User talk:Tmangray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Tmangray, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use Discussion Pages Please

Unless you feel it's absolutely necessary, please post your comments on the topic discussion pages rather than here. Thank you. Tmangray

[edit] Invitation

I've seen your edits to articles related to the Bay Area, such as Berkeley, California, so I was wondering if you'd like to join WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area. It's a WikiProject that focuses on improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Bay Area. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading! — Emiellaiendiay 08:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hi, Tmangray, and welcome to WikiProject
San Francisco Bay Area!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the Bay Area. Here are some points that may be helpful:

  • Our main aim is to help improve Bay Area-related articles, so if people ask for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
  • Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page. It is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
  • The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, which you are welcome to participate.
  • Our system for improving lower-quality articles is Jumpaclass. If you'll be editing stub, start, or B-class articles, consider using Jumpaclass to track your progress.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign Bay Area topics.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project.
P.S. Right now we're focusing on tagging everything Bay Area-related. You can pitch in by adding {{SFBAProject | class=}} to the top of talk pages of articles. Click here if you need more information on assessing articles. Thanks!
— Emiellaiendiay 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorized articles

Please be aware that putting a stub marker on an article, as you did with Bomb (meteorology), isn't good enough - please put in an actual category. Stub categories are Wikipedia maintenance categories, not subject categories. Eli Falk 17:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment as I did in fact categorize the article. Perhaps you jumped the gun while I was still starting the entry. Tmangray 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So it would seem. The categorization there now is fine. Eli Falk 09:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jumpaclass

This is an invitation to use WP:BAY's Jumpaclass option for improving articles. If you're working on any Bay Area-related stub, start, or B-class articles, simply add their names to the list, and if any of the articles improve a class within a week, you'll be recognized for your contributions. Thanks for reading! — Emiellaiendiay 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gossypium

Species of Gossypium - move to non-commercial species---unless I'm wrong

Your not, I was. Thanks for picking that up. I was rushing, which is no excuse. Regards Fred 13:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

This is the only warning you will receive. The next time you make unilateral page moves against consensus, you will be blocked. There is and has been consensus to leave the titles as they are. --Coredesat 04:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? There hasn't been any discussion for a year, and what there is minimal, and false. And who the hell are you to be making warnings? Tmangray 04:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The information is not false, and be civil. The National Hurricane Center (the official RSMC for the Eastern Pacific basin), and likewise the wikiproject refers to all storms that were ever at hurricane strength as hurricanes, whether they were hurricanes at landfall or not, because classification depends only on peak intensity. NHC best track data usually includes the dissipating phase of these storms, so if their remnants happen to pass over California, they are considered to have affected California even if they were not classified as anything at the time. If you still have a problem with it, take it up with the National Hurricane Center, but don't make unilateral decisions. --Coredesat 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The title information is false, which is a violation of several Wiki standards, which I'll be happy to cite if you insist. There are no California hurricanes. If this upsets some all-important category symmetry, so be it. Modify the categories, not the facts. Right now, the article's title is laughable. I've shown it to several NWS meteorologists and they think it's a hoot, and unfortunately, typical of too many articles on Wiki right now.
And please, spare me the cry for "civility" in view of the tone of your "warning". Civility is my norm, but back off. I'm more than happy and willing to keep to the substance of this issue of the title. Tmangray 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro to African contact theories section

Hello Tmangray, the intro to the African section on Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is not a statement of fact, but a description of what is used as a justification for the theories. I generally agree with your edits, but I think a more neutral tone (NPOV) is appropriate instead of authoritative dismissals. Yes, these are fringe theories accepted by virtually no serious scholars, but they should be presented neutrally, albeit stating that few people subscribe to them. You should have seen what some people have tried to add previously - the same stuff copied verbatim from Afrocentric websites, themselves poor rehashes of van Sertima's writings, full of spelling errors, wrong dates, places, endless examples of false cognates, etc. Over and over again (see the talk page and my contribution to it). I'm going to reintroduce that intro and perhaps reword it somewhat. I have tried to neutralize and Wikify that whole section, which is too long to begin with. Cheers, Twalls 06:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. Over the years, I've encountered this theory in various places, and every time I run down one of the claims, I find a glaring error, either deliberate or ignorant. I truly doubt every point of the claim, although I hope I leave at least a smidgen of an open mind for any new RELIABLE evidence. Tmangray 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hilbert Space

Tmangray, if you think you can knock sense into some heads regarding this article, I wish you the best of luck. I am so disgusted that I simply cannot bring myself to struggle with this any more. I've taken it off my watchlist, and will try to refrain from visiting for a while, lest I get drawn back into what is essentially a waste of my time and energy.
Thanks for your support.
Regards,
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a bigger issue than this one article. I understand your impatience. Been there, doing that. Tmangray 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I saw the size of the problem when I tried to follow some of the links people suggested as helpful for understanding Hilbert Space.
What irks me is that since I unwatched the cursèd thing, there's been no discussion or movement on the subject of the opening paragraph. Makes me feel as though they were just digging in their heels until the n00b got tired and went away.
Grar.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carrie Hoyt article

The Carrie Hoyt article is extremely unclear. Please give it immediate attention. Use the {{biography}} tag if you need assistance in formatting a biography. Fcsuper 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, hold your horses. I only just started the entry. Leaving that aside, what's unclear so far? Tmangray
I added a section header for now, and a stub tag. BTW, I did hold my horses by not tagging the article for deletion. :) Fcsuper 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding citations

Hi,

When adding citations like you did to peanut, if the article has a references or footnotes section, please use citation templates to make the formatting of references more uniform. Also, please place said templates within reference autoformatting rather than as an embedded link (i.e. rather than just

  • [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/vu-eeo062507.php] use
  • <ref>[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/vu-eeo062507.php]</ref>, or even better
  • <ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/vu-eeo062507.php | title = Earliest-known evidence of peanut, cotton and squash farming found | accessdate = 2007-06-29 | first = Tom D. | last = Dillehay }}</ref>

The ref tags means it will be turned into a footnote-style citation, while the citation template produces the following, irrespective of the order of piped text within the squiggly brackets:

These links might also be helpful: Citation templates and Reference generator Thanks, I've modified the citation you've added in the peanut article accordingly,

WLU 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berkeley

Are you going to fix the problem with the trivia section?

I didn't delete it; I just moved it to the talk page so it would be a useful resource for anyone who wanted to integrate the material properly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to do that without a consensus. And I'm not sure how to integrate the trivia items, nor whether it's even necessary. Tmangray 15:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The trivia section is a mess of disjointed random factoids. While including such a section may be appropriate as a temporary measure during the development of a new article, it has no place in a mature Wikipedia entry. You yourself placed the trivia tag on the section three months ago—no maintenance on it appears to have been done in the meantime.
There already exists a broad consensus that trivia sections should be eliminated from articles: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. In the Berkeley case, very little of that stuff should or even could be incorporated, but I didn't want to flat-out delete it in case someone did find something salvageable there. (In principle some of the political history – the Nuclear Free Zone, the first non-smoking U.S. city, etc. – might be worth retaining in prose rather than list form.) I moved the section to the talk page to give anyone who's interested in that material a kick in the pants to do something with it, and in the meantime to remove the incoherent mess from the main article. It's no more difficult to merge the content from the talk page than from the main article page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: The Village Pump discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A nontrivial matter of Trivia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't I who placed the tag. Regardless of ongoing discussions about trivia sections generally, they are nonetheless commonplace, which would seem to indicate that there is actually no settled consensus. Maybe we should continue this discussion on the discussion page for the article, hm? Tmangray 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that there is absolutely a consensus that trivia sections don't belong in mature articles. The problem is that there isn't any consensus on how to get rid of them. The fact that thousands of them exists indicates a maintenance problem. Right now I'm drafting something for WP:VP/P seeking some broader community suggestions on how to deal with these sorts of sprawling trivia sections.
If you've got some Berkeley-specific comments then that talk page would be appropriate. (Er, sorry about attributing the tag to you—based on your comments on the talk page describing the trivia problem, I assumed that you had also placed the tag.) But really, what's the problem with moving the section to the talk page? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

Hello Tmangray,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! --Darkwind (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of California hurricanes

I have speedily deleted the POV fork you created. If you attempt to disrupt Wikipedia again by creating articles such as List of California typhoons, you will be blocked for disruption. Time and again you've had the reasoning behind the article title explained to you, there is no excuse for this sort of behavior. Consider this your last warning. --Coredesat 01:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly dissent and request arbitration. The new article is not disruptive, nor is it inaccurate. I have not changed the article that was in contention. The added article adds content which is accurate and referenced. I strongly object to your own POV reasoning, and I find that it is itself disruptive and out of conformity with Wiki standards. You have no right to delete a new article offered in good faith, with no substantive grounds stated for the deletion. Your threats are also offensive and I request a review of that behavior as well. Tmangray 02:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's blatantly clear that you intended to be disruptive and push your POV by creating that article. I will tell you now that an ArbCom request over this would very likely be denied. --Coredesat 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I could say the same thing, with a greater factual basis. Name the POV. You can't. You are simply continuing the old debate about a separate article inappropriately. This is a new article. It does not interfere with the other article. So how is it disruptive? It contains facts which are referenced. You are harrassing me without justification, evident by your obvious monitoring which apparently extends beyond changes to the List of hurricanes article. I object and want redress. Tmangray 03:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The POV here is "there are no hurricanes in California". We've explained this to you and even showed you NHC sources. The list is featured, as well. If it's so important to you, address the issue that way, don't keep warring and being disruptive over it. When people tell you "no", constantly being snappy and incivil isn't going to make them change their minds. --Coredesat 03:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You are not addressing the action you just took by deleting the List of California typhoons article. The POV you refer to relates to the List of California hurricanes, which I have let go for the time being. So I ask you again, what is the POV you are claiming is involved with the List of California typhoons? It is not replicative of the List of California hurricanes article, nor does it change it with respect to its title. And I have not been uncivil nor snappy until you and perhaps one other started acting uncivil and snappy. In this instance, you have also overstepped by carrying on the debate over the other article into another article where it is inapplicable. Tmangray 03:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You wouldn't have made that article had the previous argument taken place. I read the discussion on Talk:List of California hurricanes - it's awfully hard to assume good faith given your blatant and flagrant incivility there. --Coredesat 05:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The incivility did not begin with me. As to the article on California typhoons, it was perfectly legitimate to create it as the current article's title precludes inclusion of such storms. It is the limitation your position in this has created, besides the absurdity of a title implying that California has hurricanes. Calling something that is in fact absurd, absurd is not incivility. But the best testimony of the absurdity of the article's title is the title itself. It is frankly hilarious. I let it stand, for lack of time and interest to contest, unless some others decide to take it on. Tmangray 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "To young" - not a verb

Hello, I saw your edit of Mantle plume of 10 November. Thanks for revising the text - I think it is now reads better. However, I thought you may be interested to learn that there is a verb "to young" - it is a genuine technical term used in structural geology, even if it hasn't found its way into the OED. GeoWriter 23:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I came across it again at another site---a geological site---so I'm inclined to accept that it is an accepted usage in geology. However, both of my fairly large dictionaries---probably archaic by now I guess---show no such usage. Perhaps it would be best to omit the usage in the article, since it fairly jumps out as strange for the average Wiki, non-geologist reader...OR, better yet, LINK it to an article or a Wiktionary entry which explains it. Tmangray 00:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Nevada geology discussion

I saw your comments, please see Talk:Sierra Nevada (U.S.). Thanks! hike395 03:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoodlum

If you've got some reliable sources, I'd suggest working on a draft of the article in a personal sandbox until you've got enough written to stand on its own. That way you don't have to worry about it being deleted again. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There was already a reliable source cited with the article. It was essentially a stub article. Tmangray 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Since it was transwikied and that you're probably not online, I propose to restore it in your userspace so you can work on it before the big show. To be honest, I have reservations on the possibilities of extension of this article. I userfied it to User:Tmangray/Hoodlum. Thanks for your help in improving WP! -- lucasbfr talk 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR listing for Plate tectonics

Plate tectonics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Berkeley High School

wikipedia doesn't allow linking to images like you are trying to do at the Berkeley High School article. Take a look at WP:IMAGE, that image can be uploaded here or preferably commons.wikimedia.org with a Public Domain license (per 1906 publication) and then used in the article. Zedla (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Wikipedia will miss out on a lot. Few contributors have the time to obtain copyright permission---if it can be had---to upload useful photos. The reasons given on the link make no sense to me. Oh well. Tmangray (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing my message, that image can be claimed as public domain (despite the UC page copyright) since it was first published before 1923. Template:Pd-us explains this position. Hot linking to media isn't allowed on wiki for any number of reasons not related to copyright status. Zedla (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
What are these mysterious unnamed reasons? Tmangray (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Slightly overspoke, but the reasons are outlined at WP:IMAGE. Zedla (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the reasons given make no sense to me, particularly with respect to public entity websites. Perhaps you might shed some further light. Tmangray (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:WELCOME or more specifically WP:COPYRIGHT. I just went and uploaded it myself and inserted in the article. Zedla (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at your edits I think the misunderstanding comes from your attempt to add the image to the external links section. This came to my attention because the article formatting appeared malformed. This isn't specifically prohibited, but the preferable practice is to upload and host the image on a wiki server instead of relying on external sites (image may move, etc) -- particularly media which easily clear copyright issues. I think some of this goes to the policy of wiki not being a collection of links (see WP:NOT#LINK). Another policy page is WP:Image use policy. If you still feel strongly about the policy situation you are always free to bring your concerns up at the village pump. Regards – Zedla (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rio Grande Rift webpage

I read your edits to the Rio Grande Rift webpage, and I have a few significant problems with them. The primary of which is your classification of the rift as a "failed rift valley" or aulacogen and of the area as being nearly tectonically quiescent. This information is out-of-date. While it is true that major rift-forming activities began 30-35 million years ago, the majority of the rift was created much later than that. The first phase of rift forming (late Oligocene to early Miocene) lasted 10-12 million years, but the majority of the rift valley length was created in the second phase of rift formation beginning about 17 million years ago (the mid-Miocene to Quaternary phase) and is continuing to occur present day. Modern scientific findings (especially those in the last ten years) with techniques such as geodetic measurement confirm that the rift is still in the process of formation. You even left some of this evidence in the page when talking about the youngest eruptions (1500 years ago, a blink in geologic time), but because of the beginning of the article, it seems as if the information is out of place. I imagine you read an outdated scientific paper and then included that information with what you found from other sources. In fact, the uplifting mentioned, the earthquakes, and other evidences (young fault scarps, hot spring mineral analysis, etc)and show that this area is FAR from seismically inactive, and whether or not the rift will become a "failed rift valley" will remain to be seen when the rift actually STOPS splitting. Until then, the term "aulacogen" is VERY misplaced. Scientists used to consider this term as appropriate for the Rio Grande Rift before modern GPS tracking methods confirmed it to be otherwise, supported by many other evidences. Please take the time to update the information on the page with what we currently know: that the area is still active, not a "aulacogen" (yet), and that there have even been rift-related seismic and volcanic activities during human times.Kinneytj (talk) 09:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitution in Pakistan

Per this query, I will like to explain you the fact. During the 1940s, Pakistani society was very conservative society and women from middle class and upper class families were generally not allowed to perform in public, singing or acting. It was considered that these jobs are for "bad women" and women from respected families should not be involved in these. Hence the performing arts industry faced difficulty in finding actresses. So they choose the prostitutes to perform as actress because there was no objection for a prostitute to become actress or singer. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help:Moving a page

Hi, I noticed that you renamed Longmenshan Mountains to Longmen Shan by cut and paste. Wikipedia's policy does not allow renaming a page by cut and paste. Please rename a page by move to restore the edit history. Please see Help:Moving a page for further information. Thank you for your attention. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary in this instance. I had just created the page myself and no on else had edited it. Tmangray (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your contribution

...to the Robot article. The statement about the early Westinghouse robots might be right, but I'm a bit skeptical, because no one has mentioned it before, and because that's not a reliable source. Can you do some poking around, please, and see if you can come up with a WP:Reliable source that covers that? Feel free to ask for assistance, I'll be happy to help. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)