Archives |
---|
2016 - Q4 • Q3 • Q2 • Q1 |
article created
Thanks for restoring my account! May I restore my contribution to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V603_Aquilae without the risk to be blocked again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maropapa (talk • contribs) 08:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I can see the problem in that many would not consider your site to be a reliable source by the standards of WP:RS - meaning no offence to you, just that some sort of peer-reviewed source or scientific publication is usually needed for such things. Where did you get the information from? If you got it from the existence of the coin itself, then I think there would be similar doubts that the coin constitutes a reliable source (anyone could mint a coin making any unsubstantiated claim they wish - but maybe it would be sufficient evidence that he at least claimed to have seen it?) I can understand when you say there aren't any better sources - but the case then is usually that information is not included until such sources are found. Perhaps the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN might help? Perhaps we might be able to say that Laskowski made the claim to have seen it, but that official accreditation was given to Cook (although we could not speculate why)? I'm really not sure - but I don't think we can unequivocally say that Laskowski saw it first based solely on the existence of the coin. I'll also ping @JamesBWatson: who commented on your unblock, to see if he has any thoughts (as mine are starting to ramble a little). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- For reference, the contested addition...
Seen for the first time on the night of 7 June 1918 by Zygmunt Laskowski, a Polish amateur astronomer, who issued a commemorative medal celebrating his own discovery.[1] His discovery might have been unknown or neglected to official authorities.
References
- ^ "Nova Aquilae 1918". Retrieved 24 April 2016.
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Maropapa: I have looked at your website, and it does not look to me as though it satisfies Wikipedia's standards as a source. However, I have found a reliable source for the claim that Zygmunt Laskowski was the first to see Nova Aquilae 1918, namely the Proceedings of Colloquium 98 of the International Astronomical Union, so I have put that statement back in. I don't see a better source for the statement that he issued a commemorative medal, but frankly, even if we had solid and unimpeachable sources, I am unconvinced that the fact that he chose to produce a vanity medal to commemorate his own discovery is significant enough information in relation to the nova to warrant being included in the article about it. It might or might not be significant enough in relation to Zygmunt Laskowski for inclusion in the article about him on Polish Wikipedia: that is a matter for Polish Wikipedia, not for us. (Incidentally, I don't see any source at all for the statement that Zygmunt Laskowski issued the medal himself: not even your site says that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent, nice piece of work! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson:Thanks guys for restoring my trust in Wikipedia. I really appreciate your work, as you helped to clarify this issue. I don't have access to the Proceedings you mentioned. If you don't mind I am going to reference it in my page also. To be honest it is hard to be a validated source of astronomical coins and medals if you are left alone with this work on the planet. If you want to be a validator, please don't hesitate to join to me. Do you think that the image of the medal, without a link to my pages, is also problematic? I ask it because for me it really a trouble that I don't fined medal images on Wikipedia. E.g. I have a medal depicting astronomer Janssen, but I cannot decide if it is a Janssen Prize, of a Janssen Medal. Both exist, both bears the same portrait but there are other information on the medal that makes it impossible for me to find the answer. An image would simly solve the problem.
- @Maropapa: I have looked at your website, and it does not look to me as though it satisfies Wikipedia's standards as a source. However, I have found a reliable source for the claim that Zygmunt Laskowski was the first to see Nova Aquilae 1918, namely the Proceedings of Colloquium 98 of the International Astronomical Union, so I have put that statement back in. I don't see a better source for the statement that he issued a commemorative medal, but frankly, even if we had solid and unimpeachable sources, I am unconvinced that the fact that he chose to produce a vanity medal to commemorate his own discovery is significant enough information in relation to the nova to warrant being included in the article about it. It might or might not be significant enough in relation to Zygmunt Laskowski for inclusion in the article about him on Polish Wikipedia: that is a matter for Polish Wikipedia, not for us. (Incidentally, I don't see any source at all for the statement that Zygmunt Laskowski issued the medal himself: not even your site says that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge
Osman Gazi Bridge is the new name of Izmit Bay Bridge. Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge is the name of the Third Bosporus Bridge. Thank you for renaming.--Ex13 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Also one article: Turkey’s new mammoth bridge named after founder of Ottoman Empire--Ex13 (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, I understand, thanks for the explanation - that's an impressive bridge! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:UAA
Hello and thank you for notifying me on my mistake.I will promise that it wont be repeated again.I think it was user created username in my life i had never known about that type of ip address.Sorry once again .Bivek bhattarai (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of IP talk page
Can you delete two IP talk pages User talk:123.136.106.97 and User talk:123.136.106.206? Thank you.Destiny Leo (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Spacecowboy420
Can you please point out which diffs you're considering edit warring because I'm not seeing it. Especially the part where User:RexxS is making the same type of personal attacks they claim an exemption for in WP:TPG here. Calling Spacecowboy420 a vandal is no different than saying RexxS is hounding. The exemption doesn't apply if RexxS is reverting one personal attack for another.--v/r - TP 18:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Hi TP.
- I saw this as editing warring in the wider context of animal cruelty (which is what I think we should be looking at) of Spacecowboy420's recent disputes. But, as always when it comes to my admin actions, if you think I am mistaken you are very welcome to revert my judgment as you see fit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't think I'd make the same call, but that edit does add a bit of clarity to your thoughts. I think it brings me from "wtf is he doing" to "okay, I guess, maybe". I'm still uncomfortable with it, but not enough to make a stink.--v/r - TP 19:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, and I appreciate your thoughts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd make the same call, but that edit does add a bit of clarity to your thoughts. I think it brings me from "wtf is he doing" to "okay, I guess, maybe". I'm still uncomfortable with it, but not enough to make a stink.--v/r - TP 19:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- {[ec}} TParis, I changed the talk page section title from "User:RexxS WP:HOUNDING" to "User:Spacecowboy420 WP:VANDAL" once to make a point and I've apologised for that. I then changed the title to "Removal of sourced material". User:Spacecowboy420 placed "User:RexxS WP:HOUNDING" into the title on three separate occasions [1], [2], [3], the last one even after I'd removed my pointy edit. Go on, take a look at it, and tell me that's not edit-warring to restore a personal attack. Now look at his edits at Rodeo and Eight Belles and tell me that edit-warring isn't his preferred means of imposing his POV on articles. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have since commented in a non-admin way and so I can take no further admin action, but I would think it hard for any disinterested observer to disagree with with RexxS's thoughts here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Obviously, I don't count as a "disinterested observer" and unsurprisingly, I really have some issues with the whole way this editing block was dealt with. I will explain myself here, rather than ANI (unless requested) as I would prefer a discrete discussion, rather than the general mud slinging that ANI has the possibility of providing.
-
-
-
-
-
- 1. Edit warring. The link you gave was to a revert that I made twice, within 48 hours. The other editor (Montanabw) made the same amount of reverts in a slightly shorter time period, but wasn't blocked. If my block was for edit warring, then don't the rules apply equally to all editors? And seriously, blocked for reverting twice in 48h and then taking it to the talk page, that's an extremely harsh response to two reverts.
-
-
-
-
-
- 2. Involving yourself in a non-admin way, and saying that you can't take further action. Intentionally or not, that's not a great way to deal with things. I appreciate the advice you gave on that particular content, but unless we are discussing that particular content, I see no reason for distancing yourself from this. I'm sure you're aware that admins are quite unlikely to overturn bans made by other admins unless there is something really really wrong.
-
-
-
-
-
- 3."Blocks should not be punitive" - I'd already stated that I just wanted to get away from those articles and wished to avoid those other editors, and I had taken it to the talk page, so I'm really not sure what point there was in blocking me, apart from appeasing a couple of long standing editors, which leads me to...
-
-
-
-
-
- 4. It's pretty obvious that all involved in the little drama last week, were making about as many reverts as each other to articles and talk pages, yet I'm the one hit with the block. I see no major difference between Montanabw's, RexxS' and my edits on the articles in question, the only difference in they have been here for years, while I have not.
-
-
-
-
-
- 5. There were other issues on ANI that were being discussed, it's hard to believe that the block for edit warring was not given, because a block regarding the alleged personal attack given in the talk page title, would have required a block to be given to the other editor, who did exactly the same. Again, new editor/old editor issues.
-
-
-
-
-
- 6. In short, while I'm sure the blocking admin acted in good faith, and does a great job here, blocking me for 2 reverts in 48 hours was really harsh, especially when other editors did exactly the same and their actions were ignored. I would like to request for the block to be removed from my block history, or a 10 second block with an edit summary explaining that the block was previous incorrect. (as has been done for editors in the past) either way, I will have no ill-feeling over this, and whatever the response to my above comments are, I have no intention of being involved in any further drama with the other involved editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hi, thanks for your thoughts - I appreciate them. My intention was to head off any possible escalation of what was looking a little heated, and it did look to me as if it was you who was not following the WP:BRD recommendations (only an essay, but it's pretty much used as standard practice), although I accept it might have been a little harsh. I'd have been happy to support an unblock on an indication that the issue would progress by discussion first. As for "Involving yourself in a non-admin way, and saying that you can't take further action. Intentionally or not, that's not a great way to deal with things", I did consider that and you may be right - but I honestly thought I could do better by looking at the actual content disagreement and offering my opinion, and I would have certainly have responded to an unblock request and could at least have recommended its acceptance. Anyway, the overall outcome seems reasonable now, and I thank you for your kind words in closing - please always feel free to contact me here if I can be of any help with anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- And thanks for your response, having my points considered and responded to is more than enough for me. Besides, I know that a lot of this was caused by my tendency to be stubborn, so I can't complain too much. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Thank You
Thanks for the correction to the ANI Close. It is much appreciated :)-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I do come over all pedantic from time to time ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for fast and kindly helping. If you need any help from me. Do not hesitate to contact. I glad to help if you need.
Best regards, Narong Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngernlarn (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
إليك وساما!
وسام الاجتهاد | |
tnx football 19:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
- I don't often get thanked for deleting pages, but thanks for the thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Mt St Patrick College Edit
Hi, I added the school mascot as Marc Lionnet and the headmaster as Paul Clohesy and the edit was removed. I did this while some other users were vandalizing the page, so i can see that it may have also been considered vandalism. However, my nephew goes to the school and i noticed that some information on the page was wrong so i changed it. Could i please change the mascot back to Marc Lionnet and the headmaster back to Mr. Paul Clohesy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbuHajaar (talk • contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not doubting your nephew's honesty, but so many school pupils have vandalized so many school articles with false claims (and "jokes") in the past that we really do need some sources of evidence - especially, as you can see, with this school article having attracted recent vandalism.
I see from the school's website that Paul Clohesy is indeed the headmaster, so I have added that back for you, with a reference (I've actually named him as "Principal" as that is the term the school uses).
I can see from here that Marc Lionnet is a member of staff, but I can find nothing to suggest he is the school "mascot". A school mascot is usually a fictional character and not a real person, so I'm really not sure I even understand the suggestion, and that's what made me think it was probably a schoolboy prank - are you sure your nephew understands what a mascot is? Also, a Google search for the word "mascot" on the school site finds no hits at all.
So, including Paul Clohesy as principal is fine (and, as I say, I have done it), but we can not include the unsupported claim that Marc Lionnet is the school mascot. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of Nonbusiness and Non business
@BDD:
I realize that both of you have deference to delete Neelix redirects, and I realize that the nominator declared it "nonsense", but the term was definitely not nonsense. Had the nominator put literally any effort at all in a Google search, he would've found plenty of reliable sources. Here are just a few off of Google Books: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and more
The redirects were not nonsense at all. While I personally believed a re-targetting to State income tax#Nonbusiness income was more appropriate due believing that the the latter is the primary topic, but nonprofit organization was a perfectly valid target. I have created new redirects to State income tax#Nonbusiness income to replace the old ones, but that being said, I bring this to your attention because "Nonbusiness organization" also exists and I'm afraid it will be speedily deleted as well if I didn't clear up the validity of the term. Feedback 23:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for letting me know. I've been deleting a number of these redirects of late, and I'm happy to accept that a few of them might be mistakes. Anyone is always welcome to revert my actions (in this case either by undeleting or by recreating), so thank you for doing that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)