 12:41, 22 Jun 2005 has been undeleted and placed on VfD here. --Death phoenix 17:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Rfmchat

[edit] Good job!

Hello! I just wanted to say good job on keeping an eye on VfD votes you've made. A lot of people vote immediately and then don't bother going back to see changes in the article- it's encouraging to see people take the time to follow up on their votes. --Scimitar 19:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gametalk

That was a previous article written by someone else. What's wrong with this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ud terrorist (talk • contribs)

[edit] recent help desk change

Hi - Just an FYI. The change you made to wikipedia:help desk (adding some usage instructions) added some sections with html h2 headers. At least with my browser and classic skin, this caused the section edit links to not edit the correct section. Just on a hunch, I changed the h2 headers to use == headers instead and this seems to have fixed the issue. This sounds to me like a mediawiki bug (I suppose I'll make sure this shows up on bugzilla), but thought I'd let you know in case you're wondering why the h2's were changed. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

There was already a bug report on this, see [1]. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ashley Penney

As you say, "blatant vanity" isn't a speedy deletion criterion. You might be interested to learn that I'm currently performing a study on a hypothetical speedy deletion criterion. Whilst the criterion is not "vanity" or "not asserting notability", it does appear so far (partway through the study) to qualify for speedy deletion many of the "vanity" articles that receive unanimous deletion consensus on VFD (whilst also safely excluding those that end up as a keep consensus). This article would qualify for speedy deletion under the criterion, for example. User:Uncle G/Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Unsourced biographies. See the talk page for the study in progress. Uncle G 10:31, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)