User talk:Gwern/Archive/3

Question about Gai Daigoji edit

Hey there, I recently posted an edit to the "Gai Daigoji" page involving the band Gai Daigoji. This was the first time I've tried to edit on Wiki. I saw that you said "rv. no evidence band meets WP"MUSIC. myspace doesn't help..." I'm not sure what I did wrong and I was wondering if maybe you could explain so I could correct it. Thanks.

FNORD

Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up!24.176.20.60 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TINC. --Gwern (contribs) 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miyamoto Musashi

Hi Gwern, Thanks for undoing my edit. I had misread the sentence so I got it wrong. Fg2 10:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Many eyes and all that. --Gwern (contribs) 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with the Susan J. Napier article

Hello, I'm a Wikipedian from zh:. Recently I'm trying to do some improvements to the NGE article in zh. Long ago I knew the Napier article When the Machines Stop: Fantasy, Reality, and Terminal Identity in Neon Genesis Evangelion and Serial Experiments Lain. And I think a anime article really needs some critical POV, so Napier's article would be very helpful for improving the quality of the Chinese article, and I also value this very much. But I can't find the article anywhere with any online method. Finally, I find you have a scan copy. So could you please send me a copy? (sicaral-gmail-com) Of course I know the copyright issue. Thank you! Sicaral 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I did have a scan copy at one point, but I extracted everything I considered of value for the NGE article, and I *think* I deleted it (I am perpetually low on disk space). At least, I can't find it on my hard drive anywhere, Gmail searches turn up nothing, and the file upload service I used to send them to $yD! (talk · contribs) deleted the archive a long time ago. So I'm afraid you're going to have to hope SidiLemine held onto the PNGs; or you could ask FileHO! to undelete it (see [1]). If none of those work, see User:GunnarRene/Sources; GunnarRene apparently is claiming to have a copy. --Gwern (contribs) 15:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all the same. That... "GunnarRene is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia next fall." and there's no email address, OMG. So maybe I can only ask for SidiLemine. Sicaral 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Dan Weinreb

Hi. This is in reply to your comment on my edit of the Symbolics page. Yes, my change is "unsourced"; unfortunately I don't know of any "source" for this. The only written source I know of is Stallman's book, but that's his own account of what happened, and just because he found a publisher and wrote his version in a book does not make it true. The actual facts are that only 3 or 4 of the Symbolics founders were employed by the AI lab (4 if you count Dave Moon who was half-time). I don't know why the original author particularly referred to Richard and Marvin; if you count Marvin as a "hacker" then there were dozens of hackers who did not leave the AI lab. Symbolics's founders came from many different places, including Lawrence Livermore Labs, the IIASA in Vienna, the MIT Lab for Computer Science, Honeywell LISD, and so on. I'm sorry about the text not flowing -- I was trying to make as minimal an edit as I could that would be consistent with the facts, because I thought that would be appropriate Wikipedia etiquette. I'm very new at Wikipedia and regret if I have done anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielWeinreb (talk • contribs) 13:27, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I would be happy to go into more detail about exactly who the founders were and where they came from, to the best of my recollection, but I thought that would be too much information and would really not fit in the flow. If there were some way to do footnotes (probably there is, and I don't know it) I guess it might make sense to put in a footnote with an enumerated list of the founders. If I can remember them all. I actually think there were about 20 people who were considered "founders" in that they received founder stock, which was the criterion for the use of the word "founder" within Symbolics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielWeinreb (talk • contribs) 13:32, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly is a way to do footnotes - a number of ways, actually, although in that article I use the simplest, which is to insert <ref>Reference information</ref> wherever the footnote is warranted. Obviously the formatting can get more complex; for the loathsome details, see Wikipedia:Footnotes.

The list of founders would be a good idea for the Symbolics article, definitely. I never saw it mentioned, but did everyone who signed up at the start get founder stock?

As for Stallman; yes, just having published some stuff may not make his account any truer, and certainly not a few people have disputed his accounts - but the important thing is that his version is all down in black and white and so if one editor uses it as a source for statements in articles, other editors can check up on it and thus it is verifiable.

People violate stuff like verifiability and reliable sources all the time, sure, but standards have to be higher for people involved in articles - for obvious reasons. It may seem like an unfair burden, but take it from me, a few sessions editing articles on stuff like the Israeli-Palestinian thing, or Scientology-related articles (in my personal experience), or similarly contentious subjects, and all of a sudden hard-line interpretations of RS, V, and COI suddenly begin to look really really good; not to mention, just avoiding the appearance of COI and POV can be valuable, as all the recent new coverage stemming from the WikiScanner tool has taught us all. Anyway, this is all good stuff to keep in mind in the future. --Gwern (contribs) 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blank lines before stub templates

It's actually extremely common practice, for the simple reason that they tend to look like complete crap when rendered, if the template is smooshed into the foregoing text, navboxes, etc. On a more general note, wiki comments aren't an especially good substitute for talk pages. Alai 01:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's common, as I said. I've only rarely seen it. I just visited Special:Random about 20 times, and of the 5 stubbed articles, only 1 had a double line between the stub template and the categories/external links. And comments are a great way to draw attention to a single very specific point that doesn't really make sense as a entire talk page section. --Gwern (contribs) 01:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll have noticed that the other four looked like complete crap, I trust. Even taking your statistics at face value, 20% of the stupendously large number of articles with stub templates is an extremely common practice. And "great way" seems a very unlikely characterisation of your means of asking rhetorical questions -- I've had to start an "entire talk page section" to respond to it, in any event. Alai 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've had to start a talk page section because, instead of addressing my comment as I meant it to be - by providing some reason to believe that it is based on anything but the fiat of the few editors who have ever frequented that page, some source for why this ugly advice (yes, ugly. I've gone and looked at an example more closely, and I find it appears to have a ragged block of around 3 or 4 lines, and generally appears disconcerting, as opposed to the neater and more compact appearance of a single newline) is anything but a peculiarity, and having addressed the concern raised by the comment, removed it as taken care of - and you have instead begun to argue with me over the merits of it. I had intended to argue against it if no good reasons could be adduced for it, but based on the strength of your arguments (why yes, 20% is an extremely common practice - not) perhaps I should've assumed it was baseless to begin with and begun arguing on the talk page immediately. --Gwern (contribs) 02:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was I supposed to know how it was "meant" to be addressed? And how the heck would I have done that, without the allegedly terrible cost of a entire talk page section? Let me guess, this is supposed to be the equivalent of adding {{fact}} to guideline pages? I've not removed it as "addressed", I've removed it as "in a wholly inappropriate place". I don't follow why you assert it's "ugly advice", but I'd prefer ugly guidelines to ugly articles. (The actual substance of my point, which you don't address at all.) What has an example that doesn't follow the practice suggested in the guideline got to do with whether it's good practice or not? I don't see what weakness you've identified in my explanation: that you've summed it up entirely inaccurately is not at all helpful. I suggest you do take it to the guideline talk page; replying on your own talk page is a far from reliable way of having me see it. (Though I won't deny that that's a very common practice, too.) Alai 02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were supposed to know since that's what it asked - where the heck the sources were for this assertion. And yes, it was a nice version of fact. I don't like the overuse of fact and it didn't carry quite the meaning I wanted, so I didn't use it. The advice is ugly because it produces uglier pages.

As for what's weak in your statement, I'm not sure if you're being willfully obtuse, but I will say, yet again: the only argument you've made in favor of that part of the guideline, the only argument which doesn't bear on my own supposed sins in inserting a comment or whatever, is that it produces articles which to you seem to look a bit better (I don't include the specious 'oh but everybody does it' argument because it's demonstrably not true). Do you see the problem with this? --Gwern (contribs) 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are you an administrator? If you are, could you please delete the old version of: Image:SporadicAlbum.jpg please? --Victor (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I am not. You may want to visit WP:CSD. --Gwern (contribs) 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the O.C. Bible

I'm not sure about your ebooks but in both editions of the book that I have (ISBN: 0-441-17271-7 mass market paperback from 1990 and 0-441-00590-X hardcover from 1999) the scene between Paul and Reverend Mother Mohiam on roughly page 11 or 12 goes as follows:

"'Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind," Paul quoted. "Right out of the Butlerian Jihad and the Orange Catholic Bible," she said. "But what the O.C. Bible should've said is: 'Thou shalt not make a machine to counterfeit a human mind.'

I have read the book 11 times as well as all the sequels and the prequels other than Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune. I don't appreciate your condescension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppuccio (talk • contribs) 00:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then what about the appendix:

"JIHAD, BUTLERIAN: (see also Great Revolt) -- the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. Its chief commandment remains in the O.C. Bible as "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.""

Or Children of Dune:

" Mentats were necessary. The human-computer replaced the mechanical devices destroyed by the Butlerian Jihad. Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind! But Alia longed now for a compliant machine. They could not have suffered from Idaho's limitations. You could never distrust a machine."

--Gwern (contribs) 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eva plot summary

Thanks for letting me know about that, I'll need to keep up with that page. :-) Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP. --Gwern (contribs) 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How'd you find the SR S2 parodies on my user space?

I'm keeping it here until and if ever such a parodies page could be resurrected with adequate cites. It was previously deleted. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The magic of "What links here". --Gwern (contribs) 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay you've found some amazing things that way. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an astonishing number of NGE-related userboxen, and more Eva references across all sorts of articles I never conceived of. Plus: a lot of odd redirects. --Gwern (contribs) 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby

There is no point in writing bios on academics unless you indicate why they are important--at least with the current positions and major publications. I saved Simon Kirby from speedy deletion by adding this information, but it should have been there in the first place. It will need something more, however, it order to avoid deletion by some less drastic method like Afd. DGG (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was in a hurry at the time. You're right that the post was not up to my usual standards. --Gwern (contribs) 16:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did sign, but there was a coding error in SineBot, which has since been fixed. --Gwern (contribs) 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad in Ismailism

Tell me if my current edit is fine with you. Thanks. --Enzuru 18:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better than the previous ones. I have no problem with the text saying that the Nizari are pacifist now or that jihad has sometimes and increasingly so in modern times been interpreted as inner struggle; it's just the previous versions looked seriously unbalanced and POV to me. Ideally there'd be some cites for all of this, but the current version is workable. --Gwern (contribs) 19:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atala T

I am the arthor of both Atala T articles and im here to tell you that I have replied to the deletion page and Im requesting that you please look at what I have to say and reply to my talk page

--Muriness 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the reply. --Gwern (contribs) 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for Vsevolod Holubovych

Note that the mess of an article has been stubified and notability has been established. The nominator is withdrawing the AFD. Please review the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vsevolod Holubovych and considerif you wish to switch your !vote. Regards. -- Whpq 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gwern (contribs) 12:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Danger Ranger

, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Danger Ranger, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Danger Ranger is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Danger Ranger, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent DBZ AfDs

Sorry about that that, it was the first time I attempted to sort an AFD. (Duane543 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Live and learn. --Gwern (contribs) 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rikdo

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rikdo Koshi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. If a part of an article is not according to wikipedia standards, please help by improving it. But dont tag it as nonsense by adding some text, as that is regarded vandalism. Thank you :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excirial, I think you need some more experience before you go around reverting and slapping vandalism templates down... --Gwern (contribs) 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

Your edit seems to have done something unintended. Compare the previous version, where the indents work, with your version, where they don't. Can you fix this? Maybe just revert and readd your comment? Thanks, Picaroon (t) 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Alexandria

Replacing a dead link with a failed internet wayback machine dead link is "exceptionally lazy" as you would say. I've removed the section once again. Not only is there no source but the whole paragraph represents nothing but speculation "If the collect had survived to the early 700s." it did not so why have this in the article? ThanksRastov 05:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The Internet Archive link works perfectly fine for me; it loads and one gets a page, as one should. --Gwern (contribs) 14:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday it was hitting to a 404 from two different computers. Regardless the paragraph is without merit as it talks about where the collection would have gone had it not been destroyed. If it clearly says the Al-Azhar collection contains no alexandrian texts, then why is it included in the article "Library of Alexandria"?Rastov 19:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think such a statement is relevant? If A->B, then surely ~B is an interesting thing to know... --Gwern (contribs) 21:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the whole point is not A->B. Its A was destroyed, oh and B exists tooRastov 02:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. --Gwern (contribs) 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig and archives

If you are going to fix disambig links, please limit the namespace you are editing on so you don't run the risk of editing talk archives. -- Ned Scott 02:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archives need updating too! --Gwern (contribs) 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Wars

We seem to have forgotten about it after it was finished. I cleaned it up today and was wondering if you had any more suggestions before I submit it to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (or if you know of a better place to submit it). Nufy8 (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time. Offhand, one thing I think we didn't do too well on was consistency in naming - and I always wondered whether it was a good idea to have sigs. --Gwern (contribs) 02:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried removing the sigs but something about it just didn't look right. I think replacing the sigs with the character's name (e.g. --Lord Willy) would look best, but that would take a lot of work. Nufy8 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could do a search-and-replace of most sigs, which would only break the inconsistent ones anyway. --Gwern (contribs) 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lolcatese

Image:Lolcat2.jpg is hilarious, but I think the text could be made more 'lol'; like instead of reading, "I made you an article... but I deleted it", maybe "i writed u an article... but i deleted it"? --Gwern (contribs) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say to that is:

– Gurch 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I obviously must put that on my user page. But I notice the lolcat2 is still not changed... is my idea so risible? :( --Gwern (contribs) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done – Gurch 03:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better - I like the obese person's suggestion better than my own! --Gwern (contribs) 18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Captain Obvious

An article that you have been involved in editing, Captain Obvious, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Obvious (3rd nomination). Thank you. lk (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless

If you're going to call an edit of mine mindless, please wait until I redirect an article that clearly asserts notability. I fail to see how redirecting a bloated plot summary to section that adequately covers the topic is anything close to mindless. TTN (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are deleting content without the slightest effort to even vary your edit summaries, much less gather any consensus outside your own head. Your edits are destructive and repetitive, varying not in the slightest. Mindless seems to be perfectly appropriate, as you pay no mind to what others think. --Gwern (contribs) 16:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Monad transformer

Thanks. It's just a stub with one reference and one external link. Feel free to expand it! — greenrd (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever learn more than what you wrote, sure! --Gwern (contribs) 13:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re edit summary

Hi, I saw you fixed the link over at Talk:Dune (novel). Thanks for that. I'm confused about your edit summary though. What do you mean by 'fail'? Coldmachine^Talk 10:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in particular; it was just an easy fix. --Gwern (contribs) 13:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fuyutsuki

Hello.

Why did you remove the Fuyutsuki entry from Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline? Does a particular new book invalidate all the existing info giving his birth date as 9 April 1955?

Indeed there are some source that say the birthyear of Fuyutsuki is 1955, but the newest official book "THE ESSENTIAL EVANGELION CHRONICLE SIDE A" (ISBN 978-4789770187, We've Inc. & Sony Magazines Inc. Japan, 2007/10) declares the Fuyutsuki's age is unknown. Therefore we must not write the birth of Fuyutsuki in NGE's timetable.Rider of Midland (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuyutsuki was born in 1955 for an awfully long time after all.

No, it has been said on the GAINAX's official site that Fuyutsuki is elder about 10 years old than Gendo Ikari (48), but there had been no official data which showed the birthyear of Fuyutsuki by the publishment of "Evangelion Chronicle" in 2007. After that, "THE ESSENTIAL EVANGELION CHRONICLE SIDE A" reconfirms that Fuyutsuki's age is unknown. We should be subject to the Newest statements.Rider of Midland (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the manga article

I'm one of the folks working on upgrading the manga article. You mention wanting more pictures -- how I wish! But there are two formidable problems. One is copyright -- we need fair use rationales for all such images, and the number we can insert is sharply limited by Wiki procedures. Second is sheer size -- images suck up bandwidth like crazy, and the article is already long. If I had my way, I'd fill the whole article with pictures -- we're on the same wavelength about that! But I don't see how we can do it. In any event, thanks very much for your comments, and we will take them to heart as we continue to work on the article. Timothy Perper (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Xmonad

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Xmonad meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xmonad. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article.

Sorry, bad AFD link. Here's the right one. Catofax (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. Rest assured I shall respond as appropriate. --Gwern (contribs) 01:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your peer review comments on manga

One of your comments was that there was no section on shonen manga. We just added it, settling one of the major issues (to both of us, it seems). Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It's a nice section. --Gwern (contribs) 02:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Past-master-book-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Past-master-book-cover.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 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Botspam - Dealt With! --Gwern (contribs) 02:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manga Peer Review

Just to let you know that I've replied to the suggestions you made when you peer reviewed the manga article. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've looked at them, and don't really have anything further to say. If there's no room for more pictures, there's no room... --Gwern (contribs) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with images is related to what you've just seen, where User:Beyond silence put not only Wikipetan into the article but also another image. Then other people come along (have come along) and remove those images. And it goes round and round in circles. We've had a number of discussions on the talk page about what pictures to use, and consensus has been hard to come by. Personally -- I mean if it were up to me alone -- I'd plaster the article with dozens of images. I think we're on the same wavelength about that.

BTW, I put a reply on my talk page about your observations on the future of Wikipedia.

Timothy Perper (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually - I'm not thrilled with the image of Wikipetan either. I've always thought it was very ugly and reflective, at best, of a very modern and commercialized style, and certainly not the very first image someone should see. --Gwern (contribs) 17:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Haza-w/cactions.js

Thanks for the heads-up. As you might have noticed, I've only just returned to WP after a fairly prolonged absence, so I've completely forgotten everything about the script... hopefully I can get back into the flow of things!

Anyhow, the fix has been made. Thanks for noticing. haz (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Two less errors cluttering up my error console! --Gwern (contribs) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Finger tree

A tag has been placed on Finger tree, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gwern (contribs) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stupid Evil Overlord list entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Overlord_List

Look -- in the External links at the bottom, the first link is incorrectly attributed. LostCoastGaming.com is not Jack Butler's website and he has not asked permission to host that content with us. If you won't let me correct the entry, then I'd ask that you delete it to clear up the misattribution.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.48.207 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really think "(Copyrighted, but not created by Mr. Anspach, but on the whole a much better list than the one above)" was appropriate? --Gwern (contribs) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Locke

Re. your wikigroan on your talk page: This has since been done, but only because unnecessary commentary was removed from the Lost article (not due to expansion of the philosopher's article). I'm not sure that was your intent :) Ral315 (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not! I find this distressing. I shall keep that goal until Locke becomes bigger than the other at its vastest extent. --Gwern (contribs) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond E. Feist

Are you interested in the Raymond E. Feist series? Currently, there has been a new Wiki-project set up especially for anything to do with Raymond E. Feists' works and that includes characters, items, places, reces, etc, etc. If you are interested why not sign up at the members section at WP:RAY

Not particularly, but thanks for asking. --Gwern (contribs) 06:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Past-master-book-cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Past-master-book-cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ringworld / Orbitals

According to a ref in the Halo (megastructure)/Orbital (The Culture) articles, the Banks version is the inspiration for Halo. However, I won't revert your deletetion because it was simply the wrong place for that info anyway. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very surprised to hear that. I'm still a mite skeptical because it seems so unlikely, and the ref in 'Halo' doesn't seem very close to the writers, but... --Gwern (contribs) 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your issues, however you should realise that Banks is very popular as well.Ingolfson (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually still having trouble getting used to that idea, since I had always thought Banks was a good writer (I've read most of his Culture stuff) but Niven more popular. Goes to show... --Gwern (contribs) 15:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!

A million thank yous!

You added a little light to my day when you disambiguated all of those links, so here is a little light for you. - LA @ 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like the little ribbon to go along with this, let me know. :) - LA @ 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, 'sfine. --Gwern (contribs) 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gofer (software)

Oops, sorry about deleting those categories... the article was a bit confusing, it seemed like it was just an IDE. I guess the name of the article was also misleading -- Gofer (software) rather than Gofer (programming language).

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; the article sort of says it ('supporting a language based on version 1.2 of the Haskell report') but I'll admit that's hard to draw on. --Gwern (contribs) 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Xft

Hey,

You reverted a minor edit of mine on the Xft article, so before you do it again I thought I'd clarify that "free" and "free software" are not usually capitalised in proper English. 62.63.162.71 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they aren't, but I've always done it; useful for reducing the ambiguity. --Gwern (contribs) 16:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Skuld

You may be interested in the centralized discussion on the return of the main character pages for OMG located here: [3]. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also User_talk:Kyaa_the_Catlord#Redirect. Black Kite 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reading. --Gwern (contribs) 18:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skuld

I assume, therefore, that you are going to improve the article to meet notability and sourcing concerns? I am willing to give it a chance in that case. Black Kite 19:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I will, eventually. --Gwern (contribs) 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Essjay

His old userpage had several automated links which, if you access his userpage, IRC will automatically pop up.... nat.u toronto 20:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. I've visited Essjay's user page with a number of browsers, starting long before the scandal, and IRC links have never automatically popped up unless I clicked on them (just like for mailto:, nntp:, ftp:, http: links...).

Are you sure the problem is not a faulty client on your part? --Gwern (contribs) 03:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's not... nat.u toronto 04:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Cruel Fairytales

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cruel Fairytales, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruel Fairytales. Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour on Jim Bell

I was quite disappointed to notice your drive-by removal of an image from the Jim Bell article. There was a lengthy discussion underway on the article's talkpage on the issue, and it was inappropriate of you to unilaterally impose your own version without making an effort to reach consensus with other editors. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, not edit-warring; I urge you to self-revert and come join the discussion on the talkpage about how best to improve the article. Regards, Skomorokh 09:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most illuminating comment. Skomorokh 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my justifcation on the talk page. --Gwern (contribs) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search with Wikipedia

I am not sure to contact regarding this matter, but I saw that you are a pretty active wikipedian and so I thought I would ask. I am very tired of the crappy search engine that wikipedia uses. Is there not some way to mimic google's search where if you misspell something it asks you "Did you mean _____?" or displays close matches to what you are trying to say? If I am unsure how to spell something, it come back blank and then I search google, it finds what I mean, I click yes and then the wikipedia entry comes up on google. Is there anything that can be done?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.99.117 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were in such a fix, I would Google around with a 'search Wikipedia with Google' query; that should quickly turn up one of several possibilities. Personally, I would go with a Greasemonkey script. (But on the other hand, I wouldn't be doing that anyway, since I want to know when a search fails so I can create redirects.) --Gwern (contribs) 17:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

images from northwester.edu

I was doing something like this last night (instead of my homework!), and found my way to your userpage, where I was immediately interested by the words "you", "can", "help", "wget" and "upload.py", and the meaning imposed by their relative positions to each other. So, I hacked up a bash script before I went to bed, and I've got 105 of the 148 downloaded. From what testing I did, uploading them all's going to be a bear, especially since the one I tested couldn't really be optimized at all by optipng, so they're all going to be rather large. They should be showing up here, if you're interested. I'll probably need you to go through and give 'em licenses, since I don't know squat about the source. Cheers! Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With my upload speed of ~58 KB/S, it'll supposedly take about 45 mins just to upload the first 150MB file! Yeah! Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...though I got an upload size exceeded on the first image. I've have to play around with ImageMagick some. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you're helping out! I added that ToDo item back on my old computer; I would've done it then, but I had basically maxed out my drive space. Fortunately, my new one still has about 300 gigabytes left.

Anyway, as you've found out, there's a filesize limit. After asking in #wikimedia-commons, the thing to do is to convert those TIFFs to PNGs, and then compress them as much as possible. TIFFs compress well, so even if you can't handle the >600 megabyte maps, the others should fit in under the ~20 megabyte size limit. --Gwern (contribs) 00:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nice fellow over at the ref desk wrote a perl script to resize images down to a certain specified filesize, so I'm slowly going through them and resizing and uploading. However, I've gotten the first of the notices that there's no license specified, but I'm not really sure what I should put them as. If I give you a list of the images, will you tag them appropriately? Or even, just tell me what the licensing is so I can do it myself? Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 03:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and should I be uploading these to commons instead? Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 03:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons, yes, and the license is public domain by reason of age - according to the press releases about the African map collection like this one, they all date from centuries ago. The library cannot claim any copyrights because of the Corel case.

Anyway, I don't think you upload any lossy versions, but if you absolutely must, make sure you link back to the originals! --Gwern (contribs) 03:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I did a little research and asked a few people, and so I'm uploading them currently to commons with a PD license. I'll have to go through and move the ones I'd already upped. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 04:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal update

The 1.3.x version number is what I saw in the snapshot tar of the dev-repo. Thanks for correcting it :) --OMouse (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the snapshots are very up to date; Cabal is pretty active, so one needs to follow the darcs repos. Should be interesting when they finally resolve the parallel build and the link problems and can do a stable release (probably won't be in time for GHC 6.8.3 though). --Gwern (contribs) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

undo at Zui Quan

No reason given. I was mediating that for medcab a while back, but the discussion died. When you undo, can you please provide a summary of why? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide a summary why when he provides a summary, a summary why he's removing a perfectly fine reference. --Gwern (contribs) 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cordwainer Smith

<i>fmt</i> Oops, sorry. I've been writing HTML all day. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it. If I hadn't caught it, some bot would've. --Gwern (contribs) 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

requesting speedy-delete of typo Phule's compnay

A tag has been placed on Phule's compnay, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. I would encourage you to write a real article for Phule's company and/or create a redirect to Phule (character) if you think that is more appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Robert Asprin passed away a few days ago. I thought you might want to know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea! How terrible; now he cannot finish up Phule's Company or M.Y.T.H. :( --Gwern (contribs) 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator declined to delete the redirect, so I changed the redirect to Phule (character). In any case, the and the book both deserve at least stubs if not full articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but lazy as I am, I doubt I will be writing them anytime soon.

(And it is a perfectly plausible typo, as it is very easy to type in the wrong order - I made that typo searching, so I should know!) --Gwern (contribs) 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Abortion (murder)

I have commented. Although I wonder why all my redirects seem to be coming up for deletion... --Gwern (contribs) 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eva quote IP

Agreed; he did it once more after your revert. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How irksome. We shall have to deal with his vandalism suitably should he not stint his scissions. --Gwern (contribs) 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Gaemcube

I have nominated Gaemcube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Gamaecube

I have nominated Gamaecube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

Please don't edit User:RussBot subpages. It doesn't help to disambiguate links on a page that is specifically designed to list links to disambiguation pages. --Russ (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Gwern (contribs) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Center Saga

Hello, Gwern. You have new messages at Dravecky's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry

Sorry for the mistake that i have made Mimihitam (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Gaba Kawa

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gaba Kawa, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaba Kawa. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

You're being uncivil again. Tedickey (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better uncivil than reverting good edits. --Gwern (contribs) 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was a poor edit, but given your attitude, it's expected. Tedickey (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim all you like, but repeating what was just said, better, and through a quote will never make a good piece of text, and removing it will always be a good edit. --Gwern (contribs) 10:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Woźniak (researcher)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Piotr Woźniak (researcher), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Piotr Woźniak. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:RuriH.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:RuriH.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus poll on Rebuild of Eva 1.0

Folken keeps forcing his edits on the Rebuild of Eva 1.0 article and I keep reverting them to my version, and basically I feel that Folken is ordering us around even though he has no authority to do so because he is not an admin, and he didn't do much to help setting up these articles, only nitpicking on things we wrote. Be that as it may, I feel the only way to stop him from bullying us around is to make a formal vote at Talk:Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone#Summary length for consensus. Heck, vote against my position if you feel that is the proper course of action; the point is that Folken does not have the authority to single-handedly constantly be laying down decisions like this and such decisions should be made, I feel, with the support of the whole project. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Proofreaders verb

Re: recent change of verb in the Project Gutenberg article.

Interesting point. However, I have seen in the Distributed Proofreaders forums a number of times, variations on the idea that what is done there is more like transcription than proofreading.

For example here's a quote from [4]

"to be completely accurate, we don't proofread as much as we transcribe. Our job is to make as faithful a copy of the original, warts and all, for posterity. So what we are proofreading is the transcription to make sure it is faithful."

I find this definition of proofread:

v.tr. To read (copy or proof) in order to find errors and mark corrections.
v.intr. To read copy or proof for purposes of error detection and correction.

The usual idea there is that in proofreading, you are, using your own knowledge and experience of what is correct, making changes to a not-yet-final copy of a text. On the other hand, at distributed Proofreaders, the end-goal is to produce a digital transcription of a physical book, with the focus nearly always being "match the original page image."

I find a number of possible definition of the verb "transcribe"

1. To make a full written or typewritten copy of (dictated material, for example).
2. Computer Science To transfer (information) from one recording and storing system to another.
3. Music
- a. To adapt or arrange (a composition) for a voice or instrument other than the original.
- b. To translate (a composition) from one notational system to another.
- c. To reduce (live or recorded music) to notation.
4. To record, usually on tape, for broadcast at a later date.
5. Linguistics: To represent (speech sounds) by phonetic symbols.
6. To translate or transliterate.

Often, a key point there is movement from one media to another. This does seem apt for describing what is done at DP.

Ruzulo (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree. I've done a little work at DP myself, and most of the texts are transcribed by the computer - the scanner and then the OCR software takes the original medium (the physical book) and then spits out text files. That's the transcription right there, per definition 2. The CS definition is the right one to use for this sort of project. Then, when an actual human goes over the text comparing it to the scanned image, what they are doing is precisely what your proofreading definition says: they are doing it 'in order to find errors and mark corrections.' The software can't possibly do the proofreading step, as it's already created text files which are as accurate as it knows how to create. --Gwern (contribs) 17:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the overall purpose of DP is to produce a digital transcription of a book, and a proofreading segment is a part of that. What do you think? Ruzulo (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would require a little research into aspirations and method. I haven't done work at DP in a while, but as far as I can remember, the produced e-texts maybe aren't really transcriptions but new versions (correcting typos and errors in the original, omitting the illustrations and typography, and so on). --Gwern (contribs) 02:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of deletion discussions without archiving

Hello Gwern, I noticed that you removed two closed discussions from the animanga deletion sorting page earlier today. I would like to kindly ask that you refrain from simply removing closed discussions from this page in the future, without first archiving them to our deletion archive. I regularly archive closed discussions myself, so if you don't want to involve yourself in the archival process, you can just leave closed discussions on the page, and I should be along within a day (or two, on weekends) to archive them myself. Thanks in advance! —Dino guy 1000 17:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. My mistake. --Gwern (contribs) 17:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cactions bug

You're absolutely right; it was to do with the formatting of MediaWiki's global variables, which I had completely overlooked. It should now be fixed (Ctrl-F5 ought to do the trick). Many thanks for the report, and I hope that you continue to enjoy the tool! haz (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. --Gwern (contribs) 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shadowknight

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Shadowknight, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Terraxos (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not even looking for archive links"

I actually did look for archive links before commenting out the ref, and the particular search terms I used just didn't return the archive link that you were able to find. I'm just saying this to remind you not to assume that people are lazy morons when maybe they just didn't happen to go about the search in the same way you did. Best, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what ultra-clever search term I used? I went to archive.org - you know, the people who have been archiving websites since '96 - and I put in the the 2 URLs.

Yes, I know. It's really too much of me to expect people to use the Internet Archive for the purpose it's meant for. Why, no doubt most people haven't even heard of it, much less have the technical chops to go to archive.org and use the big search box in the middle of the page.

And it's foolish of me to expect people to know about the detailed, step-by-step instructions for handling dead links at guideline and policy pages like Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repairing dead links. It's a bad problem I have; this isn't the first time (or even the fifth) that this situation has occurred. I'll try to work on my unreasonable demands. --Gwern (contribs) 16:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mind Game Film Article...

And it mentions quite a lot the plot section -does-. Which ties into the other problem. If there is plot information so important as to be in the article, it should be -in- the plot section. Plus, all the characters are mentioned in the plot section as well. Lots42 (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my rewrite will address your issues. It bore out my belief - the summary omitted quite a bit of data. --Gwern (contribs) 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell function

Haskell function is right, according to lecturer RL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.252.234.45 (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the recent edits to Haskell such as this.

Your lecturer is wrong. I'm not too shabby a Haskell programmer myself, and let me tell you: the given example is three kinds of wrong and got beaten with the fail stick. I can't even figure out what this example is trying to do!

Let's start with the typesig: 'Int -> Int -> Bool'. Our mystery function takes 2 numbers and does some sort of comparison. The obvious functionalities are 'first is greater than second, equal to second, or lesser than'. But none of those work! Because any Haskeller with an ounce of sanity would write the three functions along the lines of 'foo x y = x > y', 'foo x y = x == y' and 'foo x y = x < y', or perhaps they would treat the problem with the contempt it deserves and write pointless definitions such as 'foo = (==)'. Needless to say, none of these definitions or possible variants go anywhere near a guard construction.

So the type sig is hopeless, and the name 'isBool' is of as little help, as it is either mindnumbingly trivial, or just plain wrong. A 'isBool' function would have the type sig either of 'Bool -> Bool' in which case it is utterly trivial ('isBool = id'), or the type sig would be 'a -> Bool' which is a contradiction, it makes no sense in Haskell and is impossible.

Let's look at the function itself. First and most obviously, 'otherwise false' is wrong in two ways: the boolean literal is 'False', not 'false', and also it would have to be 'otherwise = False'. Secondly, there is no function body, no function name and list of arguments. Presumably what was meant would be 'isBool x | x = True'. This is broken in two ways: firstly, it is ill-typed as there is only 1 argument where the type specifies 2 arguments (partial application isn't even a remote possibility as a literal is being returned, not a function), and secondly it is incredibly stupid - the branch will only be followed if x is True, but if x is True then there was no reason to call isBool! See my earlier comment about triviality.

And I think that's enough. I'm actually pretty impressed at how much utter failure has been packed into 10 tokens there.

Oh, and it will be a cold day in Hell before I allow this 'function' into the article. --Gwern (contribs) 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.252.234.45 (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cogent reply, worth of an intellect of your class. --Gwern (contribs) 16:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monads

Sorry about not being a comment in the revert. I wrote one buut the embedded Firefox in my internet tablet ate it. The original lost comment said something like "keep commentary to the talk page".Diego (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary is perfectly appropriate in the article; that is what the comment markup exists for. It seems silly to me to start an entire talk page section over a single minor technical point. --Gwern (contribs) 19:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how is one supposed to reply? Diego (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One replies with action. If an appropriate resolution of the raised issue is adding a ref, one adds a ref. If the best solution is removing the commented-upon text, one does that. If the existing material is best left alone, for subtle reasons not apparent to a passing editor, one removes the comment and adds a comment explaining why for future editors. And so on. It's not that hard. --Gwern (contribs) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting section links to red-links?

I replaced the red-links with section links. Do you believe that section links are worse than links to pages that have been deleted or merged into a section of a page? --AndrewTJ31 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a very rare page indeed where redirects to sections cannot be suffered to exist. There are many reasons it is better to link to [[Gehirn]] than to [[List of Neon Genesis Evangelion...#Gehirn|Gehirn]]; the DRY principle is crucial in this context.

And they didn't need to be red-links. It is the work of a few seconds to make a satisfactory redirect. --Gwern (contribs) 03:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etheron, California listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Etheron, California. Since you had some involvement with the Etheron, California redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). meco (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Gwern (contribs) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting prod for Awesome (window manager)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Awesome (window manager), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Yes, I assure you I'm familiar with the PROD process.

I'm still not sure exactly what you're looking for. As I (and a number of other people) said in the talk page after you marked the article as non-notable, either all window managers are notable or none are. With the exception of the glitz of compiz/beryl, none of them have the amount of formal mention that you seem to be looking for. If you want to delete all of the window manager articles from Wikipedia, I guess you could try, although that seems like a markedly non-constructive use of your time. But singling out one? I don't think so. --Roguelazer (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree. I think there are plenty of ways in which window managers are not an 'all-or-nothing' proposition. In no other area of WP are articles all-or-nothing (we have articles on Luke Skywalker etc without articles on Vetter Piin or Docking Bay 18; and so on for every other subject area). Why then are window managers so special?

There are plenty of ways we can distinguish window managers. Desktop Window Manager is notable because as the default Vista WM, it is used by millions, and it is no exaggeration to say that it will ultimately be used by hundreds of millions (and perhaps billions) or people. 9wm and larswm are notable for pioneering the modern automatic tiling paradigm; Ratpoison and Stumpwm are notable for being a divergence among tiling WMs and doing manual rather than tiling (as well as Stumpwm's unusual Common Lisp/interpreter design). KWin and Metacity are notable for much the same reason as Desktop Window Manager. Compiz and Beryl have at least three arguments, holding any numbers of firsts in compositing WMs, popularity, and being research vehicles. twm is the default X.org WM. The UWM (computing) WM is, as far as I can tell, the first X window manager. XMonad has a number of things related to being a research vehicle - being the first to use the zipper in window management, and so on.

You see? Is that so hard? Let's do it for Awesome. Let's see... ah, hm. It was the first window manager to use XCB? Er. Perhaps you can think of a better one.

As for your final argument about singling out - well, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists addresses that better than I could. --Gwern (contribs) 20:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rikdo Koshi

You're missing my point entirely. This is the only article in the category, and the character list is the only other article that fits within it. That makes the category pointless and redundant. TTN (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I did miss your point then. In that case I have no object to removing and deleting that category, especially as Rikdo is already in the character list. --Gwern (contribs) 21:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added and updated your page User:Gwern/Nix Package Manager

I added a piece to the User:Gwern/Nix Package Manager article. I updated the links in most cases to http://nixos.org. Please review the additions. please post comments by starting my talk page (Ricgal (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I also started a User talk on the page, to add my voice in support of notability of the article. (Ricgal (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Cool; thanks for the updates. Nix is an interesting topic, and one of the things I've been meaning to get around to doing - the problem is a good article would take quite a bit of time to do. Such an article would need to cover:

Nix the distribution
The garbage-collection analogy to file systems
The Nix language
The package manager, its hash paths, and how it emulates a conventional Linux system
- and its advantages/disadvantages compared to other '2nd generation' package managers like [[Zero Install]

This is all available in the theses and papers and websites, but someone needs to read them carefully, taking notes, and putting it all together. I kind of lack time right now, alas. --Gwern (contribs) 03:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest creating stub "NixOS" and "Nix package manager" (note capitalization) using your current text. I believe the notability of Nix and NixOS is now established. If you don't have time, I'll be happy to do this. — HowardBGolden (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. --Gwern (contribs) 14:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Combo (computer and video games)

OMG edits

like anyone honestly cares about OMG lol?!?!?! who cares about OMG?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagobearz (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did, apparently. --Gwern (contribs) 04:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

Can't tell if it's misintentioned ignorance, or if Yusef al-Ayeri is supposed to be the same person as Karim el-Mejjati, but I can't understand your addition of an external link about KeM to an article about a seemingly-unrelated person. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cite for al-Ayeri being head in Saudi Arabia. --Gwern (contribs) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Library images

Ah, I had forgotten about that completely. All of whatever I had is long gone, but perhaps this weekend I'll take a look at this and throw some sort of script on my server for it to chug away at. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 08:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No rush - it's not like the library server is going away anytime soon. And IIRC, a number of those images would still be over Commons' limit. So it might make sense to just wait until we can do a proper job of it. --Gwern (contribs) 22:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC you participated in is being discussed

Laws are like Sausages Ikip (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ...

... for catching my error at Zeno of Elea. Paul August ☎ 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NP. I was sure that was just an error from how the introduction was written. --Gwern (contribs) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack King (NASA)

Thank you for the rename on Jack King (NASA). Can you explain the comment "are you kidding?" TJRC (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see how the original name violated guidelines, and was horrible in at least 3 distinct ways, then I can't really explain it to you. --Gwern (contribs) 02:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't realize you valued your incivility over education. I guess since you're not willing to explain, I won't know not to make the mistake in the future. Thanks for nothing. TJRC (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Terrence Webster-Doyle

Someone has nominated Terrence Webster-Doyle, an article that you created, for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrence Webster-Doyle. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Richard Hock (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Jedi Purge and Order 66

Best Gwern, the Great Jedi Purge is not self Order 66, Order 66 was but a part of the Great Jedi Purge. Tim Auke Kools (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this would be in regard to...? --Gwern (contribs) 20:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little something for you...

		The Lonely Geek Barnstar
		This barnstar is in honor of your depressing, unloved presence on IRC on Valentine's Day, 2009. Roses and kisses work for some, but you, noble Wikipedian, have important things to discuss on the internet with people you barely know who you'll probably never meet. Here's to you! FlyingToaster 20:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Th- thanks? --Gwern (contribs) 23:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but chuckle at this (and then die a little inside as I realize it describes me, too (except for the IRC part)). =/ 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 01:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were one of us when I noticed you correctly nested your parentheses. --Gwern (contribs) 02:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can't stand incorrectly nested (or worse, unclosed) parenthetical thoughts... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 08:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixing" links in old archived deletion discussions

Is it really necessary to modify links in old archived deletion discussions, as you did here? It seems counterproductive, in that you could be changing the meaning of someone's comments by making it appear that someone linked to something different than what they intended. What purpose is served by this change? Wouldn't it make more sense to obey the note at the top of the page in big red letters, "Please do not modify it"? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I'm not, unless you can show an example where someone meant the obscure item from a nigh-forgotten American show and not the web site that Wikipedians use routinely in deletion discussions. It serves to link people where they meant, and to reduce the number of ambiguous links. And not really. --Gwern (contribs) 18:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blub

Well done with the Blub edit on Paul Graham! I didn't realize the concept was so widely discussed. Binarybits (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Perhaps now you understand why I was a little irritated by your removals; Blub could practically be a stand-alone article! --Gwern (contribs) 02:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot updates?

I think you used to have a bot update pages such as Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Japan. Do you still do that, or do you know which bots do this? Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'fraid it wasn't me; I have no idea! I'd check the history to see if that'd do the trick. --Gwern (contribs) 14:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault

Hello (Marudubshinki) Gwern,
I am the user 87.6.52.181: Piero on Italian Wikipedia (total edits: 4146; first edit: 2004).
Today (4 April 2009) in my work I have consulted your Wiki (which I admire) and I saw that you have done [5].
It is not my work.
My IP address changes every time I connect to the Internet (dynamic IP address). For example:

87.10.55.202 in 29 November 2007
82.58.25.74 in 13 January 2008
82.58.22.110 in 14 June 2008

Sorry for my English very poor...
Sincerely
Piero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.52.181 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Ok. --Gwern (contribs) 13:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome (window manager)

I have expanded the original article, dug up some new references, and corrected some of the errors. I have also taken the liberty of removing the stub template and replacing it with expand template with a short TODO list of topics that need (more) coverage on the talk page. I hope that the page is now able to stand on its own feet. --Foxbunny (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the talk. --Gwern (contribs) 22:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the crossbow

I like the new material, but would prefer if I had opinions from more scholars. Can you help? Wandalstouring (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry. I was just going through Needham, is all. --Gwern (contribs) 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday of David Weber

Please visit Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Weber. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for providing an alternative point of view related to B. Herbert books

Thank you for providing an alternative point of view related to B. Herbert books. I had sometime the feeling that wikipedia articles related to his contribution to the Dune saga were just commercial advertisement. Nobody seems to wrote about the deep difference of writing style, the change of main story frame, the lower language level/style, the strange similarities with the star wars saga etc (compared to his father job). Thank you a lot for giving a deeply different point of view and avoiding wikipedia becoming just a simple boring equivalent of amazon... :) Oc.Gal. (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done that much w/r/t the terrible duo's stuff; I really try to stick to Frank's work. Better sources, and it's what's worth spending time on. (Not to mention, Willbyr deserves as much credit as I.) --Gwern (contribs) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free Haskell software

Hey, is there a reason why you've moved Category:Free software programmed in Haskell to Category:Free Haskell software? I could not find any discussion on this move. It is now the only programming language that is named differently in Category:Free software by programming language. If there's no reason to deviate from the other category names, could you move it back to Category:Free software programmed in Haskell? Simeon (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's there because 'programmed in' is an absurd category name. It is lengthy, unnecessary, and utterly unguessable. --Gwern (contribs) 23:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eratosthenes

Thanks for fixing it. I did leave most of the info. up deliberately so if someone spent time doing a search could find another version of the missing pdf document, but next time I will leave a ^{[dead link‍]} as well... Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NICE interface modification: We need more users!

Hello. I am one of the developers of the NICE tool and the related study's contact person. I hope you have been finding the modification helpful so far. We have been gathering users for a little over a month now, but we haven't gotten as many users as we had hoped. We'd appreciate it if you would share the NICE tool with any editors that might find it useful. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I've noticed what it does, actually. --Gwern (contribs) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should notice a change in the interface when you are undoing edits. Sometimes the change only happens when you are undoing the work of a certain class of editor. What browser/operating system are you using? I could ensure that we support it for you. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's just that 'think twice' message when reverting new users' edits? Then yes, I guess I noticed it. (I was expecting something more drastic, I'll admit.) --Gwern (contribs) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are seeing what you are supposed to now. Once we push out the full tool, the changes should make more sense. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

So have you created any more bots to cause trouble? 69.243.42.251 (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; my sinister wp-archivebot will trouble the sysadmins of webcitation.org for decades to come! --Gwern (contribs) 02:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars articles bounty

Hey, I'm pretty new to this bounty stuff, but I just saw this post. Is this still up for grabs? A couple of months ago I got Star Wars: Rogue Squadron promoted to FA. Would this qualify? --Torsodog^Talk 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would count, yes. --Gwern (contribs) 22:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that these bounties have expired? (Wikipedia:Bounty board - Revision as of 19:19, 15 Feb) I've archived them in Wikipedia:Bounty board/Expired and claimed bounties and removed the bounty notices from the GNU/FSF/EFF articles. Please help clean up anything I missed. Thank you. | Je mir (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're all expired as I said last year. --Gwern (contribs) 20:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full version of NICE to be released

Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.

The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finishing the survey! You have been moved to the full feature set. Don't forget to update your cache. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manga and anime of nge

i disagree with spliting the article of nge anime and manga. of course they would have different people owrking on the manga then on the anime but it still retains to the series. Also the manga has very low information and has practically the same information the anime has but a little more detailed.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very low information? Practically the same? Where would the bibliography go, the publishing history, the character differences, the list of chapters/plot summary (have you seen that article?) - where would all that go? If the manga article makes sense to merge in, every Eva article makes sense to merge in. --Gwern (contribs) 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY! now your thinking like a true contributor. But of course not everything should merge. just most of the articles out there. Like neon genesis evangelion spin offs and doujinshi and spin off games that hold no real importance to the series (Ayanami Raising Project • Shinji Ikari Raising Project • Iron Maiden (2nd) • Neon Genesis Evangelion • Shinji and Good Friends • Evangelion 2 • Battle Orchestra) should be removed and briefly mentioned. The movie should have it's own article since it holds nobility, but the manga deserves to be in the anime.

'like a true contributor'. No true Scotsman. Just going by numbers like edit count or tenure, I'm a hell of a lot more of a contributor than deletionists like you.

You make all sorts of broad claims. Why on earth would we delete the games and manga articles? If they were never part of the Eva franchise, they would still be notable for being games or manga; in some cases, they've made it all the way into English, which is rare even for major Japanese media.

And again, you've made no coherent argument that the manga belongs in the anime article. I've pointed out, here and elsewhere, several reasons that they are best separate; they are distinct works by different people (did Sadamoto write or storyboard Eva TV or the movies? NO, HE DID NOT. He was character designer, naught else.), they are most maintainable in this format, they both satisfy even the most stringent notability requirements (not every anime spawns a multi-billion dollar franchise; not every manga sells multiple millions over its decade or so run), etc. The most you can muster is 'the manga deserves to be in the anime'.

anyways publishing history? bibliography? it's nothing but simple wording. bibliography is just another way saying list of volumes without chapters. publishing history and critical success? basically reception with trivial information. these articles look like work of a fan. Some of the information is unnecessary. Look at the Rozen Maiden article and the Blood+ article. they are written in summary and dont take up most of the space over one plot or inspiration.

Mere wording? Indeed! Bibliography is critical to referencing, critical to 'where has it been published/where does it sell', basic information. Would one remove information like atomic weight or acidity or density from articles on elements? No, of course not; it may not interest one very much, but it is very important if one does need it (say, for an interlibrary loan).

Also: those 2 articles are terrible. Their plot sections read like advertisements and they say nothing about sources - both things which are the absolute most basic information one would expect in a didactic work. :Can you imagine Hamlet's article under the absurd regime you and others propose? '== Plot == \n Hamlet is a Danish prince, whose father has untimely died. With his recently returned friend Laertes and his stalwart sidekick Horatio, Hamlet must grapple with his uncle's usurpation and also deal with his feelings for Ophelia! == Inspiration == \n None, because covering the sources for Hamlet is OR and we wouldn't want to take up space for 'inspiration'. Now, let's read at tedious length about the awards Hamlet won and let's take up half the page with templates, templates, and more templates! And then a few assessments and wikiprojects and categories while we're at it.'

Also we should remove the neon genesis evanlion logo and add the DVD cover OR the manga first volume. Highly suggest manga first volume, since it was the first promotional item that released from the series (if we agree to merge the articles).

'now your thinking like a true contributor'. Of course, we did have manga covers at one point. I wonder whether I could count on your help against the fair use nazis were a cover re-uploaded... somehow I doubt it.

Now let's focus on the big problems, the anime article needs a lot of clean up. too much trivial information. We should re-summaries/delete Origin and production,Inspiration and symbolism, Psychology and psychoanalytic theory, Religion, Fiction and philosophy, Translation notes on the title, Further reading. I highly suggest we delete Further reading, Religion, and inspiration and symbolism and references to other media. the article itself is to give a brief explanation about the series (which has turned into separate articles), it's not suppose to explain every little theory, assumption and notes unless it affects the series itself. end of evangelion description is far too long. there's already a separate article so there's no need for a summary as long as the plot.

Why should we do any of that? We have references for much of that (except oh I forgot, they're not 'real' references), and they're very helpful for readers since that is what they are interested in. When I see the Evangelion article mentioned outside the echo-chamber of Wikipedia with editors like you dominating discourse, do you know what parts they cite as being most informative, most educational? Precisely the parts you want to delete wholesale (again, with no arguments other than a bald assertion that the articles isn't 'suppose to' do that. What are you basing this on, your extensive editing experience?).

And there's on other thing.....timeline of NGE? what is that suppose to be? just an article with a timeline? that shouldn't even exist in Wikipedia. Every summary, plot, description should be revised and summarized to 200-500 words.

I've long been ambivalent about the timeline article. The universe is pretty complex and the timeline is educational and helps the reader put the various dates and events together, but it can probably be merged into the franchise article with minimal loss.

this is what an article of anime/manga series should look like

-Series description name, when it was serialized, small description of the series.

-Plot

Setting
story

-characters

small description of the main characters

-Production

small description of the production and inspiration

-other media

anime
manga (if available)
spin off, side stories (if available)
games (if available)
soundtrack
remakes (if there are remakes)

-Reception

small description of reception

now for the side articles. Side articles to support the main article.

-list of 'title' chapters

an article showing the list of volumes and chapters

-list of 'title' episodes

an article showing the list of episodes (this already seems to be done so no worries here)

-list of 'title' characters

not really important since it is already made)

-Movie articles

article about a movie based off the main series. If the movie hit a certain reception and had obtain nobility, then it may be allowed to exist as a separate article but with a small description added in the main article (under 'other media')

Movies fundamentally have their own notability. Any of them 'obtain nobility [sic]'. We merged Death and Rebirth together because artistically they were one unit. But why would we put EoE anywhere? Or consolidate any of the Rebuild movies?

Any other article out there should not exist.

'because I say so'. Whatever.

[[[User:Bread Ninja|Bread Ninja]] (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont you have anything to say?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do; but that doesn't mean I have unlimited time to reply to you. --Gwern (contribs) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

now that's rude.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the reality of life, especially during the academic year. If you wanted editors to have unlimited time, you should've started all this during the summer. --Gwern (contribs) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

trust me, you had time. i can tell, you were on that day and you posted something. dont act like you werent ignoring. either way it's in the talk page.

Posted trivial things, things that take a second or two, things I ran into while researching or reading other things. And if that's you, BN, you might want to remember to log in... --Gwern (contribs) 16:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Justice

Hello, thanks for your message. With regards to the DP POV, I surpose it's a little bit far fetched, and with further thought I'd not have made the edit, but "appropriate" gives a slight justification for the DP, where ever small. Feel free to revert if you wish :P Kind regards, --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 16:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what pro-DP means, so I guess I'll just revert it... --Gwern (contribs) 16:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DP is an abreviation of Death penalty. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 17:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eva

No worries. :) To be a bit more clear about why I find Evangelion particularly tiring, I first watched Evangelion when I was far too young to appreciate it. It was sprung on me by my older brother, I was expecting something far more conventional and cheerful, and I retain an antipathy. I watched episodes 1 through 26 once, tried to read vol 1 of Angelic Days years later (and failed dismally), and I have not delved further into Evangelion's canon. However, I think that most of the Evangelion suite of articles are likely to be notable, if one can find the sources to prove that. Is there any particular reasoning why Fujie and Manabu Tsuribe meet WP:RS? Being able to prove that they do would help enormously. --Malkinann (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Angelic Days isn't all that great. You should've tried something more major like the movies or actual Eva manga, not stuff which is truly only licensed for the money they'll bring in.

As for Fujie - it's a published, real book, so I used it. I don't know about Tsuribe (did I add those?). --Gwern (contribs) 13:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you added Tsuribe or not, but I figured you might know more about him than me. Tsuribe doesn't look like he counts for a "reliable source", so that particular proposal, as I understand it, has been modified to removing the Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_(anime)#Fiction_and_philosophy section from "Existential themes of individuality..." to the end. --Malkinann (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before you get too cut-happy, keep in mind that a little digging will show you that Tsuribe's essay was originally published in Otaku Fanzine 10 (1999); and that it's been cited by, among others, http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue7/broderick_review.html which is the online copy of a paper published in Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context Issue 7, March 2002. --Gwern (contribs) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Is there anything else you know about Otaku Fanzine? If a case can be made for it like for Aestheticism, we're in like Flynn. ;) --Malkinann (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's a difficult name to search for.

I did find an entry in Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=nWBJNwAACAAJ which appears to be a cut-down copy of the WorldCat entry at http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/51831601 and I found another citation of OF in LexisNexis (I've emailed you a copy), in a legal article which cites a "History of Anime" article (the given URL is dead, but Internet Archive has it at http://web.archive.org/web/20021204224100/http://www.animedorks.com/history.html & I suspect the entire dead animedorks.com site has valuable info eg. look at an old homepage of it, http://web.archive.org/web/20010204194300/http://www.animedorks.com/). The legal article is "Like Holding a Bird: What the Prevalence of Fansubbing Can Teach Us About the Use of Strategic Selective Copyright Enforcement", by Sean Kirkpatrick, Spring, 2003 vol 21 Temple Environmental Law & Technology Journal J. 131. --Gwern (contribs) 15:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

davfs2

Hi Gwern, awhile back, you copy-edited the davfs2 article. It's now going through an AfD... If you have time could you help with the article? I did some of the latest work trying to improve it, but it may be insufficient to keep it around. Please help if you can/care. Thanks! --Mokhov (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't particularly care or have anything to add to that discussion. :) I don't even remember why I copyedited it (or that I did). FWIW, you have enough keep votes that it'll be kept unless a deletionist admin closes it. --Gwern (contribs) 11:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuild of Evangelion

Re these 2 edits: Well as far as I can make out, so far there are only two of them. Therefore, I don't think they would count as a "tetralogy", as the third and fourth don't yet exist. Also, as per WP:NCF, anything other that a "trilogy", should be referred to as a "series". Is there any reason why you need these to be called "tetralogy"? What's wrong with "series"? - good old plain english. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change the text slightly - hopefully this will keep us both happy. (although I really don't like using tetralogy but in this case it seems quite clear this is what is intended). Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also restructured the opening paragraph slightly, as it mentions future dates for films that were released in 2007. Think it's better now. Still not sure about the necessity for "tetralogy" though :) - Rob Sinden (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dislike 'series' because that sounds so indefinite. Inuyasha or Dragon Ball movies, these are series - just one movie after another, with no particular connection, done as profitable. It conveys a sense of haphazardness, that these individual works are connected only by historical accidents like their creators, or by being set in similar fictional universes, etc.

Rebuild, on the other hand, is guaranteed to finish out all 4 planned movies (since Eva is and always has been ridiculously popular/profitable), and I believe SNOW says that things that are essentially guaranteed are not considered covered under it. Further, the works form a relative artistic unity: they're going to cover the basic arcs of the TV anime and redo the ending again. Like Lord of the Rings, you'll be able to sit down and watch a full story arc, from the first time Shinji shows up to NERV to the aftermath of Third Impact (whatever that's like in this version). If 'tetralogy' is more accurate than 'series', why not use it? WP:NCF says "When trilogies are often referred to as such by outside sources, their articles may be titled Series name trilogy."; I believe my Google link (and Wikipedia's articles) show that 'tetralogy' is commonly used for Rebuild.

Now, using 'intention' inserts more uncertainty than is truly there. The tetralogy will be made. There's no doubt about that. But unless I've managed to convince you, I'm not going to object, since it's not that important. --Gwern (contribs) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1576682 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Willking1979 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption.

Request handled by: J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

As before, thanks.

3 Popes

Hi Gwern, see: Pope Leo XI; the little known Medicean Pope! Have a nice day. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPI Highlighting: custom colors

I've set up a test environment that should allow you to style the HAPPI edit pane in any way you want. I've set up an example in one of my alternat accounts. You'll have to do two things to give this a try:

Create User:Gwern/TruthinessWordPersistence.css and modify it for your own colors (see User:PermaNoob/TruthinessWordPersistence.css).
Switch the importScript() call for HAPPI from importScript("User:EpochFail/HAPPI.js") to importScript("User:EpochFail/HAPPI_test.js").

Once we get this feature worked out and I merge the change to HAPPI.js, I'll have you switch back to that version since I use the HAPPI_test.js for testing and I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate seeing my debugging while you are trying to edit. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to give it a try? Did it work for you? --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. I copied my CSS, so I don't really know what I would add to make that work. --Gwern (contribs) 17:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you copied the content from User:PermaNoob/TruthinessWordPersistence.css to User:Gwern/TruthinessWordPersistence.css, the highlighting pane would have a black background with yellow text and dark red highlighting. I couldn't really figure out a good way for the coloring to work with green as the default text color. I suggest giving that a try first and letting me know how it works out. If those colors won't work, I'd be happy to help you work out the CSS for new ones. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incremental reading

Thanks for the headsup, in either case, the content deserved to be removed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

List of mission to Hamburg

Hi Gwern, I've expanded the intro of List of diplomatic missions in Hamburg as you suggested here. Maybe you can have a 2nd look? Cheers. Sebastian scha. (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I mentioned the port (and added a nice colored big world map). Cheers. Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very nice! --Gwern (contribs) 21:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's me again. Do you think the list is okay to go at FAL now? Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't tell you. I have no idea what the madmen at FAL or FA demand; I just review the article as it looks good or bad to me. Maybe if you offered them the head of Willy the mail boy? --Gwern (contribs) 20:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku Fanzine

Otaku Fanzine's credentials are again being questioned by Bread-Ninja over here - did you ever end up finding anything more about Otaku Fanzine cited as a source? I may have to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard soon to determine if the Tsuribe article can be used as a source for the "fiction and philosophy" segment of the article. --Malkinann (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should. I've been reading through the back archives of OF, and while Tsuribe's essay (http://web.archive.org/web/20020816071942/http://www.animedorks.com/issues/10/evae.html) is so far the most useful thing there, there's also http://web.archive.org/web/20020816072841/www.animedorks.com/issues/10/evadvds.html which claims "This is a story told to me by numerous unrelated people and that I've seen a couple of times on the web. It could easily just be hearsay, or just be partly true, but it does sound a lot like how both ADV and Gainax do business. So take it as a "rumor" and have your grain of salt ready. You see, a looooong time ago, when ADV brought the final translations and dubs of the first EVA tapes to Gainax for final approval before duplication and distribution, Gainax was appauled! They heard the dub and did not like it. They ordered ADV to redo it, to which ADVision's people replied "Sorry, it has already shipped". Gainax has not been happy with them since and because of ADV's unwillingness to play by G's rules, we, the Gaijin Consumers, get screwed bigtime".

Curiously, someone on the Eva ML raised almost the same issue, that apparently Gainax had veto authority over the English translation: http://eva.onegeek.org/pipermail/evangelion/2009-October/004932.html Cited to a different fanzine; but worth including if true. --Gwern (contribs) 03:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gion Shōja

A tag has been placed on Gion Shōja, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hey just a tip I learned from the good people of wiki and to pass along to others, if you use ~~~~. at the end of your siggy, it is alot easier to do than to type it out straight. Good luck =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's even easier to use my 1337 knowledge of templates and MediaWiki to sign the same way, with just ~~~. --Gwern (contribs) 22:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chronology of Star Wars

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chronology of Star Wars.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination). Ikip (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice day!

Hello Gwern, HappyInGeneral (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikia

you appear to have Wikia thinking. maybe you should try contributing there aswell, or maybe you already due.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working on a Wikia has major disadvantages compared to working on Wikipedia; see http://community.haskell.org/~gwern/wiki/Wikipedia%20And%20Other%20Wikis.page

And if further proof were needed - which one? That I even have to ask shows that it's a bad idea. --Gwern (contribs) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: HAPPI issue on IE8

I looked into the issue you brought up. I still haven't figured it out yet, but you can see my comments on my talk page. --EPOCHFAIL^(talk|work) 22:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More replies on my talk. TL;DR is no solution yet, but I've bandaged it so at least editing won't be impossible in IE. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 00:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

Hello, Gwern. You have new messages at Allen4names's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Politics...

I've never read it, your interpretation sounds good. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did miss it!

User:Gwern/RETAKE. Black Kite 05:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwern

please be more civil. talking negative about a specific person even if the person isnt there, is rather uncivil. like i said, you have a tone of a fan. please try to keep yourself neutral as possible.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wherever you choose to be; there is no 'there' on Wikipedia. As ever, if you have complaints, you must be specific. Neutrality is an attribute of the content; from the first paragraph of WP:NPOV, emphasis added: 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view...' --Gwern (contribs) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey Gwern i finally found the WP: that actually supports most of what i have been saying this whole time. just wanting to let you know that WP:NPS discourages long overlength first sources and encourages to paraphrase. that includes quotes and the reference list. just so people dont think i'm simply going by WP:ILIKEIT Bread Ninja (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BN, I know of NPS. In fact, I knew of it well before your first comments mentioning it as a possible tool for you to use. You will note that besides being a guideline, it says to avoid including the entire source, to quote only fractions of a source. In all the NGE articles, never do I quote the entirety of a source - only fractions. NPS is perfectly satisfied. --Gwern (contribs) 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is that it asks about too long primary sources. even if they are cut up into pieces, it still equals alot more than it should. And this doesnt apply to just "quotes" either Still i also think WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies to what i talked about in th discussions.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can see any example of the Eva article reproducing primary sources in their entirety. By the way, I can't see how NPS would apply in any way to the list, since we're not even reproducing anything, it's already a summary, and it has even been condensed since we last discussed it.

Using WP:INDISCRIMINATE is just another way of saying "trivial" or "fancruft", and the problem remains: you failed to convince anyone that the content you're targetting would be indiscriminate/trivial/fancruft. There is a consensus, have the decency to respect it. If you don't like it, at least try to understand it instead of brushing it off.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's because i'm mainly talking to a baised bunch of fans. believing every piece of information is important no matter how unnecessarty it is. INDISCRIMINATE is basically supporting. i'm tired of you treat me like crap and i know you dont care. but honestly this is between two WP: people! you just don't but in! if you want to discuss it to bring it to mine! or aask someone permission to join!

Everyone has permission to talk on my talkpage. If I had an issue with Folken commenting here, depend upon it: he would be the first to know. --Gwern (contribs) 23:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INDISCRIMINATE talks about info even if they have reliable sources or verifiable. the list of posssible multiple itnerpretations can fall in plot, and maybe statistics depending on how it's viewed . WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a substitute. the information rather is unnecessary. I'm going to call it "fan-info" for now. small tiny pieces of info that really aren't necessary to be kept. even if they are all together in one list. it's just as trivial, not necessary in anyway. doesn't help, it confuses readers (if it confused me imagine first time readers) and it doesn't connect to the paragraph as well.

that's also a format most NGE articles are taking, in forms of list which is not the best choice. Keeping info for the sake of promoting each piece (which really isn't)

there are major problem with it and you know it. like i said in the past, it's either adding every single piece of religious reference ever to appear in NGE or none at all or use one as an example to represent all. Either way, info is not necessary. i know your a fan, and would like to keep as much as you like, so am i. but even i know when something is not necessary at all to be added or when there is.

yes, religious reference in general is significant to the story, but not every single one individually are more significant than the other. it is fancruft to believe one or a small group of them are more important than the others or to list the only few that have. that's why i said either all or none or one as an example to represent all. Also none of these religious references were confirmed within NGE universe. they are all someone's belief. while the creators denied it and said had multiple interpretations. the list also does not help with WP:NPOV

after that, it all went down to religion being significant in general so it must be ok to list in general. the main problem with contributors in NGE whether it's negative or not, is that no one is proposing enough, or when someone does, it's either support or deny, there's no room for adding a new ideas to move things alone. All of you just deny, or when there is support, hardly anything is done. for example when malkinann proposed all the game articles to be merged, was anything done? same for my other recent propositions. for now i wont use "fancruft" and use something much more specific like WP:LISTCRUFT which is far more specific and might be the sole problem with some NGE articles. for instance Neon Genesis Evangelion: Angelic Days which also falls in WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone Original Sound Track and of courseNeon Genesis Evangelion (anime) and by NGE anime i don't mean just the list of religious references although that is one of the issues.

Also the list itself is merely talkinga bout areas where people have made assumptions rather a list of religious references that were explained with in the animeBread Ninja (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NGE template edits, and a question

The template edits look good. *two thumbs up*

I wish I could get the left column to have less whitespace, and I was thinking of moving the portal link up into the title bar.

Say, just curious - have you paid any attention to the NGE material at TV Tropes? I've moved my attention to those pages, trying to keep them in as good a shape as I can information- and format-wise, but I'd appreciate some advice/info/error checking from someone else to see if there's anything truly erroneous or outrageous that needs to be corrected. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it once or twice (I try to avoid TvTropes). Was there anything specific? Personally, I'd remove the Springtime for Hitler theory; I've seen nothing supporting that (Gainax already had plenty of losses) and it seems likely a very warped telephone-game version of the tax evasion issues. Nor am I sure Mana really counts as an 'ascended extra', unless you want to see Mari=Mana. Fanfics aren't very important. Do we see enough of Mari to characterize her as a cloud cuckoolander? And... that's a really long page so I'm going to call it quits there. --Gwern (contribs) 17:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Hey there, hope you're going OK. I know it's been intensely frustrating on Evangelion lately, but you've been doing really well by finding all those references and by doing your best to keep your cool. Please take care of yourself. :) --Malkinann (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those links & references have been on my plate for weeks; I'm very glad to have them done.

As for BN, I've been trying to ignore her. The current 4-way spat between her & Folken & The Arbiter & the new would've-been adoptee is sort of a tertium gaudens situation for me, a much-needed breather. --Gwern (contribs) 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLCL Talk Page

I just wanted to let you know that your efforts there are appreciated by at least one person.
;-)<br. />--NBahn (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they get used, I'm happy. --Gwern (contribs) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NGE sources

Hosts? Where? The About part does not say anything. It also has various copyright infringements as people can download the Evangelion manga from the site. I already objected that there were unreliable sources being used in the article. However, users keep reverting removal of such info saying it is no good to blank. Besides, see WP:Civil before using words like "ass" in a comment.Tintor2 (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ass was referring to myself. Clearly.

And the manga is irrelevant. Not linking to copyvios is a guideline, and in any case, http://www.evamonkey.com/em_writings.php is not all copyvios and contains many RSs. Carl Horn, for example, knows about Evamonkey and has given his tacit consent (and maybe explicit consent, I'll ask him). --Gwern (contribs) 14:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still has infringements. Linking to websites with this content is against guidelines no matter how accurate it is.Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not policies. 'Infringement' is not an unquestionable mantra that shuts down all discussion as you seem to think. Come up with real arguments. --Gwern (contribs) 17:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a real argument. Just because the link shown in the article does not show the downloadable manga, it doesn't mean it's reliable. It's still a copyvio. By your idea, fansubbing sites can be used to reference articles as long as it doesn't link to a manga.Tintor2 (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the same logic, no link to YouTube is acceptable.

And perhaps your fansubbing example is good, but it lacks so much detail that I can't figure out what you mean by it unless it's just a general pejorative 'fansub = bad!'. (They don't, by the way. They are often superior to commercial products. The ZX fansub of EoE Renewal being the latest case in point.) --Gwern (contribs) 00:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that fansubbers are worse than commercial products or that they are just bad? The only notable difference I find is that fansubs are illegal. By the way, WP:Youtube explains that what is not allowed to link are user submitted videos. In the fansite case all the info and raws of the manga are all uploaded by the administrators of the site.Tintor2 (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What does your fansite have to do with Evamonkey? --Gwern (contribs) 03:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? Didn't I say that Evamonkey itself said it was a fansite? Well, I'll repeat it. Evamonkey is a fansite containing copyright infringements of the manga. That's why it shouldn't be used in wikipedia per WP:Copyvio.Tintor2 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I pointed out that most websites contain copyvios somewhere in them, and we still link to them.

And in particular, WP:Copyvio says nothing applicable; perhaps you meant Wikipedia:Copyrights, which says 'However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.' Now, explain exactly how linking to a directory on Evamonkey is linking to a 'copy of the work'. Is that page, which is a list of hyperlinks, copyrighted to someone besides Aaron Clark? Perhaps Hideaki Anno occasionally contributes to the English fandom, or Matt Greenfield has surreptitiously compiled that list? --Gwern (contribs) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio says that the use of images are okay. With the site you can illegally download the manga. When has Anno contributed to that? Do you have a proof?Tintor2 (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? The policy page says you cannot link directly to a copyvio. We were not linking directly to a copyvio.

Or are you complaining about the Asuka header in the site design? (If that really is all that your complaint is, then that is absurd, we are done here, and I'll see you in the revert history.) --Gwern (contribs) 14:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still the site has copyvio no matter the way you look at it (and it's pretty easy to find it). By the way, the administrator can easily add the links to the news section if they update it. Also, it may be accurate but all the info the site uses comes from other sources. Tintor2 (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty easy to find copyvios on YouTube too. (Also, I don't know what you mean by news section.) And all the info the Internet Archive uses comes from other sources; isn't that odd. --Gwern (contribs) 14:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Youtube states that official channels can be used as sources, but that's not the case with fansites.Tintor2 (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'channels' is a meaningless concept outside of YouTube. --Gwern (contribs) 22:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AI was referring to Youtube as that was your previous comment.Tintor2 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube as an example is relevant because it is a site we ought to link to often and which also hosts countless copyvios. Technical details about 'channels' are irrelevant. YouTube could be running Gopher for all it matters. --Gwern (contribs) 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinked date in you signature

Could you please remove the wikilinked date in your signature. It is causing problems with archive bots, such as MiszaBot, which do not recognize the wikilink date in your signature as a valid date. —Farix (t | c) 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the bots should be fixed... --Gwern (contribs) 01:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

When adding links to material on an external site, as you did to Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime), please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to say, Collectonian, say it. Do not feed me template junk. --Gwern (contribs) 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Stumpwm

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Stumpwm. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stumpwm. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sword of Justice

What other meaning? Currently Wikipedia has only two articles with this title: Sword of Justice and Sword of Justice (TV series). There don't seem to be any other meanings that Wikipedia has articles about. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the diff, you seemed to have removed a paragraph discussing 'Sword of Justice' used metaphorically. That's the meaning I was referring to. --Gwern (contribs) 15:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you mean now. Let's take this discussion to the article's talkpage. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. --Gwern (contribs) 15:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Komm, süsser Tod (song)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Komm, süsser Tod (song). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Komm, süsser Tod (song). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stumpwm

I have given you a copy of the deleted article at User:Gwern/Stumpwm. Feel free to improve to address deletion concerns and then move to mainspace, or merge sourced content to another article. Jehochman ^Brrr 10:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the undeletion, but that doesn't preserve the history and so it's a copyright infringement for it to exist, much less be edited & merged into another article. (The GFDL & CC are pretty clear about the need for history to be preserved.) You could perhaps undelete the original, move it over User:Gwern/Stumpwm and then repoint [[Stumpwm]] back to [[Ratpoison]]? --Gwern (contribs) 21:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eurisko's 1981 & 1982 national championship wins

Would it be okay to email you for those offered documents? Josh Parris 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant. Certainly can't upload them to Commons. --Gwern (contribs) 12:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Hewitt

Gwern, I'm at the Hewitt page as an admin, not an editor, and I'd appreciate it if you'd leave these tags off the talk page. Things have quietened down in the last few months, and I don't want to see them stirred up again, which seems to have been the purpose of the anon who restored the tags. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are the tags stirring things up? Talk pages are internal Wikipedia affairs; shouldn't people editing the page - either article or talk - be aware of everything that's happened in the past and that there are certain things that will bring your banhammer down on them? It's a bit odd to try to enforce the ruling while removing any mention of them from the talk page. --Gwern (contribs) 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, normally I'd agree so long as there were no BLP issues. The thing about this case is that the ArbCom case was used against the subject in a newspaper article, then various IP addresses and new accounts turned up to add details of it to the article's talk page. It was never clear whether the edits came from his supporters or opponents, but whoever was doing it was trying to cause trouble. Since we made it clear it wasn't welcome, the page has quietened down, and I wouldn't want to see it start up again. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused, then. If the disruptive editing was that people were adding things from a newspaper article, then what on earth purpose does removing talk page links to arcane internal Wikipedia procedures serve? It's not hiding Hewitt's article from anyone, it's not hiding the newspaper article, and so on. Even assuming some causal connection, if you don't even know what side those editors were on, then how do you deduce that such a removal will quiet them down and not rile them up? --Gwern (contribs) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beware that the IPs have been doing what Carl has been usually doing, pushing his research as "mainstream" at denotational semantics, logic programming etc. Several have been blocked by User:Sandstein at WP:AE. See [6] for an update. Pcap ping 19:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason that documentation on Hewitt's past activities & sanctions be easily findable, and not hidden away. --Gwern (contribs) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medici Bank

You know, there was really no need to move it. It was lower-cased because the topic discussed was not any particular legal corporation - none of the Medici branches was named just 'the Medici Bank' so far as I know - but rather a motly collection of shifting entities over the decades/centuries. So one can speak of the Medici bank but not the Medici Bank, if you follow me. eg. see the hits in Google books http://books.google.com/books?q=medici+bank&btnG=Search+Books . --Gwern (contribs) 20:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the Medici Bank may not have been a legally incorporated entity in the modern sense, many modern historians refer to it as a proper noun entity; indeed, many of the sources in the Google Books link you gave do capitalize "Medici Bank" (even in plain prose, outside book titles). Moreover, the majority of the text of the article itself capitalizes "Medici Bank"; the page title of the article should be consistent with the text within the article. —Lowellian (reply) 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first 3 caps are titles or publisher blurbs; the first 4 actual prose are lowercase, then a caps, then lower, then 2 caps, then 2 lowers, then a caps, then 7 lowers. And I also count far more lowercases in our article than upper, such as in the de Roover quotes.

But it's not important. If you like it better there, then I'll leave it be. --Gwern (contribs) 20:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop posting to my user talk page regarding your complaints about the AFD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Instrumentality Project. If you wish to contest the close, you may bring it to WP:DRV. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. --Gwern (contribs) 21:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree with your point, a redirect closes technically as a keep, not a delete. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Wikileaks, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

I've just added this article now, so the probation does not apply to any edits you may have made up to that point. --TS 22:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Game (film)

Re: [7], was there a third link that got left out, or should the duplicate just be removed? Thanks. (no reply needed, edit away :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no, you were right - obviously I messed up the copying. I've fixed it... --Gwern (contribs) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Gaiman

Gwern, please be aware that I believe Homolka (on the NG talk page) is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See WP:AN/I#Banned user returns?. You may wish to post a link to this on the NG talk page to let other editors know. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented. --Gwern (contribs) 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your e-mail as well... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. --Gwern (contribs) 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by saying that the Scientoogy comments were "not inflammatory", I didn't mean to imply that they ever had been; I had a teensy chuckle, given that there had been so many talk comments stating that "Neil Gaiman is not a scientologist" was in itself an inflammatory statement ;-) !!! cojoco (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Genesis Evangelion

A simple "don't do it" would have been sufficient. You didn't have to be such an asshole. Thanks! Have a great day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.84.185 (talk • contribs)

I did that the first time. Obviously it was insufficient. Being an 'asshole' is apparently the only way to deal with you. --Gwern (contribs) 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So rude. Well, I didn't get your "first time" message... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.84.185 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Gwern! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 140 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Piotr Woźniak (politician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Custom search engine

I think I can help by adding some more sources to it. Just need some instructions how to do so.陣内 _Jinnai 07:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://mailinator.com/maildir.jsp?email=jinnai&x=0&y=0

I would've emailed you, but you do not seem to have email enabled. Tsk tsk. --Gwern (contribs) 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement expanded

Thanks for the reasoned reply, which made me realize my initial explanation is inadequate. You may wish to consider my expansion/explanation at this MFD. I hope they help others understand my attempt to fit between the rock and the hard place. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moe examples

The way it was written, it seemed more like the characters used the term 'moe' in Maid-sama!, K-On, etc. etc. etc. The main one I'm familiar with, Maid-sama, has many otaku jokes, so it didn't seem too far-fetched. Thanks for sourcing the examples of series which include moe-inspiring characters, that's far more interesting. :) --Malkinann (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Re-reading it, the paragraph may have meant 'these are anime which explicitly discuss the term or use it'; certainly Lucky Star discusses it, and Haruhi uses it of Mikuru (?), and IIRC some Haruhi material had 'tsundere-meters' as well as moe-; but I don't remember the others using it.

Oh well. Those are hard to reference if you don't have the episodes handy. --Gwern (contribs) 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding?

Re Robin Hanson, [8] Nicely put. Unfortunately he seems serious. You might like to comment at [9], and/or [10]. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a remarkably stupid discussion. My only comfort is that on millions of Wikipedia articles, editors have, are, and will continue to make sensible inferences and true 'original research', rendering such peoples' efforts a grain of dust in the storm. --Gwern (contribs) 01:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Number of Angels

There's hardly any more or less evidence as to the number of Angels being intentional than just about any other religious symbol the series, and regardless of what other ideas were discussed or pursued in other iterations, we have to look at the fact that they ended up going with eighteen Angels, which IS a significant number. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out on the Evangelion pages that eighteen is a number of symbolic significance and let the reader draw their own conclusions, which is what I did. Gatotsu911 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a heck of a lot more sourcing for other aspects: the Gainax commentary specifically calls out Asuka's Jericho allusion, for example. There are so many possible character names that Adam & Lilith must be deliberate, and so on.

The nature of numerology is that every number is significant somehow. Gematria doesn't have any uninteresting numbers; Bible codes will let you find anything. Notice how even secular Wikipedia has an article on every number twixt 0 and 100.

There can only be a max of 20 or so angels. Every number between 1 and 20 is easy to put religious interpretation on: http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/11.html Even a layman can easily play this game: 10 refers to the 10 commandments; 12 is the 12 apostles of Jesus and the tribes of Israel; 13 is the apostles plus Matthias (Judas's replacement); etc.

Calling out the # of Angels is sufficiently groundless that I will employ guideline to remove it, despite my distaste for the relevant guidelines. --Gwern (contribs) 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that one could theoretically read deeper significance into any number, but in this case the number is so specific and has such a readily apparent significance that I think it would be silly to overlook it entirely. All I'm suggesting is that the pages relating to the Angels merely make mention of the fact that eighteen is a number with a symbolic significance that relates directly to the thematic content of the show, and let readers decide for themselves whether this is intentional. By the same standards, I would just as well suggest that some note be made of the fact that there are 12 members of SEELE - 13 counting Gendo. Evangelion does indeed play the "numbers game". Gatotsu911 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every number is specific; 18 is no more specific than 19, or 17. As I've said, nothing in the production history of NGE shows that the # of Angels was static and decided - it was very contingent and the # of Angels shifted and changed to fit needs at hand. (eg. look at the Evangelion Proposal: instead of an episode with Asuka & Shinji going to an amusement park, we got another Angel). I am removing the sections.

A further example of Bible code nonsense: you can find Evangelion characters in the Bible if you look. --Gwern (contribs) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Jeffers categories

You undid my category deletion with a link to a Google search. However, there is no text in the article that supports those categories. I will remove them again. Feel free to add them back when the information has been added with citations from reliable sources to the text of the article. A link to a google search in an edit summary is not good enough. LadyofShalott 02:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi

just saying regarding WP:EVA< try not to focus the argument on me when it comes to the names mari and mary. i'm not the one bringing it up it's the IP. oh and letting you know i already replied in nge (anime).Bread Ninja (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, and I've been directing my comments at the anon; although if you had already seen RSs giving 'Mari' you should've been clearer about your hypothetical (I read it as an example of laziness, since 'Mari' RSs are readily available).

As for NGE (anime), I have nothing further to add.

A final tip: one of the advantages of the 'add section' button for talk pages is that it gets the 'section' part of the edit summary right; when I came here, I was wondering what interest you could possibly have in Robinson Jeffers... --Gwern (contribs) 16:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm just confused on how it relates to production. and Robinson Jeffers as in the poet? his article does need alot of work, and could possibly look for some. i'll see what i can do.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Custom google engine

Have you figured out how to add people yet? I ask because I spotted an issue today. Search 'Yagami Light' turns up an entry in naruto.viz.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2575183 which doesn't really constitute a RS, unless you have you can specify it to allow for certain user name posts in forums only (doubtful).陣内 _Jinnai 03:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; you never seemed to act on my messages to you via mailinator.

As for naruto.viz.com; if there were a few usernames, one could possibly go to the list of their posts add that to the whitelist, and blacklist the domain in general. If the CSE precedence rules work the way I think it does (whitelist overrides blacklist, or more specific less specific), then that should allow in only those pages/comments. --Gwern (contribs) 13:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Dmenu

I have nominated Dmenu, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmenu. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pcap ping 19:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Déclic-Images

An article that you have been involved in editing, Déclic-Images, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Déclic-Images. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torture in China

I've userfied to User:Gwern/Torture in China. Well, I moved the history to preserve attribution... Sorry it took this long, I was on break. Maxim_(talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the Protoculture issue, Gwern! It's a big help. :) --Malkinann (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the other issues? http://eva.onegeek.org/pipermail/evangelion/2010-March/006093.html --Gwern (contribs) 13:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. Thanks for that. :) --Malkinann (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I was just about to do that. Just figured out how. Zell Faze (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Custom google search

Not sure if you can give some access or not, but i found some problems:

Animesuki "School Rumble" cease - should not return results from animesuki.net for WP:COPYVIO reasons. There's also some ones i'm unsure of there as well on the first page.

That's a rather specific search to be worrying over/

As for your suggestion: I am against that interpretation of WP:COPYVIO on philosophical grounds. I bow to force majeure in the narrow case of whatever contributory infringement laws apply to WMF servers in Florida, but I regard these rules as about as moral and consistent as China's rules about Tienanmen Square (cf. deCSS).

On grounds of utility, I can't see my way to blacklisting them either. The blacklisting of various scanlation and P2P sites in my CSE is because they clutter up the results with useless material. Animesuki hits are not categorically useless; they provide useful links, summaries, data like dates, and obviously Animesuki is a RS should an article on a series/franchise/OVA/... wish to mention a takedown sent to Animesuki. Even more obviously, hits from Animesuki may be RSs for Animesuki. That's about 3 more categories of useful hits than I could muster for freetorrents.com. --Gwern (contribs) 23:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback

I feel like an idiot by not involving Collectonian over my effort to try and reform Bambifan101. Apparently, he was continuing to create socks. I can't tell you how valuable I found your opinion to be and his block is going to stand as far as I'm concerned. Thank you much. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I may no longer be an admin, but if my experiences and opinions are still of value, I'm glad to give'em. --Gwern (contribs) 02:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Jorj Car'das

WP:Missing Wikipedians

Hey there, thanks for cleaning up WP:Missing Wikipedians. It's about time that page got a good sweep. PS. your talk page is getting a little long don't ya think? :) Have you considered archiving it? -- œ ^™ 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very depressing work, though.

I like long talk pages! It's like scrolling through history. --Gwern (contribs) 18:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depressing?? No way! We WANT to remove as many people as possible from that list. The ideal thing would be to not have this list at all! We should be happy that editors are returning and are no longer missing, right? -- œ ^™ 19:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even the ones who have resumed editing aren't editing much - at least a dozen people have edited in 2010 but only once or twice and so I couldn't in good conscience remove them - and as you go through each and every one, you notice how many were banned or were later subverted. --Gwern (contribs) 23:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to go through each and every one once I set aside some time to work on User:OlEnglish/list of reasons why Wikipedians stop editing, once it's done we should have some statistics on just how many left because of reasons like subversion. -- œ ^™ 21:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that a number of accounts have been banned because after an editor's departure, the password apparently was cracked and the account misused. --Gwern (contribs) 23:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google search engine

Might see about adding sites from WP:VN and other related Wikiprojects & TFs.陣内 _Jinnai 21:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japan Wikiproject and Visual Novel Wikiproject don't seem to have any RS page like the Anime wikiproject does; I've added them to the CSE with the 'include any links from that page' option, but I don't think it'll do much. --Gwern (contribs) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Visual Novels, its a small section near the bottom. Also on the WP:VG there is a list of Japanese video-game related sites if you wanted to add them (as well as others) since its a heavily related project. There's is probably more exhaustive than the anime's list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs)

I've added them too. --Gwern (contribs) 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarrifcation - you've added sources (and filters for non-reliable sources) from both VN and VG?陣内 _Jinnai 18:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, I added them both in as 'pages which contain links to include', but I do not recall adding any filters for non-RSs linked from them - those pages oughtn't be linking such anyway... --Gwern (contribs) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

My apologies, this is apparently a known bug with Twinkle: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Twinkle/Bugs#TW-B-357. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as I told the other editor (Collectonian?), if the devs won't fix Twinkle, you have an obligation to either work-around Twinkle & fix its errors, or stop using it. --Gwern (contribs) 13:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Amalthea 15:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alagebrium

Rather than flag the article, wouldn't it be better to just do a bit of looking and put in the refs? I know this subject fairly well, and there isn't anything wrong with it that I can see. Keith Henson (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my comment? Did you read the relevant sections? You're normally smarter than this, but I'll give some specifics:

'On 25 July 2007 Alteon was essentially bought for its corporate shell by a three-man operation developing another medication that needed a corporate shell in order to move fast.'

Speculation, OR, psychologizing, and a distinct sense of disapproval ('how dare this fly-by-night twerp operation buy Alteon for something other than its alagebrium research!').

'The company changed its name to Synvista Therapeutics, Inc. now with perhaps three employees in the United States, and outsources its research, (probably none of it on Alagebrium, despite the website's assertions).'

Speculation and OR and calling them liars.

'One conclusion that could easily be derived from the published research...'

OR.

'So a lack of patent protection, and ease of replication by others, obviously made the venture investment community lose faith before an approved product arrived.'

OR. Obviously whoever wrote this said, 'I am the Vorax, I speak for the VCs'...

I have no freaking idea where I would cite half of that to, because it reads like a fan of alagebarium decided to vomit their pet theories all over the article; I could have fact-bombed every other sentence, but I dislike that even more than groundless theorizing. --Gwern (contribs) 14:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just considering the technical aspects, but the business statements are as far as I know true. At least they are consistent with what I hear from people who followed it closely. Also the company is now out of business, ran out of money to the best of my knowledge. Keith Henson (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that much of the article is just based on hearsay and rumors. --Gwern (contribs) 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media

I'm currently reformatting most of the article into a table, but one thing i do plan on doing is removing the songs and the live action, not completely of course, just some things that can make it more media-style.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also plan on removing some of the airing or summarizing it by removing some trivial details.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh and sorry about the moving in main nge article. i was too busy that day and forgot about moving it

Determining reliable sources in your search

Perhaps just list out every site that is included, and everyone can just go through it, and discuss which ones are valid, and which ones are not. Sites that allow illegal downloads of copyrighted material, of course have to be removed from the list. Dream Focus 06:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All 282 on the whitelist and 1191 on the blacklist? --Gwern (contribs) 13:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My error

I hadn't realized that the Komm, süsser Tod (song) article was not simply a restoration of the redirected article. I've been dealing with a number of IPs reverting articles that were redirected as a result of AfD discussions and jumped on this one too quickly when it popped up on my watch list. Thanks for catching the error! On a seperate note, the youtube links should be removed...--Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think they should be removed? Even if they were copyvios, I can't say they're worth bothering about. --Gwern (contribs) 02:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must be misinterpeting your message...are you asserting that it's acceptable to host copyright violating material on Wikipedia? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 02:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; we would be a much worse encyclopedia without fair use materials.

But seriously: any copyvio on Youtube is Youtube or the uploader's problem. Are we our brother's keeper? Our task is to make the best encyclopedia we can, not adhere to every crazed jot and tittle of American IP maximalism unless it's a genuine threat to the encyclopedia. No one has ever sued us over contributory infringement linking to a video site, and no on ever will; any effort spent dealing with an illusory threat yields equally illusory benefits. --Gwern (contribs) 02:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of how far off the plot it is from policy or concensus. I've removed the youtube links and added some references because the article is certainly notable and hopefully the sources will serve as an anchor. I honestly could not disagree with you more regarding you views on copyright on Wikipedia. That being said, I hope you'll see this as a compromise of sorts. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 03:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 'compromise' usually entails both parties giving up something; I don't see what you've given up. I don't even see any argument as to why you're sure those links are copyvios. --Gwern (contribs) 03:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gwern. You have new messages at Talk:FLCL.
Message added 01:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I respectfully direct your attention here (just hope the link turns out OK). <br. />—NBahn (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Cartaya-cropped.png

Thank you for uploading File:Cartaya-cropped.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interview request: The newbie experience, revert communication and $10 to the WMF

As I'm concluding the study related to the NICE user script, I'd like to ask you some questions about your experiences with and ideas about Wikipedia. The questions will be related to how you interact with new editors and the way you communicate when reverting. The chat should take about 45 minutes to an hour and can happen over phone, voip(skype) or instant messenger(gtalk, ICQ, AIM, etc.). As thanks for your time, I'll donate $10 to the Wikimedia foundation at the completion of the interview. If you are interested or need more information, please let me know. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to chat with me on Freenode/in #wikipedia, that'd be fine. --Gwern (contribs) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Cartaya-cropped.png

Thank you for uploading File:Cartaya-cropped.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another site for the search engine

MKV - UK trade publication that has joint coverage with Famitsu.陣内 _Jinnai 16:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 21:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watchers

Toolserver report

If you go to any page and click on the history you will see some toolserver links for various functions. Back in the day this used to show exact numbers below 15, but this was changed for vandalism reasons. It's still useful because <15 usually means 0. --Protonk (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's always surprising to me what the toolserver has. --Gwern (contribs) 08:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please See Man Faye

You added to my talk page an article that I have never heard of. I'm wondering why you think a special invitation was desirable. McKay (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk (you participated in AfD #3). --Gwern (contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the information. I guess I did participate in a previous AfD. The article didn't look at all familiar. I must have been randomly perusing the AFDs that day (which is not something I am wont to do) McKay (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akatsuki No Kuruma

Please do away with accusations in edit summaries - your source doesn't reference the article subject so your prod-removal was incorrect. Dream Focus made basically the same mistake before you and reinstated the prod. But since you insist that the article be put through a discussion, I will nominate it. Hekerui (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing has nothing whatsoever to do with a PROD, unless the article is a BLP. Is "Akatsuki no Kuruma" the name of a living person? No. It is not. --Gwern (contribs) 09:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Terrence Webster-Doyle

I have nominated Terrence Webster-Doyle, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrence Webster-Doyle (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Falken de Fanel

You're right, but I don't think he's really aware about the warning I gave him (see his reply). Now I lay it down in a more formal way.--Kōji ^{talk to me} 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weeee!

		The Template Barnstar
		Or whatever. For creating the extremely useful Google RS. Thanks! SharkD Talk 23:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. If you have any suggested sites for the black or whitelists, I'm always open. --Gwern (contribs) 12:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mobygames in search results

Doing a search result for Desire, an anime-themed visual novel, and mobygames is in nearly half of the top results. Mobygames is not a reliable source and shouldn't be turning up on any search results. Nothing on them is reliable (for the purposes of anime or related subjects).陣内 _Jinnai 05:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blacklisted them. I'm always chary of blacklisting user-generated sites, since often those users are far more expert on the topic than credentialed experts, but looking through a few MG entries doesn't turn up any obvious insights. --Gwern (contribs) 12:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gung Ho

I'll give you that one, tho I think Stevenson's use in the Marine dossier is ironic. Dankarl (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first use may be ironic given Shaftoe's explanation, but the second one, done by the omniscient narrator about Shaftoe's views, doesn't seem ironic at all:

"This "sir, yes sir" business, which would probably sound like horseshit to any civilian in his right mind, makes sense to Shaftoe and to the officers in a deep and important way. Like a lot of others, Shaftoe had trouble with military etiquette at first. He soaked up quite a bit of it growing up in a military family, but living the life was a different matter. Having now experienced all the phases of military existence except for the terminal ones (violent death, court-martial, retirement), he has come to understand the culture for what it is: a system of etiquette within which it becomes possible for groups of men to live together for years, travel to the ends of the earth, and do all kinds of incredibly weird shit without killing each other or completely losing their minds in the process. The extreme formality with which he addresses these officers carries an important subtext: your problem, sir, is deciding what you want me to do, and my problem, sir, is doing it. My gung-ho posture says that once you give the order I'm not going to bother you with any of the details--and your half of the bargain is you had better stay on your side of the line, sir, and not bother me with any of the chickenshit politics that you have to deal with for a living. The implied responsibility placed upon the officer's shoulders by the subordinate's unhesitating willingness to follow orders is a withering burden to any officer with half a brain, and Shaftoe has more than once seen seasoned noncoms reduce green lieutenants to quivering blobs simply by standing before them and agreeing, cheerfully, to carry out their orders."

(Emphasis added.) It strikes me as entirely earnest and down to earth. --Gwern (contribs) 15:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSE

Cheers, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akuma to Love Song my initial CSE search turned up the scanlation sites, and a subsequent search with all the -scanlation stuff turned up a single RS, (Manga Es) so for The Legends of Vampire Hunter I thought I would cut to the chase and do the initial search with -scanlation etc. --Malkinann (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My offer (and point about bad searches) still stands. AfDs are leisurely affairs. --Gwern (contribs) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Juwan Howard/archive2

Thanks for the PR. I have responded to your concerns. Could you please review my edits and ~~strike~~ your concerns as appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. --Gwern (contribs) 15:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-identical twins listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The semi-identical twins. Since you had some involvement with the The semi-identical twins redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — the Man in Question (in question) 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2

Feel free to get involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Shudo

You made a rather odd edit summary there. Any objections if I delete the entire article, considering there is no way to revision delete the paragraph I removed without removing the entire edit history. You could then re-nter an article on them if you like. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my edit summary to have been both useful and an apt commentary on the BLP PROD policy. So I would object. --Gwern (contribs) 21:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any source which has more than one sentence on this guy; I think my prod was appropriate. Oore (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You even admit you found sources. --Gwern (contribs) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I searched Google before doing the prod. Although I found quite a few pages where the name was listed, I wasn't able to find any reliable sources which could be used to develop the article. It sounds like my admission makes you hate the BLP Prod policy or me even more...lol. Oore (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that if you know there are BLP sources and you PROD it for lacking any sources, then morally you have contravened the spirit of the policy. --Gwern (contribs) 23:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLPPROD page specifically mentions "reliable sources" so I think my prod was consistent with the spirit of the policy. Perhaps you should seek to have that threshold lowered. Oore (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need. RSs were not hard to find for that page; hence, it were silly to request any lowering. --Gwern (contribs) 01:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwern, applying IAR, I deleted all but the final version, keeping the name of the editors but deleting the text. I think this gives the attribution adequate in the circumstances.

As for BLP prod, I suppose you both know how strongly I opposed its introduction; but since it was considered to have obtained consensus, I consider it necessary to follow the policy that was adopted. One of the key reasons I opposed it is that it was unnecessary, & my experience since then vindicates my position. I try to patrol all BLP prods except for sports and entertainment figures, and I only skip those in order to get the job done on the others where I have better skill in finding references. I find that in experience with hundreds of these that it is very rarely necessary. Except for cases where cultural bias makes it impossible to find sources, I have almost never found a necessary BLP Prod deletion for which I could not give another reason also. (and of course they could always have been done by ordinary prod or afd). BLP Prod is only about WP:V,not WP:N, but ordinary prod can be used for any good reason justifying deletion. it is incorrect to place a BLP prod if there is any source at all for WP:V; it is incorrect to remove them unless the added source for WP:V is reliable. In practice, both parts of this are interpreted in a reasonable way. I think the source Gwern added is good enough to show WP:V, though it would very much help if there were better. If I were adding a borderline source like that, I would also think it obligatory to also add the tag for< nowiki> </nowiki>, because further work on sourcing is needed. Ocre, to not add a source when you know it exists is indeed against the spirit of WP:V. The proper course of action would have been to add it and possibly list for ordinary prod as insufficient sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen the source Gwern used. I ran across only sites like this which would have been inappropriate to use as a source. Oore (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have learned something valuable from this little contretemps: that my CSE is a useful little tool indeed. --Gwern (contribs) 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

there are far too many block quotes on the neon genesis evangelion (anime) page. If this article has any chance of becoming GA rank, than we must summarize the quotes as best as posible and use the quotes as refs.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is too many quotes? Let the men speak for themselves.

I have told you time and again, GA has nothing to do with quality; nor am I aware of anything in the GA guidelines speaking to quotes. You remind me of a child valuing the pretty stickers on their test more than the actual learning. --Gwern (contribs) 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the sticker is there for a reason. there not there just for show. and your missing the point. GA does have everything to do with quality. Your trying to excuse yourself, saying GA doesn't have anything to do with quality is saying, you don't care or rather not make NGE articles into GA, which the NGE wikiproject's main goal is to make all the articles into GA.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a turd as bad. If one is improving an article, and someone happens by and decides it is a Good Article; that is one. It is another to look at the Good Article criteria and try to make an article good by making it Good. Correlation is not causation; Goodhart's law rules.

And how is the NGE work group doing? Just because I am signed up does not mean I agree with every single goal on the page. For example, 'creating a userbox'. --Gwern (contribs) 21:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You act like if you don't care about standard quality of an article and just carea bout your judgement on quality, despite it not being the best format. GA does have everything to do with quality in wikipedia. The tag on the article relating to tone is because of these quotes. wikipedia recommends using paraphrasing and summaries as a better alternative to quotation. Plus it's very disruptive and is unwiki with this large ammount of block quotes. Some of these quotes aren't even close to justifyable, especially the quote of the biography.

Who else's judgment could I possibly care about? If I see someone being mugged on the street, do I call the police because after pondering I conclude that an African bushman would morally condemn the mugging? Or because I morally condemn the mugging?

And if memory serves me, the {{tone}} template predates any long quotes from The Notenki Memoirs. --Gwern (contribs) 21:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare NGE article to the rest, and you wil see that NGE is the one falling out. NGE is the only anime article that has that many quotes. it's ridiculous for you not to see how low the quality of NG articles are.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it is the odd one out - in that it genuinely tries to put NGE into an artistic and commercial context, describe its complex history, and assemble insight. It does not punt the issue and cripple itself into a useless listing of airdates and commercial release dates and monetary minutiae.

To me, it is ridiculous that you do not see how worthless your ideal article would be. Who is right? --Gwern (contribs) 21:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Describing it's complex history isn't a bad thing, but we can't put it in an "artistic" and "commerical context", that's one of the fundamental rules in wikipedia.

Of course we can do that. There is no WP:NOCONTEXT policy, and the community would ignore any such foolish policy. --Gwern (contribs) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i really dont have a concrete ideal article, the only thing i want is for articles to at least make it to GA when possible. And my ideal Articles are the articles that are GA.

So in other words you don't know what makes a good article, as opposed to a Good Article, so you will mindlessly follow whatever regulations the GA clique has decided on this year. I hope you realize that you are in no position to lecture other people about being 'ridiculous'. --Gwern (contribs) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article to praise it, this isn't a fanclub. if it's notable we put it in, but it has to be from someone credible. But that's beside the point. NGE article stands out in a bad way. I'm not going to be the fan, and want every little piece i could get and put it in.

But you're missing the point again, like i've said some of these block quotes aren't justifiable.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep."

Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?"' --Gwern (contribs) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make NGE article less "artistic" and "comercialized". I don't need your objection.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles exist for those who are interested in the content and read them, not just those who want them short and uniformed and never do more than skim over them. The quotes in perfect context for the article, and provide relevant information, straight from the creators, that far more desirable then having someone just reword what they say and jam it in with the rest of the article. Dream Focus 15:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You neither want nor need my objection; yet, there it is.

(A piece of advice, Bread Ninja, one I have given before but you seem to have not noticed. I would object less to your tender ministrations, and trust in your appraisals of what is good/Good more, if you were not so manifestly incompetent at writing.) --Gwern (contribs) 17:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly find dream focus credibe for obvious disputes she had in the past. I've been around long enough to know the rules, what is acceptable and what isn't. The quotes are hardly in perfect context. Obviously Dream focus didn't read where all the quotes were coming from. And we aren't here to inform there directly from the creator.

We aren't here to explain something in a "artistic" and "commericalize" matter. we are just here to inform them. ALso, gwern this isn't a matter of grammar.

the quotes make the article in an un-encyclopedic format (and i'm sure both of you know this).Bread Ninja (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes are valid. The first one describes what the series is about rather well. Eva is a story that repeats. It is a story where the main character witnesses many horrors with his own eyes, but still tries to stand up again. It is a story of will; a story of moving forward, if only just a little. It is a story of fear, where someone who must face indefinite solitude fears reaching out to others, but still wants to try. How could you not want that in there? Then you have a section mentioning their financial problems, tax fraud and all, followed with a quote that sums up the situation quite well. The third quote on the page is in the merchandise section, demonstrating just how much merchandise there is, and how profitable it was. Yes, I read them, and they do add to the article. Also, I'm a "he" not a "she". And you discredit someone not based on their argument, but because of a dispute in the past where they didn't agree with you? Now how things are suppose to work. Focus on the argument, not the person giving it. Dream Focus 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BN, it is a matter of grammar when you cannot even say what you presumably mean - when you can write something that is the opposite of what you must have meant, like "I don't need your objection". (Someone who understood the rudiments of writing might have written something like "I don't need your consent".)

Not to mention you consistently confuse explaining context with the manner of explaining; at least, this is the best I can make of your misspelled screeds about "commericalize" [sic] and whatnot. Nothing prevents us from explaining the context, and this is a critical part of any article. I can just imagine [[American Civil War]] by Bread Ninja - it lists all the major battles' dates, explains the events, and ends, because clearly it is entirely unwarranted to put it in any political or economic context (such as industrialization or slavery). --Gwern (contribs) 20:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwern is still focused on me, so why not dream focus? you defend who you want, but the standards don't apply to everyone when it comes to choosing sides.

Quotes are valid in general, but used to a limit. Well for one obvious reason is, they are un encyclopedic, they disrupt the feel the encyclopedic style of wikipedia if they are used too much. Quotes aren't meant to dominate the article they are only there if they've been recognized overtime. Also they are not suppose to be the information themselves, they are merely to help.

let me give two examples of quotes used. Anno's personal biography describes this period:

^^ this could easily be a summary rather than a quote. ALl of it could. Another example is this one:

It's strange that 'Evangelion' has become such a hit - all the characters are so sick!

^^this one is just sitting there. Not really much reason why it has to be in a quote.

Quotes need to be given when the words have been used excessively. they are never meant to be used for direct explanation. they are used for examples, not to dominate the information.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be a quote because coming from anyone else it is not as interesting. Coming from Anno, it is Word of God, and a commentary on the series, its audience, and the characters that would either be POV or mere opinion when said (or summarized!) by anyone else. It is because Anno said it that people copy that exact quote and pass it around. --Gwern (contribs) 14:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anno isn't Word of God and not even close. He is the creator of NGE and therefore quoted frequently when talking about NGE, but his quotes aren't used to a point where it is memorable outside of NGE. Quotes Still, this doesn't excuse for the excessive quotes being done in the article. If the articles were about Anno then yes, he would be quoted, but these are NGE and are focused on it. I still suggest putting all these quotes into a better prose than this.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you say only Anno's word is important to quote, that still merits many other quotes in the articles to be removed, such as his biography, Carl Horn on media, and Analysis (which i may find that section very inappropriate and can be reformed to a Reception. These articles are no where near becoming GA or even A class unless we fix the TONE of the article and self published sources. the tag on the articles are there fora reason, and the main point is that the over usage of quotes affect the tone to be in an unecyclopedic matter. this seems to be more news style which often can be acceptable, but this seems to take it to a more extreme. Bread Ninja (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I momentarily lapsed into TvTropes terminology.

And actually, it is the newspapers who like to paraphrase someone or quote a few words. It is a scholarly academic style to quote large chunks, both as part of a general defense against the difficulty of finding sources years or millennium later, and to give context and show that any usage or summary is not misleading, out of context, or plain wrong. --Gwern (contribs) 02:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, Quotes CAN be summarized to an easier straight-to-the-point form and be used to even a minimal form such as quoting certain key points instead of actually using the whole thing. Reception sections tend to do this and doesn't affect it's chances of becoming a GA rank article.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical BN. BN claims that quotes are bad-looking and unencyclopedic, I point out that BN's idea of encyclopedic is actually newspaperly and the academic style is to use lots of quotes, and BN immediately backtracks and 'either way' doesn't matter. --Gwern (contribs) 19:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partial quoting is acceptable as it just focuses on the point. Quoting an entire comment is unnecessary. It's better to just be straight to the point. If it can be simpler, than we should make it the most simplest possible. NO need to make everything bigger than it is just because you're a major fan of NGE series.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misato = Sailor Moon?

What does the reference on Misato Katsuragi have to say about her being an adult Usagi Tsukino? Would it be fair to say in Usagi's article that Usagi's hair design influenced Misato's hair design, or is the resemblance deeper? (aside from OMGZ same voice actor!) --Malkinann (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ref does specifically point to her hair style. I'm not entirely sure how, since Misato never sports the famous double-dumplings of Sailor Moon; my working theory is that the visual borrowing is of Usagi's bangs (that is, you can see a sort of heart-shape as the bangs curl around in 2 groups). The deeper resemblance isn't really enlarged upon; my interpretation there is that Misato is like Usagi when Misato is in college (she is a hyperactive chatterbox in the TV series's flashbacks), and the adult bit comes from how she and Kaji get it on like rabbits. --Gwern (contribs) 02:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I've put it in Usagi's reception section briefly. I think it's the fringe as well. --Malkinann (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over some more Misato pics. If it isn't the fringe, I have no idea what it could be - the rest of the hair features simply don't match. (Black versus blonde, hip length versus shoulder, twintail versus loose, etc.) --Gwern (contribs) 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found additional references since (which are probably what the original book was basing its assertion on):

"In the notes accompanying LD 0:2, it was stated that during the storyboard stage of episode 4, a staff asked Anno what Misato is like, and Anno replied that Misato is just like Tsukino Misato.

Anno is a Sailor Moon fans, and he had participated in drawing some cells in episode 46.

In the special EVA video dated before the TV series, Sadamoto stated that Misato's front bangs was modelled after Sailor Moon."

This was in the context of a Newtype discussion between Anno and Sailor Moon director Ikuhara. (I believe the video mentioned was released on one of the first VHS or LD releases. The LD notes of the first item do not seem to correspond to the later Renewal/Platinum commentaries; I currently don't know of any transcript or translation of the LD liner notes.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's really cool! :D --Malkinann (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more details have come to light; it was in fact a Renewal extra, a Sadamoto interview, and it has been translated & is available online. A quick copy:

[Sadamoto:] There's a character called Mine Fujiko in an old series called Lupin.
And when I was young, I was... err... thought it was really interesting. She looked like she's still 20, but she also seemed like she's in her 30s. [Usagi from Sailor Moon on screen?] As for her bangs, well, I just stuck Usagi-chan's bangs on her. It started as a joke. But now having the voice actor, [Kotono] Mitsuishi-san and all, it's no longer a joke.
[Telop: Mitsuishi-san was also the voice actor for Usagi.]

You can find a description of the Renewal extras inside http://www.mania.com/neon-genesis-evangelion-renewal-evangelion-dvdbox_article_75523.html --Gwern (contribs) 00:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NGE timeline

it is inpracticle to have a timeline anywhere in any article, it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, and mose of all trivial. try not to remove it until we have a consensus.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has nothing to do with it. I will again suggest you read WP:PROD, and read more of it than just the part where it tells you what to copy-paste. --Gwern (contribs) 00:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

give me on three good reason why this should be merged. You may know some rules in your favor, but when it comes down to the important, stuff you try avoiding the main subject and use complex words making it hard ot keep up and you focus on me, not the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bread Ninja (talk • contribs)

And the moment a process turns out not to be unilateral deletion, you go whining to the policy talk page to try to get it changed, apparently missing the entire point of PROD was to be a lightweight deletion process solely for uncontroversial stuff that wasn't as bad as speedies. Not commendable behavior.

How do I know all this and "know some rules in your favor"? Because I participated in the consensus-building for PROD, defended it, and as an administrator made a specialty of taking care of PROD-tagged pages!

And 'complex words'? Give me a break. That problem is solely on your end. You are the one who cannot write for beans, and apparently cannot read either. I'd cut you some slack if English were not your native language, but I see no templates to that effect. Here's a suggestion: there are over 200 sections on this talk page, and hundreds more in the archives for this and my former accounts, so why don't you read through them and see how many of them include complaints about my writing style or vocabulary? I'll give you a hint - the number will be greater than 0 and less than 2. --Gwern (contribs) 23:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admit it, you're only trying to make these articles the way you want and in a form thats barely acceptable to some. No one can edit, because you always there obejecting. You dont even want to try to get these up to GA rank. It's mostly WP:ILIKEIT from you. theres no other real reason that comes out of you.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admit it, you're only trying to make these articles the way you want describes you rather well. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users do not even know what GA rank is, and most of those who do honestly don't care. You like it one way, others do not. Dream Focus 02:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No one can edit" is factually false. Plenty of editors have worked on Eva articles, and in many cases I may not have even substantially edited them. (Your own work on the soundtrack merges is itself disproof...) --Gwern (contribs) 23:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change the fact, the GA is better than not GA. We can't keep them the way we like them, we have to keep them from the way they should be. and what's your take on it? where could the timeline possibly be merged to, why doesn't it merit a speedy deletion??Bread Ninja (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA is a mechanical set of guidelines, with little correlation with actual quality. There are high quality articles that never got the GA sticker and there are low quality articles with the GA label. To prize GA over everything else is to miss the point. All this I have said before. --Gwern (contribs) 01:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream focus, if you want to state something, better be pro or con, not challenge to make a point.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never challenge things to make a point. Didn't respond to this earlier, since I didn't notice. This discussion can continue on the AFD, since the timeline article was nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline merge

Ages ago, you proposed that the NGE timeline should be merged into Neon Genesis Evangelion. I've started up a discussion, could you please drop by and give your opinion on this? --Malkinann (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ping* --Malkinann (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really done with the personal project that was sucking up my time, but since everyone keeps pinging my talk page, I suppose I will just have to make time now. --Gwern (contribs) 00:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - a merge rationale would be appreciated. The discussion is here. --Malkinann (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to add in sources, do it yourself. Don't act like a hypocrit and say if i cared about them i would add the sources you placed, when you fall in the same situation too. dont expect me to do it for you. plus i've read some of them, and didn't find anything worth adding, and some of them just don't have anything really important or notable enough to mention.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time; you obviously do. (As the Roman Terence said, 'when two do the same, it isn't the same'.) If you didn't find anything in the Gainax commentaries, then you didn't look very hard - one of the things you complained about was the Wall of Jericho reference, which is explained in detail in the commentaries! (Yet another example of how you fail at research.) --Gwern (contribs) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But those are first party sources. And In-universe related, you make it seem as long as Anno says whatever, it can be added to the article. that's not the case. I'm trying to reduce quotes for easy encyclopedic flow, not encourage it, so third party would be much easier. Point is, don't blame me for the article's state i'm not on here always, but i do bring in the little time to discuss and get a consensus. There are other articles out there that are in a sorry state. be thankful NGE has sources (self published or not). If you don't have time, that's fine, but don't think that you're always right. When it comes to NGE it's a whole different subject with you. But i noticed you stick more encyclopedic with other articlesBread Ninja (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in Jules Wellesley's "Dune 7" blog

Hello. Enjoyed seeing mention of you in Jules' recent blog on "Dune 7". :) --SandChigger (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jules had some interesting new material. If you are interested in my half of the conversation, I believe I CC'd them all to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DUNE_II/ . --Gwern (contribs) 23:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chet Ramey for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Chet Ramey, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chet Ramey until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Msnicki (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCSF is unreliable

CCSF - we have confirmation by the website owner project discussion 陣内 _Jinnai 17:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've added it to the blacklist. --Gwern (contribs) 01:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Cartaya-cropped.png

Thank you for uploading File:Cartaya-cropped.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB[reply]

LOL
Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not eager to condemn anyone as a fanatic, and you edited the pages so much that the consolidated diff is an unreadable mess, but some changes do concern me - for example, is it really common to include subjective appraisals of intellectual movements like 'small'?

Hopefully I will have time this month or next to look at the diffs one by one. --Gwern (contribs) 01:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gwern. There was nothing biased in the use of the word "small". I was simply using the descriptor that someone else wrote in the History section of the article: "Many people believe a technological singularity is possible without adopting Singularitarianism as a moral philosophy. Although the exact numbers are hard to quantify, Singularitarianism is presently a small movement". Furthermore, most supppoters and critics of Singularitarianism describe it as a “small movement” without any negative connotation implied (unlike the word "fringe" for example) so I don't understand how the use of this term can be seen as “biased”. That being said, if you want to be able to judge my improvements, I invite you to compare the current version of the article with the one from November 1. --Loremaster (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are not taken out of context. So, Loremaster will do everything in his power to get me banned. I will do everything in my power expose the bias of Loremaster.

Loremaster, please don't call me a "jerk". Loremaster began our relationship with unprovoked hostile comments telling me to get a life, his insults have continued, and now he calls me a Jerk. Loremaster really needs a reality-check. If anyone needs banning it is Loremaster. 86.185.71.172 (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)JB[reply]

I never said your comments were taken out of context. I said you took my comments out of context and distorted their meaning.

If canvassing Wikipedia to create a lynch mob against me using such an intellectually dishonest distortion of my views and edits is not the definition of a jerk, I don't know what is.

That being said, let's take this dispute back to the Talk:Singularitarianism page instead of engaging in a flame war on Gwern's talk page.

--Loremaster (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my review to the Talk page. --Gwern (contribs) 03:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your review but keep in mind that the dispute between me and JackBlack ended two weeks ago. --Loremaster (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got to it when I got to it. --Gwern (contribs) 14:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it (Dark Empire)) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. )-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Empire, being comic books, had very little to do with that topic. I don't know much about it either, so have nothing to contribute. --Gwern (contribs) 03:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there was made an audio drama also. Sorry for the disturb, possibly I have looked a little bit false. I wish you a merry Christmas, --Soenke Rahn (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for the "The sky is blue"

Your comment was funny.

I have previously asked User: Melcombe to consider whether his each of his future "citation needed" tags will elicit any useful citations. I believe that many (perhaps most) of his CN-tags will at best result in excessive referencing (of well-known statements whose documention is deprecated in the citation guidelines for scientific articles on WP): at worst, the citation needed tags just distract the reader, because WP editors have enough work to do correcting gross errors and writing basic articles without cluttering articles with the documentation of well-known results.

Maybe your humor will be more successful in moderating the citation-needed tagging, where my previous appeal(s) failed.

(I should add that editor Melcombe has helped me improve my citations, and is a very valuable WP editor, particularly on statistics. He has graciously and selflessly improved the formatting of many of my citations, on many articles. His CN-tagging is a trivial problem, in comparison to his manifold contributions.)

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. My experience has been that the only way that deletionists and hardcore taggers ever learn is when they manage to stick around for a few years, long enough for the en zeitgeist to shift noticeably, and discover to their horror that as they had done to others' articles, so it will be done to their articles. (Everyone's articles are no-brainers and obviously Notable to themselves.) Unfortunately, this way, A lesson is learned but the damage is irreversible. --Gwern (contribs) 16:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

must i remind you to be civil yet again? even in the edit summary, you should be civil. Someone who has been here much longer than me, should know this. SO next time, i won't give a warning. i'll just report.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report and be damned to you. It was a transparently fallacious argument - 'X was voted on by only Y people and so is unimportant'. Replace X by 'Oscars' or 'Nobel Prize' to see how very stupid an argument it is to make.

At the most charitable, it was a very lazy argument, made without doing the easiest Google search to see what RSs like ANN, EX.org, Mania.com, or Azuma Hiroki might have said. --Gwern (contribs) 14:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANN is no longer seen as such a reliable source, and it's being removed from what i've seen. and the argument doesn't matter. theres no excuse for incivility. You could've added the source, too, so it's not like you helped the situation.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. There were at least 4 ways you could have known what TheFarix/his bot has actually been doing with the ANN links:

Followed the ANN discussion on the RS noticeboard
Understood the External links guideline
Read one of the many edit summaries
Looked at his userpage

Yet you are still oblivious that he was removing links to the user-contributed ANN Encyclopedia, not ANN itself.

Also, why should I add references that it is a genuine honor? Should I go around doing that for every single mention of the Animage awards, and for the Nobel prizes, and for every other critically esteemed prize mentioned in any of our 3.5 million articles? Should I then go around adding citations to every use of ANN or Newtype or Animerica affirming that they are in fact RSs and Ved? --Gwern (contribs) 21:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you missed reason 5 which is seeing all links being removed on my watchlist. And what do you mean why you should references something that is a genuine honor? whether you should or not isn't my concern, but if it's removed for lacking references, don't blame the person who removed it. you have the source, you have the ref, add it in, and it will be all fine. and what's so funny? that you're incredibly biased towards NGE. idk how warped your view is with NGE< but you have to get it together, and look at NGE articles neutrally.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to criticize yourself with ways 5, 6, and further, I certainly won't stop your analysis of your ignorance. 'Know thyself', after all.

And I will blame the person who removed it; he is not a newbie, is not notably incompetent, and did bother to do some research into circulation figures, which makes his ultimate mistake that much worse.

And just add the ref in? I feel - yet again - like you only read every other sentence I write, or something strange like that. --Gwern (contribs) 14:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was just to show how i can know these things without seeing discussion. it's not ignorance. And what the heck are you talkaing about kno w thyself? Do you ever talk about the topic at hand? You always stem off into some other subject. ANd if you want to keep it, then put the ref in, you can't revert it and not put a ref. thats just common sense. Newtype and Animerica are probably good RSs so, why not add them in?Bread Ninja (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You knew what isn't so; is that knowledge? You 'know' that ANN was being removed and is no longer 'a reliable source', which is completely false. Ignorance.

And as far as refs go, I have already addressed that. --Gwern (contribs) 15:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really i checked certain ones before farix removed them, and they got removed anyway, either it was a mistake or not. As for refs, you're not making yourself clear, so i say elaborate. And i'll ask again, why can't you put refs in? reason why i eep asking is because you don't bother to make yourself clear, you say something really odd, and leave it at that.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either it was a mistake or not. Good grief. You say blatant falsehoods and then shrug it off. You don't care about having correct arguments - you just care about getting your way.

And I'm not going to repeat myself about the refs. As I have said before, no one else has a problem understanding my arguments (or my vocabulary) - just you. In programming, we have an acronym for this situation: PEBKAC. --Gwern (contribs) 00:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, he did remove one non user contributed source from ANN before

Really? Please provide the diff, then, so I can revert it. --Gwern (contribs) 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So thats why i'd assume it's all ANN. either way, you didn't even make yourself clear from the beginning at all. Be direct. i would hardly consider what you say proper vocabulary anyways. You avoid the subject by saying something odd. If you won't make yourself clear, then how are you suppose to get your way? There is no "my way". theres just one way. remove any unsource content. and at the moment it's unsourced. you have the ref, why don't you add it in? that's right, I'll ask you again until you make it clear.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reread what I have written. Think a little. --Gwern (contribs) 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireread and thought about it. i asked you a question, and you didn't answer. so answer. whats so hard about that? every time it's the same. you vaguely answer me with not even trying to, i ask you what you mean and you don't elaborate. why? this isn't a forum, to see who wins or who can leave the other guessing, this is how we get consensus. if you want me to see it your way, than be blunt.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Saimoe Tournament

You had over 3 months to make improvements to this article, or to respond to my merge proposal on the talk page and you have done neither. All you are doing is making sure a bad article stays that way--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What merge proposal? All I see are some unrelated remarks about an AfD.

And as for your impatience - I don't think it's a bad article. So it's not surprising that I haven't edited heavily over the past 3 months when there are so many more important things to do. --Gwern (contribs) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anime Saimoe Tournament#Redirect. And as for it not being a bad article, It remains entirely first party sourced and there is still nothing to demonstrate its importance.--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat

Thanks for the suggestion. It was immediately useful, and will continue to be so. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WebCiteBOT Replacement Task Force

Sometime in the past you expressed an interest in getting WebCiteBOT running again or replaced. WebCiteBOT was a bot that submitted links to WebCitation.org in order to combat WP:LINKROT. I have recently started a WebCiteBOT Replacement Task Force to help coordinate an effort to do just that. I am cordially inviting you to express your opinion on the matter if you are interested. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 14:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singularitarianism

I see you have made previous edits on comments. Any contributions you can make to current discussions would be welcome. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google custom search engine problems

I've found that, at least in the case of the Video game project's Custom Google Search for reliable sources, it does not go past 10 pages of results. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be by design; 3000 domains and rules means that what seems like a lot of hits filters down to only a few. (Number of millions or hundreds of thousands of hits has long been known to be a joke statistic conveying little about how many good results there actually are.) 10 pages of results doesn't sound unreasonable - many anime and manga reduce down to 5 pages or less. --Gwern (contribs) 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well as the engine gets better at filtering it may become a moot point.陣内 _Jinnai 21:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some clearly unreliable sites

These came up when I started searching for sites to do an article for Wikipe-tan since i believe she can meet the GNG.

[11] - a self ascribed wiki anyone can edit
[12] - i'm suprised an umbrella site for wikipedia came up
[13] - another wiki anyone can edit.陣内 _Jinnai 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must not already be listed in the mirrors list. I've blacklisted them. --Gwern (contribs) 21:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lesson014.png

(First of all, sorry, I did not mean to rollback, though I did mean to revert.) Templates do not provide the rationale- you will note that the first says "To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale." and the second says "To the uploader: please add a fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information". And no, I certainly do not want you to just copy-paste something- for each use of non-free content, you need to write a detailed rationale explaining why the non-free image is needed, what it is adding in that particularly usage and why it is not in any way replaceable with non-free content, as well as providing source information. You also need to justify the amount of non-free content you're using- in this case, for instance, you are using something significantly more than a thumbnail, with a dozen panels. I appreciate the need for an illustration of the style and such, but why not a single panel at a low resolution? Something like (and I appreciate that this is a free image, so not the best comparison, but it's the only comic I read) this? As an aside, Template:Non-free use rationale will be useful in formatting the rationale, and Template:Non-free reduce will be useful if you upload something smaller over the top. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the template's message, and it's incredibly stupid; clearly put there just to facilitate deletion of fair use images whose editors are no longer around or are sick of endlessly editing pages in response to robots and ever changing procedures.

I complied with procedure 100% when I uploaded it. And yet, it seems every goddamn year someone wants to delete it. 2007, 2008, 2011 - maybe I should just let it be deleted because obviously I will never ever be able to leave the image alone and I didn't expect to commit myself to an eternal burden when I uploaded it.

There is nothing I can say that the templates don't already say. It is a fair use image from a proprietary comic series; there will never be Free images until the series enters the public domain; it's small and illegible compared to the original; and as the article on the comic says, the large-scale composition of the comics is a key artistic signature of the series. --Gwern (contribs) 22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A fair use rationale was a requirement in 2005. The "met criteria when I uploaded it" argument doesn't really hold any water, I am afraid. This is not merely a technicality tagging- I have explained why I am not convinced that this image meets our NFCC aside from the fact it lacks a rationale, yet all you have done is removed the deletion notice without dealing with the issue. We actually have templates to warn new users who do that. Please- I'm trying to be reasonable with you, sticking your head in the sand and pretending the policies are out to get you is not a particularly helpful attitude. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The templates and article links were the rationale - if you uploaded a comic book cover, you used that template and linked to the page you were using them on. Not sure how you're reading that into the old revision, but that's how things worked. I uploaded dozens and hundreds of images, I know perfectly well how it worked.

And your arguments are laughable. I am particularly flummoxed by how a low-resolution picture - a thumbnail - is not allowed to have 'a dozen panels', as if the properties had any logical connection. (What, has 'thumbnail' been redefined? Should it be a cropped 4x4 low-resolution version of less than 1/12th of the original small screen-sized version?) Nor have you dealt with my own justification in response to your comment.

But enough. As I've said, I'm sick and tired of the fair use bullshit on Wikipedia. I'm not paid enough to deal with copyright paranoiacs (has the Foundation ever been sued over fair use images?) or process fanatics who elevate rules-following over results - I'm not paid anything, not even in the coin of the brief bursts of schadenfreude one feels when one destroys/deletes someone else's work.

So I've allowed it to be deleted, and will restore it in a couple years if policies have become a little saner. --Gwern (contribs) 00:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tora cover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tora cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

content farms ,link farms and malware sites

[14] I suggest every site be blacklisted from the search engine. Most of them tried to get me to install virus by faking a Chrome virus scan.陣内 _Jinnai 01:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I just cleaned up the lolicon results a week or two ago... At least it was easier this time. --Gwern (contribs) 17:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG/S

Can you update the sources to reflect the changes? I ask because I've done a few regular searches with goodle and this search engine and it isn't picking all of them up. Also check and make sure all the unreliable sources are blacklisted. Thanks.陣内 _Jinnai 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gwern (contribs) 15:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

more sites to remove

strategywiki.org -open wiki
angleyproperties.net - one of its pages tried to install a virus (and its not listed as a RS)陣内 _Jinnai 21:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gwern (contribs) 23:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom types listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Phantom types. Since you had some involvement with the Phantom types redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Si Trew (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manga-News and CSE glitch

As Kajika is listed on just about every page on Manga-News that is to do with Toriyama, I was wondering if there is some google-fu which would allow me to remove manga-news from the CSE results for Kajika? I have already incorporated the relevant review onto the page, as a reference for the publisher. Thanks. --Malkinann (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Google has a 'site:' operator (extremely useful, incidentally, if you don't already know) for including any hits within a domain, right? But you want to include any hits not within a domain - the opposite, the negation. And negation is '-' of course. So you'd search for "Kajika Toriyama -site:manga-news.com", I guess. --Gwern (contribs) 23:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power Station Vandalism

I am writing to question you of your suspected involvement in a vandalism attack on a local power station in Reading, England. We have reason to believe you are the ring leader of a vandal street gang known as the 'Purple Unity and Red Jack's' that are localised to southern Reading. On Thursday 21st April 2011, upon the residents of the area witnessing the attack, in which seven vandals caused costly damage to the structure and it's fences as well as many surrounding trees, a cardboard banner was attached to the fence reading "Under orders of Gwern".

This is not the only occasion in which your Wikipedia account has been referenced. On Saturday January 1st 2011, the same gang was seen attempting to transport themselves onto the Madejski Stadium roof using cannons to release a banner over the East Stand reading "We will never bow to hatred; we will never fall to society, we will never rest for fear of our mission failing - All Hail Gwern". The initial aim failed, they never were able to reach the roof; however, their banner was slung over a nearby house for all to see.

Also, on 12th December 2010, a middle-aged man was seen sprinting away from elderly people with several teenagers following and aiding him. On his shirt, he was revealed to be sporting the words "Gwern".

Now, we have strong suspicions that you are this Gwern person, and we have every intention of arriving at the truth. We will be in contact if we arrive at any more information. Thankyou for your time.

Sifler (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Very funny; but the vandalism on my userpage isn't nearly as funny, so I thank you to cease & desist. --Gwern (contribs) 21:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Brandywine Bridge's comments have been removed, I thought I'd add. Sifler knows of your plan to overthrow the Lukaku, and he won't allow it. Mickey Pearce (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page

You've failed to respond to me on my talk, (which is now filling up again, why??!!!) in which you accused me of "testing". Your edit on that page was more or less vandalism, and now you're telling me to use the sandbox. Explain? - Jake Talley (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-usgov listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:PD-usgov. Since you had some involvement with the Template:PD-usgov redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USgov listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:PD-USgov. Since you had some involvement with the Template:PD-USgov redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pd-gov listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Pd-gov. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Pd-gov redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has come up at WT:ANIME

Hello Gwern,

Your name has come up during a discussion at WT:ANIME. This message is a courtesy. Have a nice day. Good raise 08:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me, but as you can see, there was nothing to discuss. Policy nor guideline covers it because it's the usual editing process - I add a claim, that there are many translations of 'kimochi warui', and provide the RSs for the claim, the translations by many RSs of 'kimochi warui'.

(BN just hates anything that is not a release date, basically, and which comes even close to the impossibly broad interpretation of OR which seems to be popular these days.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dragon-in-the-sea-del-rey-cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dragon-in-the-sea-del-rey-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Kwitny.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kwitny.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to try and make out that I'm some kind of demon, the least you could do is actually make sure the file is policy compliant. Can we have some real sourcing/author information? How about something resembling an acceptable rationale? As you clearly have little to no idea what policy requires, Template:Non-free use rationale may be helpful to you. J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're a demon, because such things do not exist. You are wasting your time; you have irrational opinions about the danger of fair use; you have objectionable views about the worth of user contributions and how easily they may be trashed; and so on.

Real sourcing? Is the sourcing already there made of little pink unicorns or something?

If I have no idea what policy requires, it is because policy keeps changing. --Gwern (contribs) 18:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a myth that the policy is constantly changing. Take a look at Wikipedia:History of non-free content policies. Nothing I have mentioned was not required by policy when this image was uploaded five years ago; hardly a "constantly changing" policy. What my "irrational opinions" and "objectionable views" are I am not sure, I'm simply trying to enforce our policies. If you don't like them, that's fine, but if you're not going to follow them, no one is forcing you to remain a part of the project. What I mean by "real sourcing" is an explanation of who took the picture, where/when it was published and so on. A link to a page that no longer exists that took the image from somewhere, maybe "either from his TV show or one of his books", is not a decent source. I've really got better things to be doing than this, so, quite simply, are you going to update the sourcing or not? J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is as policy does; policy is descriptive, last I heard, but then, I hold a lot of outdated view points. WP:OR hasn't changed in wording very much over the last 7 years or so, but its application sure as hell has! You are only enforcing your own particular viewpoint - I see no clamor for the image's deletion or concurring votes on the deletion page.

And you should be ashamed of your laziness or incompetence. The Internet Archive is a click away, but no... you've 'got better things to be doing'. One wonders why you bother trying to delete fair use images if they aren't even worth a click to research their sourcing, if you have so many better things to do. --Gwern (contribs) 21:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kwitny.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kwitny.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boderline edit warring on The End of Evangelion

Hello Gwern,

You appear to be engaged in what could be interpreted as an edit war with Bread Ninja (talk · contribs) on The End of Evangelion. As it seems unlikely for the two of you to resolve this issue through editing, I urge you to take the matter to the article's talk page instead. Regards, Good raise 16:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what there is to discuss. BN wants to remove highly relevant, highly cited content out of her own personal prejudices that as much as possible should be deleted from Evangelion articles. I stand against it. --Gwern (contribs) 16:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are known to be bias toward any article related to NGE (and apparently other Gainax articles). you're credibility is getting thinner and thinner. Merely calling it "highly" relevant isn't gong to prove anything. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. the purpsoe is to give the interpretation of the line used in end of evangelion, which has been "i feel sick" or "Disgusting" any other, is just trying to give a big dictionary to that word. It's not relevant at all, especially if they are so close. It's like giving many definitions (even though they are strikingly similar) to a word. There's no real point in adding additional definitions. They're additional, not relevant.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather be 'bias' than as completely ignorant as you, BN. You know nothing about Eva, you routinely dismiss as OR things which are 100% true and citable, you are an incredibly incompetent and sloppy editor - or perhaps you simply lie in your edits? You are not interested at all in researching the topic even when I have spent massive amounts of time not just getting copies of RS but in excerpting & organizing them. And you have done nothing to improve your writing, I see ("You are known to be bias" or "you're", seriously?). He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones...

And your edit summaries are their own refutation! Alternate translations for the very last line, the very end of The End of Evangelion, where we already have multiple RSs discussing how ambiguous the line is and how difficult to translate are not relevant? Seriously?

Goodraise, you started this. Do BN's claims or edits look even remotely credible to you? --Gwern (contribs) 17:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by credible in this context. What I see here is two good faith editors going in circles, because they have either never tried or simply given up on meaningful discussion with each other. I don't understand the reasoning of either of you, because neither of you is communicating it (or at least not too well). You both simply assume to be right because of the other's bias/incompetence. Accusing each other of these and other things is not helpful. (Please, put a stop to that, will you?) What you should be doing instead is explaining your individual reasonings, even if they are completely obvious to yourselves. Sometimes people just don't see the tree in front of their eyes, not because they're blind or stupid or biased, but because they're distracted, for example by the negative feelings they've developed for each other. That's what I think is happening here between the two of you. So perhaps, if you can't be reasonable with each other, you could explain things to me instead. I have a simple question for the both of you: How does the addition of multiple translations of the last words spoken in The End of Evangelion improve/worsen the encyclopedic quality of the article? In essence, I'm asking does this information have any value to the reader or is it just noise? (See WP:DUE for the relevant portion of policy.) And you'll both have to do better than you've done so far, because I've not yet heard an argument of substance. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that portion of policy does not forbid articles from listing various possible translations of a term, it merely forbids articles doing nothing but that. On the other hand, that similar content is present in an article is no justification for more of its kind to be included. You wouldn't add lots of other spices into your food, merely because salt and pepper are already in it, would you? If, however, there really are "multiple RSs discussing how ambiguous the line is and how difficult to translate" in the article, then that would make some difference. (I'm not seeing multiple sources right now, but then again, I may just be suffering from a temporary inability to see the tree in front of my eyes.) Anyway, the first of you to bring this up in the proper place gets a cookie. Looking forward to reading your answers. Good raise 22:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you're bias, so it's not really you're call to say "ignorant" (that's like a die-hard fan calling someone a hater due to them not liking there favorite series). I'm just not a die-hard fan to think everything is verifiable and there are many things in question. And I'm more of a cleaner type. I could care less how much "research" you've done. Basically, the gist of the translation is "I feel sick" and "disgusting", and the rest of the other translations are practically the same translation. And I don't think it's helpful, i just think its noise. And not exactly, the refs just gave more translations (that seem to be the same thing), it's ambiguous, just not that ambiguous. I do believe we should use only the translations the interpretation of it in end of evangelion should be used not in general. the interpretation is to interpret the last line in end of evangelion, not the actual word in general.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see rhetoric is wasted on you. BN, maybe you should stop claiming what I have and have not admitted until you attain an 8th-grader's reading level.

And way to take pride in your ignorance. You know, in any other area, people don't claim their ignorance is a virtue and those with actual knowledge of the topic are 'bias' and should submit to outsiders who want nothing more than to cut and delete. (Cleaner my arse. There's nothing clean about the articles you mutilate; they are only shorter.)

GR, if you're still reading, notice BN has not dealt with my cited edits. She can't, of course, because she is ignorant, and lazy or incompetent, and there's no way to explain them away. --Gwern (contribs) 23:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing the bad stuff does tend to make things shorter.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As does cutting off someone's legs. --Gwern (contribs) 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, i don't think it's necessary to add multiple translations (especially if the multiple translations appear to be the same thing just worded differently). WHat benefit would it be by giving every specific translation? I say only list the translations that affect the interpretation in End of evangelion, not it's interpretation in general.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bread Ninja does not have to deal with your cited edits because they are of no relevance to this issue. As policy puts it: "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Actually, having watched this conflict for a while now, I must say your conduct in regard to Bread Ninja leaves to be desired. You are blatantly disrespectful towards her. I'd even understand it, if one were to label some of your comments as personal attacks and your behavior as verbal abuse. Being a long time editor, I'm sure you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL at least once or twice. Still, may I suggest you read them again? As for the content issue that sparked this, I won't comment on that on this page anymore. Content disputes don't belong into the User_talk namespace. I started a thread in the proper place, which means no cookie for either of you. Good raise 12:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GR, as has been commented, AGF is not a suicide pact. It is a starting point, one which was passed a very long time ago. If an editor is toxic and damages every article she touches, if she has repeatedly demonstrated her ignorance or willingness to lie in edit summaries, then this is something that must be said. I think her edits are of great relevance, in fact, I am hard pressed to think of what could be more relevant on a Wikipedia devoted to articles informing its readers. WP:NOT a social network. --Gwern (contribs) 21:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a case that Bread Ninja is a vandal (yes, bad faith removal of content qualifies as vandalism), then I'm all ears. However, even vandals can make quality edits, and you have yet to show that her edits in the case at hand are not. Good raise 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwix

I noticed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject External links/Webcitebot2 you seemed to be speaking for Pmartin, who seemed to be speaking for Wikiwix/Linterweb.

I've been developing a bot which archives URLs in the IA (through 2 ways), WebCite, and an optional arbitrary shell command (I use wget). Wikiwix is the only other archive service I know of, and I'd like to use it. But browsing through the discussions, I don't see any information or links to how one would archive a URL in Wikiwix - only discussions of how to display a Wikiwix archive page on Wikipedia.

Do you know how, or could you ask Pmartin how/where the documentation is? (I know only a little French.) --Gwern (contribs) 18:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwix is a private archive, it's not a public service like IA or Webcite. Wikiwix is dedicated for wikimedia content.

So, you cannot archive anything yourself. Only Pmartin can set up the archive. Pmartin is willing to do this work for free, only if the community is really going to use it. We're not sure there is any consensus on this at all, so nothing is happening for the moment. Sadly. We're still at your disposal if you thing there is any hope to achieve consensus. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka

Rather than start a potential edit war regarding the character articles, I suggest we continue the discussion here. I understand that you believe the article to have been in better condition prior to my edits, and I can understand that, but I believe otherwise, as do other contributors to the discussion --GroovySandwich 02:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the usual custom when you are rewriting a page in ways you think will be controversial is to rewrite it in a subpage and then discuss and justify your changes. Not unilaterally edit them and then ask anyone who objects to assent to the new status quo and justify any change from it! The burden of proof is on the new version. --Gwern (contribs) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The End of Evangelion

Hello, at The End of Evangelion, you added a passage that seemed to be out of place. I removed it as seen here because on Talk:The End of Evangelion, someone was asking about it. Did you mean to put that passage there? Should it go somewhere else? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a mistake on my part. I must've accidentally pasted that in from that director's review I was using as a reference. --Gwern (contribs) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archiver

Hi, I was made aware of a script written by you at [15]. Can this script be run on the English Wikipedia? If yes, would you be open to having this script perhaps integrated in the toolbox here on Wikipedia? Best regards. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Talkback2|Toshio Yamaguchi#WebCite archiving update}}

More wkimedia sites

[16] - es.wikinews.org

Don't understand. You want these two sites blocked? --Gwern (contribs) 00:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As wikinews is part of the Wikimedia Foundation, none of their sites should appear in search results.陣内 _Jinnai 21:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. OK, I've removed the wikinews.org domain. --Gwern (contribs) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backspace

Your silly image caption on the backspace page has nothing to do with the article. It is a distracting and obviously unnecessary addition. It is also unexplained and therefore could be confusing, and is at the very least unencyclopedic. --danhash (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is describing the photograph in a way more accurate than your version - a backspace key pried off a keyboard and put out in the wild is not 'a backspace key'. It is not in a normal situation, and we should convey in a readable way - and yes, humor enhances readability - that out-of-context nature of the photograph.

Also: who surgically removed your sense of humor? --Gwern (contribs) 20:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the photograph should be removed from the article, because you're right it is out-of-context. But I considered discussing it on the talk page before just removing it, since somebody else placed it there (hopefully) for a reason. And since the photo is there, it shouldn't have a silly caption. When I first came across the article and read the caption, I was initially confused, because it doesn't make sense in the context of Wikipedia and the standards that its articles are written by. So I removed the silly part of the caption, to make it more applicable. I do have a sense of humor, but there is a place for humor. I have laughed out loud at one Wikipedia article in particular--humor definitely has its place. Just not in a way that has no relevance to the article and is distracting and unnecessary. --danhash (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And replaced with what photograph? You're just repeating yourself; you found it confusing. So what? You don't object to humor in general, you claim, so all you're saying is that you don't find it humorous. Either it's humorous or it's giving context; either is sufficient.

It amazes me that people find it worthwhile to try to remove humor, and I fight that every time I can - they are turning Wikipedia into a horrible bureaucratic nightmare where every article ought to read like it was written by machines, regardless of whether this makes them worse or not. --Gwern (contribs) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Wikipedia is not humor. And humor is certainly not an important enough reason to sacrifice readability in an article. Your caption was not giving context in a clear way; if you wanted to give more context you could have written "A backspace key removed from a keyboard" or something similar. If your primary goal is to be entertained I suggest you read Uncyclopedia. Removing your silly caption does not come anywhere close to making the article seem like it was written by machines. Also my goal is not to remove humor, though your goal seems to be to add it unnecessarily.

A better photograph certainly could be found though --danhash (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usagi

I'm have a question regarding your note at DF's talk page, if you don't mind. (Yes, it wasn't difficult, I could go into the choice of that example in more detail but ... meh, let's move on.) In your note there, you note the usagi site. Is there any precedent you know with regard to the reliability of it? There's a single question in the RSN archives (and I'm not convinced that there's a result with regard to reliability there) but nothing at the Anime/Manga project reliable sources list), which is why I ask. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Hitoshi Doi#Personal website and Seiyū Database. If there is no precedent, it's because no one has bothered to use it before. Doi is a BLP reporting on RSs, whose work has been praised by other RSs and his site is editorially controlled. He meets all the usual criteria for websites. --Gwern (contribs) 15:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I appreciate the information, I expect that will be extremely helpful. Thank you! --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His site has already been useful to me in non-Wikipedia tasks, and I've added it to my CSE so hopefully people will make more use of it in the future. --Gwern (contribs) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese PS2 site not showing up as a RS

[Japan's Playstation website

For comparison:

regular google search "おしえて！ぽぽたん" CERO D -wikipedia (#3 on the list)
custom search "おしえて！ぽぽたん" CERO D (not shown on the 2 pages)陣内 _Jinnai 23:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the whitelist. I don't know why it's not showing up. --Gwern (contribs) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd contact google then. Since this is a source being used widespread at Wikipedia, they might give it a look.陣内 _Jinnai 17:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contact them. I don't really care enough to - it's the anime and manga search engine, focused on English sources. --Gwern (contribs) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this isn't too intrusive of me but...

I was just posting a few questions at User:Areala's talk page the other day and I noticed that you'd made a requests from him in 2010 relating to the WP:VG Reference Library. The requests appear to have gone unanswered and I've just realized that this user hasn't been editing since 2007. I don't know if you'd still be interested in the material but I have access to the magazine Areala was offering and I'd be willing to post a copy of it if you still want to expanding the NGE article. There are also a few more articles covering NGE material among the GameFan library if you're curious. -Thibbs (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate any Eva or Gainax-related article you could get for me. (If you're curious what I already have, I have most/all of them either excerpted or linked in http://www.gwern.net/otaku ) --Gwern (contribs) 21:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a scan from the magazine you had requested earlier from User:Areala. There are several other NGE reviews and possibly some Gainax material as well but I'm not sure what exactly you'd be interested in. If you could look through the material here and tell me which scans you'd like I can make them available for you as I have access to all of the issues currently listed there. -Thibbs (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've downloaded the volume 10 review. Bit low-res, but still readable. Reading through that page (I notice a lot of tables of contents are missing, so...), I would like:

vol 4 issue 9, NGE review
vol 5 issue 3, NGE review
vol 5 issue 7, NGE review
vol 5 issue 8, NGE review
vol 5 issue 9, NGE review
vol 5 issue 10, NGE review
vol 5 issue 11, NGE review
vol 6 issue 2, NGE review
vol 8 issue 7, NGE review (DVD)

Reading through them, it seems there are 2 unspecified reviews, and then a review of VHS #5; implying either that Animefan failed to review a few volumes or they are not listed in the vol 3-5 tables of contents. --Gwern (contribs) 02:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here they are. Sorry about the quality, but this probably works better for copyright reasons anyway...

vol 4 issue 9, NGE review (part 1) (part 2) (cite as: "AnimeFan - Neon Genesis Evangelion". GameFan. ~~Issue 45 (Vol. 4, #9)~~ Number 45 (Vol. 4, Issue 9). September 1996. Pp.112&113.)
vol 5 issue 3, NGE review (cite as: Halverson, Dave sub nom. Takahara. "AnimeFan - Neon Genesis Evangelion Genesis 0:1". GameFan. ~~Issue 51 (Vol. 5, #3)~~ Number 51 (Vol. 5, Issue 3). March 1997. Pg.102.)
vol 5 issue 7, NGE review (cite as: "AnimeFan - Neon Genesis Evangelion Genesis 0:5". GameFan. ~~Issue 55 (Vol. 5, #7)~~ Number 55 (Vol. 5, Issue 7). July 1997. Pg.102.)
vol 5 issue 8, NGE review (cite as: "AnimeFan - Neon Genesis Evangelion Genesis 0:6". GameFan. ~~Issue 56 (Vol. 5, #8)~~ Number 56 (Vol. 5, Issue 8). August 1997. Pg.110.)
vol 5 issue 9, NGE review (cite as: "AnimeFan - Neon Genesis Evangelion Genesis 0:7". GameFan. ~~Issue 57 (Vol. 5, #9)~~ Number 57 (Vol. 5, Issue 9). September 1997. Pg.124.)
vol 5 issue 10, NGE review (cite as: "AnimeFan - Neon Genesis Evangelion Genesis 0:8". GameFan. ~~Issue 58 (Vol. 5, #10)~~ Number 58 (Vol. 5, Issue 10). October 1997. Pg.141.)
vol 5 issue 11, NGE review (cite as: Des Barres, Nicholas Dean sub nom. Nick Rox. "AnimeFan - Neon Genesis Evangelion Genesis 0:9". GameFan. ~~Issue 59 (Vol. 5, #11)~~ Number 59 (Vol. 5, Issue 11). November 1997. Pg.162.)
vol 6 issue 2, NGE review (cite as: Halverson, Dave sub nom. E. Storm. "AnimeFan - Neon Genesis Evangelion Genesis 0:10". GameFan. ~~Issue 61 (Vol. 6, #2)~~ Number 61 (Vol. 6, Issue 2). February 1998. Pg.94.)
vol 8 issue 7, NGE review (DVD) (cite as: Patterson, Eric sub nom. Shidoshi. "AnimeFan - Special Feature: Evangelion DVD - Vol 1". GameFan. ~~Issue 83 (Vol. 8, #7)~~ Number 83 (Vol. 8, Issue 7). August 2000. Pg.92.)

I only listed the contents from GameFan for the issues that I had access to so I'm not sure how many more articles exist in the blank entries... You'd also mentioned an interest in material relating to Gainax films. I remember an article on Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water but there may be more Gainax stuff too. At any rate, give me a shout if you are interested in anything else. -Thibbs (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC) (corrections to cites made -Thibbs (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

OK, I've downloaded them. Since you mentioned it, I would like vol 4 issue 2, Blue Water and Patlabor reviews. --Gwern (contribs) 01:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry about the late response. I was expecting you to contact me at my talk if you wanted/needed anything more. Anyway here's the scan you asked about:

Blue Water and Patlabor reviews
- Cite as: Loe, Casey sub nom. Takuhi. "AnimeFan - Patlabor 2 Mobile Police". GameFan. Number 38 (Vol. 4, Issue 2). February 1996. Pg.102.)
- Cite as: Loe, Casey sub nom. Takuhi. "AnimeFan - The Secret of Blue Water". GameFan. Number 38 (Vol. 4, Issue 2). February 1996. Pg.102.)

Also I just realized that I screwed up the number, volume, and issue portions of the above scans I posted for you so I've made corrections to them using strikethroughs so you can see where the problems were. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you'd like anything more. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately I don't store my files as vol/issue, but year-month-periodical, so the mistakes don't matter to me. Thanks for the other scans. --Gwern (contribs) 00:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telescopes

While I currently have no opinion on whether the quote should be attributed to Dijkstra or not, your attribution to Fellows and Parberry is based on inconclusive original research. That this is the earliest source you found mentioning this quote does not imply it actually is the first source to mention it. Given that the quotation already appears in this 1993 PhD thesis makes your theory much more implausible. Cheers, —Ruud 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An August 1993 PhD thesis - with no source - does not controvert a January 1993 original quotation. The OR here is to say that Fellows or Parberry are plagiarizing or not sourcing an otherwise invisible quote... --Gwern (contribs) 17:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, your research is inconclusive:

First occurrence found does not imply first occurrence. Full stop. Goind beyond this and you're doing original research, which is not okay (on Wikipedia, that is).

There is further evidence the original reserach you did is not only inconclusive, but also incorrect (doesn't really matter, due to the point above, but still...)

The publication date of the article and thesis are so close, that it at best leaves open the possibility that the quote was already being attributed to Dijkstra before 1993. But in reality the implicit claim you make, that quote from the thesis came from the Fellows and Parberry article, sounds implausible.
The Fellows and Parberry article is an opinion piece. It doesn't include any citations or references. If the quotation, that may or may not have been by Dijkstra, was folklore and could not be attributed to a specific book or article they could have included it without plagiarizing anyone (especially given that the quote was paraphrased if the original was "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." Fellows and Parberry do not use this exact phrasing, as the computer science article now claims!)

I will try to rephrase this section in the article at a later date. —Ruud 17:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First occurrence found is first occurrence until a better first occurrence is found or a RS says it's not the first occurrence. What else could we possibly use? You're awful quick to accuse my research of being incorrect - with no details. Gee, how am I supposed to respond to that? What is implausible about saying Perry etc coined it? The general sentiment was already around in the '80s (Abelson says something similar in the SICP lectures - with no mention of Dijkstra), so perhaps they simply wrote the best version of the sentiment. That happens, you know. And absence of citation in an opinion piece is a problem? That's exactly what one would expect if they were originating that exact expression! (Who would they cite?)

Are we arguing epistemology here, or Wikipedia editing? There is a quote. I have a citation for it - the authors. (And if you read my email, you'd see I found it because someone else was attributing the quote to those authors and not Dijkstra!) You have a quote; you have no citation for it. Which wins according to WP:V and RS and common sense?

The quote is incomplete, yes - Fellows and Parberry didn't have a period there. Feel free to fix that. --Gwern (contribs) 18:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No details? You need to practice your comprehensive reading skills. "First occurrence found is first occurrence until a better first occurrence is found". That's not how you do proper historical research, either. Don't state as fact what is actually an insufficiently substantiate hypothesis. —Ruud 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I should prove a negative, that no previous citations exist? How would I do that in a proper historical way?

The fact remains, I have a citation for the quote. You do not. Deal. If you want to debate philosophy of science, I suggest Less Wrong. --Gwern (contribs) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered contacting Fellows, Parberry, and/or the author of the thesis? That would sound like a decent start for proper historical research. —Ruud 19:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who, despite this looking, talking, quacking, and walking like yet another misattributed apocryphal quote, thinks that it was not Fellows & Parberry as is laid out in black and white. Shouldn't you be contacting them? --Gwern (contribs) 22:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As expressed in my first comment here, I think it's very plausible that the quote is misattributed. The case you make for it to be attributed to Fellows and Parberry is far from watertight. Evaluting the evidence you have presented, I think it's possible but implausible. If you want to present this is a fact, then you're just another delusional lunatic trying to replace one piece of false history with another. You're arguing this case, so you should make the effort to back it up, but I will. Thank you. —Ruud 22:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the results of the research you should've done in the first place. --Gwern (contribs) 00:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Friday, I received a response from Ian Parberry:

I'm embarrassed to admit that I inadvertently plagiarized Dijkstra. Several people have pointed that out over the course of the last 18 years. I had heard his quote but forgot that it was a quote. The end of the statement, after the telescopes bit, is probably mine. It was unconscious on my part.
Ian

—Ruud 08:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting; he doesn't say where he got that from Dijkstra, but I'll let that slide. Now what? --Gwern (contribs) 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Dijkstra made this statement during the coffee break of conference and existed only as oral history for two decades. Perhaps it was first said by an unknown undergraduate and later misattributed to Dijkstra. There's a really possibility we will never know for sure. I'll try contacting the author of the Ph.D. dissertation to see if he has any additional leads. I'd suggest writing down the results of the investigation at Wikiquote (they probably have a somewhat more lenient attitude to "original research") and point to there from the Wikipedia article. The sentence in the Computer science article can be phrased a little more carefully to state the quote is often attributed to Dijkstra, not that he actually said it. Cheers, —Ruud 20:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on the talk page for the proper article. I just started it there so more people with knowledge and perhaps owning some old books and magazines will join in. Dream Focus 18:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just received another e-mail from Ian Parberry:

I've dug into the question a little more, and I've changed my mind. Please read my conclusions on http://larc.unt.edu/ian/research/cseducation/. Ian

—Ruud 16:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but be amused - does this rabbit hole have any bottom? In any case, does that resolve the issue for you that it was not Dijkstra? --Gwern (contribs) 16:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian's conclusion seems pretty definitive. —Ruud 16:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knife science

I came across this quote by Dijkstra from 1987, which you may find interesting:

As a result, the topic became —primarily in the USA— prematurely known as "computer science" —which, actually is like referring to surgery as "knife science"— and it was firmly implanted in people's minds that computing science is about machines and their peripheral equipment.

[17] Perhaps the source of confusion? —Ruud 15:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot

I started an RFC at WP:VPI#Linkrot - What to do? and encourage you to comment there. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another wiki to remove from filter

gaming wiki] - got this while searching about CERO Z ratings. [18]∞陣内 Jinnai 19:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gwern (contribs) 20:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Yet another
- www**.atwiki.jp - ** means a number. I've seen 35 and 36, but I'm certain there's more so if possible just block all of atwiki.jp.∞陣内 Jinnai 20:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems to just be a wiki-farm like Wikia, so I just blocked atwiki.jp. --Gwern (contribs) 21:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Executive Director's Barnstar

Gwern, I am delighted to award you the Executive Director's Barnstar, which I give out every now and then to thank editors who are making particularly significant contributions to the Wikimedia projects. I'm giving it to you for your work on the English Wikipedia and English Wikibooks. Since 2004, you've made more than 100,000 edits, and you've written or worked on hundreds of articles on a wide range of topics include ones related to technology, science fiction, and Chinese, Japanese and American history, popular culture, art and literature. You've got amazing throughput – you've done an incredible amount of high-quality work for Wikimedia readers. I also want to specifically thank you for your advocacy on behalf of new editors, and especially your essay In Defense of Inclusionism, which I believe makes a significant contribution to Wikimedia's thinking about barriers to entry for new editors. If you, or anyone reading this, wants to nominate an editor for the ED Barnstar, please feel free to do it on my talk page. Sue Gardner (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 21:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I also very much enjoyed the article on your personal site about nootropics by the way: you've persuaded me to give melatonin one more try :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neat; but you know, while my prior confidence for melatonin helping a random person is pretty high - I have many reasons to think so and many people have told me that melatonin helped them a lot - if you have already used melatonin and not found it helpful, that's very informative and so my posterior confidence is not so hopeful that it would help you. (Data trumps theory.) --Gwern (contribs) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to be dubious, but in practice I am amazed that the melatonin is working! I don't remember my other experiments with it very well (I didn't document them), but this time, at 1mg compared with the 3mg I took last time, it's terrific. My internal body clock seems to be about 26-28 hours, and I've always struggled to conform to 24. Taking melatonin for the past few weeks, I seem to have been able to impose a 24-cycle on myself with no difficulty at all -- it's kind of amazing. I am also now starting to experiment haphazardly with fish oil, creatine, piracetam and choline, vinpocetine, theanine, DMAE and huperzine A. So, again: thank you for documenting and sharing what you did :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Dune

I would appreciate any suggestions you would have for improving the Children of Dune plot. The straight reversion without comment doesn't help improve the article. Stile4aly (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any suggestions. I don't think the {{plot}} is appropriate. --Gwern (contribs) 13:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plot length as it exists currently is massive and overwrought. My intent was to trim minor details and flowery phrasing and stick more closely to the critical plot points. As no one else was making changes after I added the {{plot}} tag, I deciced to make the effort to improve it. If there are specific pieces you feel I removed that should not have been, or if there are parts of my summary that can be rewritten or replaced, I'm happy for the collaboration, but I don't think the article as it stands is in a reader friendly condition. Stile4aly (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Gwern/Archive/3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The weird speedy deletion notices that you received last month

Hi Gwern, Re: this bizarre set of notices that you received: the problem was partially caused by me moving pages across namespaces so I can fetch old edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, and partially by a hyperactive redirect fixing bot. I've just been informed about a similar problem at Maxwell's equations; see this section of my talk page for more details. Right now I'm going through the deleted edits of the redirect bot, AvicBot (talk · contribs), to find any more examples, and I just found the example of your redirect at "FORTIFY SOURCE". I've restored the redirect. Graham87 06:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eHow

www.ehow.com - content mill. Any info gotten there will be suspect even from experts as being low-quality
www.ehow.co.uk -same as above. It may be best to blanet block ehow.

In fact its on Wikipedia's blacklist, which is why I can't link it here.∞陣内 Jinnai 02:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, dealt with. --Gwern (contribs) 00:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folding@home paradigm shifts

I noticed your recent edit of the Folding@home article. Since you questioned in the edit summary the citations behind F@h causing paradigm shifts, I have recently replaced those with a citation to an appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journal paper, which says "Moreover, this approach represents a paradigm shift in how one uses simulations, away from anecdotal single-trajectory approaches to a more comprehensive statistical approach." Although the statement was indeed briefly covered by the Results/Papers citation I had in place, I used this journal instead, and moved those other citations to more appropriate places in the article. Also, as User:Emw recommended, I had some details in the body of the Folding@home article (in the Biomedical Significance section) which further supported that statement. So hopefully I have successfully addressed that issue. Thank you for the edit you made though, it was a bold statement and needed better backing. If I have not resolved this to your satisfaction, please let me know here and I will try again. I'm trying to bring Folding@home up to Good Article quality, so once again I appreciate your edit. Best, Jessemv (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. I would be happier if Pande weren't an author on that paper - if it really is a paradigm shift, it shouldn't be hard to find a scientist saying so who hasn't built his career on it. ('A legend in his own mind' etc.) --Gwern (contribs) 01:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant)

On 4 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Roger Craig holds the record for largest one-day winnings on the regular version of Jeopardy! and is thought to have won the largest single Daily Double prize in the show's history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lucia Black and civility

Hello Gwern,

Lucia Black dropped by on my talk page to ask for help regarding you. At issue this time is this comment of yours. She thinks it's uncivil, and I'm inclined to agree. What about you? Good raise 08:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to think that it is astoundingly uncivil of an editor to not take 5 seconds to google something that bothers her, and demand someone else take 30 seconds of their time to improve the citation and then reply to them. --Gwern (contribs) 16:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's not how things work. We both know what uncivility. Starting a discussion about something like that when you reverted it, but without adding proper citation yourself.Lucia Black (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to discuss. Both times I told you how you could find the citation information you claim to desire, and this makes a third time.

Are you actually editing, or just picking a fight with me? --Gwern (contribs) 17:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed it was referenced multiple times. So obviously asking it directly has the most common sense. You pick the fights. The first time wasn't much of a way of finding it. The second time you attacked. If you don't see the uncivility then ill just report you 1 way or another. I'm not going to stand for this. I didn't want goodraise to be this involved because he doesn't know how you are.Lucia Black (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already pointed out it was way faster to google.

" If you don't see the uncivility then ill just report you 1 way or another. I'm not going to stand for this."

I see. So the plan was entrapment. I shall keep this in mind in any further interactions, and just revert the bad edits without commenting. --Gwern (contribs) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you consider it entrampment then that furthers how twisted this has gone...there's no hope for any civility with you unless you realize exactly what you did/doing is wrong. Your sarcastically loud tone along with insults such as calling people lazy, you have the means to fix it yourself long before I did, common sense dictates to ask the one originally found it rather than make a search for something that is already found plus being said referenced multiple times it will be easier to find and cite rather than finding it and manually citing it.Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tempting as it is to reply, I'm done here. --Gwern (contribs) 20:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gwern and Lucia Black. Thank you. Good raise 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neon fansite

Gwern, don't be a jerk. If you find any useful information there sourced to that non-RS (until proven otherwise--your saying so doesn't make it so), restore it. I went edit by edit, with edit summaries--you should try that sometime. I know you kids like your mangas, but this is still an encyclopedia. If you want to show the world what all could be said about your chosen topic, get a MySpace. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My saying so doesn't make it so? You are free to look at the list of RSs the Anime wikiproject maintains and point out where Ex.org does not appear on it.

Until then, I will continue to 'be a jerk' to a careless editor who will not call a spade a spade.

And the eva.onegeek.org was just a convenience list, since there were so many releases I didn't want to bother to pull together 30 RSs for each one; don't make a huge deal of it. --Gwern (contribs) 01:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a deal of it, since you think it's OK to undo all the work I've done with one big dumb stroke. Can you go back and recorrect the punctuation error I fixed? Oh, RS is not optional: you better prove it. And I just removed this: "In an interview in Famitsu, the attire of Serah Farron from Final Fantasy XIII-2 was said to be have been influenced by the design of the Plugsuits". It wasn't even verified to your website. Did you write it? It's real funny, clothes giving interviews. Don't restore it: it's unverified and not proper English.Drmies (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reimei no Arcana

Hi,

i don't any more concern on whatever this series pass WP:BK requirement compared to the situation in 2010. Getting this title released in NA helped a lot.

In addition it was also released in France by kaze the "French publishing-arm" of Viz Media Europe. So reviews in French should be also available even if i haven't checked.

--KrebMarkt (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links to talk pages

I haven't seen this phenomenon.

I am interested, though, in finding a method for preserving references that are no longer needed - or to phrase it in the motivating way - not currently needed by articles. Any ideas? Rich Farmbrough, 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I can't say I either know or care about references that are 'no longer needed'; that's very rare. --Gwern (contribs) 23:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All feature full stops. Something that was missed in the past 4 years for some reason.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...because they look like sentences. The word is not spelled "sentences." just because you can find a poster with a period conjoined with the usual spelling. You need to find examples where the title is used in the middle of a natural sentence and so the period is deliberately intended and clearly part of the title, before you can even start making the case to move the articles to names used by noone except you in the Anglophone world. --Gwern (contribs) 15:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're going for sentences in all of the promotional imagery and all of the home media. I am not looking to move the pages anymore. I just think that the full stop should be stated to be in the stylization of the title.

In a related situation, I have found sources that refer to Bakuman as "Bakuman." in the middle of a natural sentence. Would this suffice for that page?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would suffice for claims within the articles, I suppose, although it's always possible the found RS made a mistake. It wouldn't be enough to move the pages. --Gwern (contribs) 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This same reliable source omits the full stop from the Rebuild film titles. So they've chosen to refer to バクマン。 (which has a full stop in the Japanese name) as "Bakuman.".—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you = twit

The Lafferty literary rights are no longer for sale. They were bought in July 2011. This can be confirmed by contacting his estate's executor:

Elizabeth Kennington Executor The Estate of R.A. Lafferty 1415 Pennsylvania Avenue Durham, NC 27705 919-286-9519

. . . although this hasn't been announced on any website I've ever heard of.

The point is, though, the R.A. Lafferty article has incorrect information which is best deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.39.4 (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name-calling is not helpful. And perhaps I could contact the executor, but that would be a pretty clear case of WP:OR (I try to limit my infringements of modern narrow interpretations of OR to braindead inferences and comments any intelligent person could make - active research is definitely a step too far).

But the information is not inaccurate, it is incomplete. That is not the same thing at all - the estate was up for sale at the times and dates and conditions listed in the article. Your time would be better spent getting an RS to publish a blurb describing the disposition of the copyrights; that shouldn't be too hard, I'm sure the SF Signal would do an update on their old article. --Gwern (contribs) 15:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, about the name-calling. It's not really YOU that's the twit, so much as your edits. They are idiotic and wrong. You're obviously just doing this because, I presume, you otherwise have no authority in life. The information that you bizarrely insist on retaining in the article is both outdated and irrelevant. It doesn't belong in any author's page. I can only assume that you're putting it back to be petulant. May your miserable life continue for a long, long time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.185.178 (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it does too, thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 15:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gwern. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tay–Sachs_disease/archive2.
Message added 17:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relating to contradiction

The article "list of neon genesis evangelion" or "neon genesis evangelion (manga)" mentions nothing of any volume release in 1998 for both japanese and english release. Regardless, reverting ediits that clearly contradict the article and saying it doesnt based solely on your opinion is uncivil. If you have more knowledge that provides more information, then by all means share and contribute to the article. Its clearly a contradiction within the article.Lucia Black (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the freaking image page, and the cited ISBNs. Try google-searching for once in your life. The manga did not start its first English publication in 2004. --Gwern (contribs) 19:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did a google search before replying. Point is, it contradicts the article. Why is it so hard for you to contribute too?Lucia Black (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try harder. The article is not wrong, it is misleading. --Gwern (contribs) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is regarding the list.Lucia Black (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see Allen4names has done the work you were too lazy to do. You should thank him. --Gwern (contribs) 20:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For providing me with the resource even after i forgot about it :) MaenK.A._Talk 16:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your custom WP:VG/S Google RS

Is it still being maintained to reflect changes to the list of reliable sources? The page says "Last updated: May 21, 2010", but a thread on this talk page details changes made in March 2011 I think, so I'm not sure how accurate the date is. :) Salvidrim! 12:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My CSE automatically sucks in the Wikipedia page, but I also routinely expand the black and whitelists on a weekly basis as I run searches and intervene in AfDs. However, I don't know what your link is to - it doesn't seem to be my CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 20:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:VG/S, it says:

"You can also use Gwern's

Google RS, a custom Google search engine focusing on the below sites which will also filter out many bad or non-RS sites, to search for reliable sources on a topic. The template {{find video game sources}} also includes a link to the custom search engine."

Unless I'm mistaken. Salvidrim! 20:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? I didn't put that message there, and my CSE lives at http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=009114923999563836576:1eorkzz2gp4 which is a completely different URL. --Gwern (contribs) 20:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that's for anime right? Why is it posted at WP:VG/S? I'm thoroughly confused. Salvidrim! 20:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the black and whitelists also improve significantly results for video game topics too. --Gwern (contribs) 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

resource request

Hi Gwern,

I've uploaded the article from Faith and Philosophy that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editing guidelines

From your edit summary: "you reverting all my work is not how editing goes". I appreciate that you feel strongly about the work you've done, but please do refer to WP:BRD. Reverting content additions is a typical editing practice on wikipedia. I suggest you bring your concerns to the talk page. Forcing your POV into an article through edit warring isn't an acceptable approach. aprock (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing ANI: [19] it appears that I'm not alone in noticing your curious editing behavior. aprock (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is not applicable to simple stone-walling of referencing.

And I find it interesting that you immediately start looking for dirt on me. I will take that into consideration when editing. --Gwern (contribs) 23:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is stone walling you. By all means, I invite you to put aside your snarky edit summaries etc, and edit collaboratively. aprock (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement (WP:ARBR&I)

FYI: [20]. aprock (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to such a tactic. --Gwern (contribs) 01:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikicommons listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Wikicommons. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Wikicommons redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would You like to Help?

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the [[21]]. McKinseies (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modafinil

By clicking around your userpage (thanks for checking if you had access to Nord. J. Bot., BTW), then homepage, I found your lengthy modafinil analysis. Wow! I'm interested in the drug, and was looking for a summary like this ... will read carefully and digest. Thanks for sharing. Sasata (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I wrote it because the Wikipedia article was the usual usefully useless article and no one had done a proper job of it yet. --Gwern (contribs) 02:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dose

Please see wp:PHARMMOS and/or wp:MEDMOS. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converge v. Diminish

Diminish means getting smaller. Converge means approaching the same value, possibly non-zero. aprock (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point?

You aren't going to take me to Arbcom over this, I hope? --Gwern (contribs) 20:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely explaining why I undid your edit. aprock (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gainax TV Series Table

Glad to see someone else working on the Gainax page! I undid (and redid) your changes to the table of TV shows because filmographies are supposed to be simple lists of a person or company's works. While I concede that directors are essential to the vision of an anime series, unevenly adding in positions or any adapted source (with jobs like "character designer" or any manga series it's based off only applied to some of them) is too cumbersome and probably better left on the series' own article. I also am afraid of articles becoming too complicated or daunting for the novice reader to stumble into and maybe become interested in something they otherwise wouldn't. That's my rationale anyway. Ode2joy (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they supposed to be simple lists? --Gwern (contribs) 16:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

So any new disruptive bots in the works? BTW, you ought to archive your page. It's getting a little long there. 76.100.195.188 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, my disruption takes more subtle forms these day. And you, any interesting new vandalism planned? --Gwern (contribs) 03:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message from zictor23 regarding Yuko Miyamura, Angelic Days, Spike Spencer, and the Evangelion manga

Hi Gwerne,

Following on from your message to me on the 7th of March, did you see that I added that link regarding Miyamura taht you asked me about on the Evangelion discussion page? I was just wondering. Also, do you know where I could please read "Angelic Days" and the manga version of "Evangelion" (which is ending soon) online?

Lastly, on the discussion page, I posted a link to a forum where a fan called Zeak who attempted to make a fan-made animated adaptation of Re-Take. met Spike Spencer at a convention. He apparently told Zeak that he read it. I wonder what the thought of it? It would be nice if it got at least an official manga release after the Rebuild series comes to an end.

Kindest regards,

zictor23 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

Torrents?

I don't know; I checked the thread thoroughly, but his reaction was not listed. --Gwern (contribs) 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwern,

Thank you very much for getting back to me. If I ever find links to either of the two mangas (or both) I will post links to them on the Neon Genesis Evangelion page.

Also, I recently posted a link to an English translation of Re-Take on the Neon Genesis Evangelion page. I did that so that other people who haven’t read Re-Take could check it out. I was amazed when I first came across it. I think I first heard about Re-Take on the EvaGeeks website.

Lastly, I hope that I don’t sound like a broken record when I said that I hope Re-Take gets an official manga release and/or gets animated someday. It’s just that I would like to see that happen, and I know that many fans would, judging by what I've read people say on the Internet. It would be good if something were done after the Rebuild series ends next year. To me, Re-Take is a fantastic follow-up to the End of Evangelion. I sometimes wonder what Hideaki Anno thought of it (if he has read it). zictor23 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such links would be removed as copyright violations and would be a waste of your time. --Gwern (contribs) 21:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response from zictor23

Hi Gwern,

Thank you for letting me know. I didn't realise that if I posted links to scanlations of the Eva mana adaptation and/or Angelic Days they would be removed as copyright violations. If I do find sites for them, however, would you like me to post them on your talk page if you wish to check them out? zictor23 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I read Angelic Days and it was pretty mediocre, I have a copy of Re-Take, and if I need the official manga, I know where I can get it. --Gwern (contribs) 20:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelion Page Merge

As far as I can tell, the Episodes and Records sections were the only part of the original media page I didn't directly integrate into the franchise page. The former should already be found in the TV series' page and the latter seems unnecessary and had no proper sources. Any record sales should be filed under the credited product, not paraded in some big table with no sense of financial proportion. I'm interested to hear if you think I have left too many or the wrong things out. Ode2joy (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So... shouldn't you try to find sources, then? I imagine some of the pages probably list sales info, and if they don't, then that's a much more useful thing for you to do than a useless merge making a big page even bigger. --Gwern (contribs) 16:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't propose the merge. I diddn't even give my 2 cents on it.Lucia Black (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, now that I check, I see it was Ode2joy who proposed it, and he performed it before anyone gave their 2 cents on it.

What the heck, man? The franchise article is already pretty big, and 'List of X media' articles are perfectly standard. --Gwern (contribs) 17:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merge was done rather hastily, but now that i look at it, merging it might make it easier to just put in a simple prose and briefly explain each media rather than listing them.Lucia Black (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a block of prose be preferable to a list? When you're writing about a list, write a list; form follows function. --Gwern (contribs) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelion manga version

Hi Gwern (and other Eva fans),

I recently came across a website called Manganation containing scanlations of the manga version of NGE. I'm glad that I found this, because here in the UK none of the Evangelion mangas have been released, so its nice to finally come across this. It'll be interesting to see how the manga version compares with the anime version.zictor23 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably be pretty disappointed. Sadamoto has relatively few defenders among contemporary fans; he adapts the story straightforwardly, and his changes are frequently for the worst. The ending so far is looking like an extremely lame version of EoE. --Gwern (contribs) 18:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Google Custom Search Engine comment

Hi Gwern. As you may know, WP:VG had been using your anime CSE until around 2009 when a member of WP:VG created a new CSE but forgot to list his name, instead leaving you as the contact in case of problems. Since then I can see you've gotten a couple of comments on this subject (e.g. this and this) which must be rather bothersome. So I just wanted to let you know that I've created a new pair of CSEs for WP:VG now and so you can direct any further complaints or error reports to me if you wish. Happy editing. -Thibbs (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will link it on the front page of my CSE to reduce confusion. --Gwern (contribs) 18:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response from zictor23 regarding the manga

Hi Gwerne,

Regarding the manga, I haven't read much of it. I was just curious to see how it ends, compared with the anime. One thing I have heard is that manga Misato also sacrifices her own life to save Shinji. Also, from what I saw in one chapter, Ritsuko kills Gendo, apparently out of jealously for the fact that Gendo doesn't love her but apparently only loves Rei. I wonder if it'll have an open ending like EoE (which led Azuma Takeshi to write the brilliant Re-Take, to continue the story), or if things will turn out differently. zictor23 (contribs) 20:28 7 May 2012

Gendo's not dead yet, as far as I know. I don't think it will be like EoE's ending at all - Sadamoto is a weaker writer and has punted almost entirely on the much-anticipated Instrumentality. I currently believe there will be some sappy simple ending. --Gwern (contribs) 22:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gag dub

Please don't remove prods unless you give a reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add PRODs without making an effort to find any sources. --Gwern (contribs) 20:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exobrain

Exobrain listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Exobrain. Since you had some involvement with the Exobrain redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Argey (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notification

It's only fair that you be notified of the discussion occurring at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 105#Blocked or Banned, which pertains to you. —David Levy 16:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented; but Wales's talk page has always been far too active to watchlist. (No wonder he rarely edits these days - I'd not edit too if I kept seeing the bar of death.) --Gwern (contribs) 18:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toonami (Rebirth)-Adult Swim

Hi Gwern,

I think it was entirely appropriate to speedy delete the article at Toonami (Rebirth)-Adult Swim as opposed to redirecting it, and disagree with your creation of a redirect at that title. A redirect is useful if it is a likely search term or if there is a link from either within Wikipedia or outside Wikipedia using that title. In this case, I do not think the title is a likely search term. Someone might type "Toonami (Rebirth)" or "Toonami (Adult Swim)", but I don't think people are likely to type the whole string "Toonami (Rebirth)-Adult Swim". It also isn't linked from any articles in Wikipedia, and is unlikely to be linked from outside Wikipedia as it was recently created. This seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that speedy deletion criterion A10 was created to delete. Calathan (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A10's language is clearly about articles. --Gwern (contribs) 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there must be some confusion. This was an article when it was deleted under A10 (at least in the last revision I saw before it was deleted). You said in an edit summary "I have no idea why the AfD voted to delete or the administrator did it; this is a beyond-blatant redirect". I'm saying that I disagree with that, and think it was entirely correct to delete that article under A10 and that it is not useful to have a redirect from this title. I'm not suggesting that the new redirect be deleted under A10, if that is what you thought. Calathan (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That actually was what I thought; frequently when editors comment on talk pages about speedy criterion, it's to justify future action. --Gwern (contribs) 21:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The thread is User Gwern disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasanton, Kansas

I didn't fail your edit experiment for Pleasanton, Kansas. Though I included the city and county maps on all the city articles in Kansas, I don't consider it a big deal for someone to remove the county map, and its not worth my time to get into edit wars over it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modafinil articles

Per WP:RX#Modafinil, if you still want to view the articles (Repantis et al, 2010 or Kumar, 2008), please contact me and I'll upload them. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. --Gwern (contribs) 15:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link available at WP:RX#Modafinil OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ezio Testa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ezio Testa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezio Testa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More telescopes

"We have attempted to show that while the processing of information is a science it is not one which can be apprehended by merely studying the basic tools, i.e. the computer and programming languages, any more than astronomy can be reduced to the detailed study and operation of telescopes." J. Hebenstreit, "Computer Science in Education", 1974(!) —Ruud 16:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One begins to wonder if there was direct influence or whether CS people just think about telescopes a lot. --Gwern (contribs) 16:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Republic

I wanted to drop you a line as I noticed you have previously made a comment regarding the deletion of the page Constitutional Republic. This page has, once again, been recreated and is, once again, up for deletion in case you have input or comments. BlueSalix (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Codeless Code

I noticed today (via Google Analytics) that the Hacker koans page has an external link to "The Codeless Code" (my site), apparently put there by you in July 2012. Thanks! I feel like I've hit the big time. :-) Would you object if I add the following text to the "Collections" section?

Another collection of hacker fables, some of which are written in the style or spirit of Zen koans, may be found at The Codeless Code (^2). It features purely fictional characters (mostly masters and monks) in a quasi-Far-Eastern setting. The stories explore topics related to modern software development. The name for this site is also a reference to The Gateless Gate.

(It feels like a slight conflict of interest for me to propose this, but seeing as you've added the link...) QilessQi (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a little excessive until the collection has been published or something. (Not that anyone is likely to object, but I'd know that a norm was being stretched.) External links are held to a much lower standard. --Gwern (contribs) 17:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ötzi the Soap Man listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ötzi the Soap Man. Since you had some involvement with the Ötzi the Soap Man redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Neelix (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REX#Modafinil

Dear Gwern! Is this request still open? -- Doc Taxon (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC my requests were filled. --Gwern (contribs) 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes#refs without source

Hello, Gwern. You have new messages at Talk:List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes.
Message added 08:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm posting my response to yours here because I don't see a need for this to be that public. Your reason was no excuse for not being WP:CIVIL. Regardless of whether you made the change youraelf or not before explaining how it's done, the way you explained it had very much of a "shut up and go away" tone. —Frungi (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Black/Breadninja is the single worst editor to spend much time working on the Eva articles; she has zero writing or research skills, zero interest in improving herself, and solely concerns herself with destructive edits. In her hundreds of edits to Eva articles and talk pages, her genuine contributions can be listed on the fingers of 2 hands, to be generous. I wish she would go away! --Gwern (contribs) 17:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its a conflict of interest more than anything else. And you previously admitted that you were seeing the articles in an artistic point of view then encyclopedic. You also previously admitted you had no intention in making the articles to featured-class. It bothered you that the glossary were deleted, and that the album articles were merged, despite no reliable third party sources were provided. These articles can be trimmed and be refined, it has too many explanations in an interview and self explanatory sort of way, when it can be more blunt and straight to the point.

Anyone who reads your comments can see how bad an editor you are. "Conflict of interest"? Maybe you should read CoI before tossing it around! As for FA - plenty of FA regulars complain about the process, so me saying that means less than nothing; it merely means I have some actual familiarity with the process. What's next, my comments about the farce RfA has become is now evidence I am a vandal? And yes, the loss of the glossary bothered me because it meant that concepts used throughout all the Eva articles now must be repeatedly redefined in every article; who can enjoy redefining 'Evangelions are large robots' or 'NERV is a paramilitary organization devoted to fighting Angels' (what are Angels? guess we need to redefine them in every article mentioning them too!). The albums could have been improved, and I seem to recall providing you with a link to a cleaned up page of search results, which you did absolutely nothing about. (Which is exactly what a terrible editor would do, and not what a good editor would do.) And the rest: they can be, but why should they be?

No one really spends time editing those articles to the point of actual improvement because you try to own those articles. You think you have liscence to be uncivil but you dont. You say you trying to teach me how to fish, but thats not really whats going on, you want me gone.Lucia Black (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the last editor I got into a fight over the Eva articles besides you? I can't even think of them because the others are happy adding content, updating things for Rebuild, doing ordinary wikignome stuff like removing broken links, etc. (Not that it really matters, since the other editors were not the ones doing actual research and digging up all the out-of-universe material like the interviews or "The Notenki Memoirs" which make the Eva articles worth a damn, but you're still wrong in your accusations.)

Also, I'm impressed that like 3 years in, you still cannot manage to spell words properly even while accusing me of having "liscence" which I "dont"; newsflash, "thats not really whats going on". It's just that you are a horrible editor who trashes stuff which took me hundreds of hours. --Gwern (contribs) 03:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there’s obviously some personal animosity between you two, so I’m going to humbly suggest that you both simply avoid looking at each other’s edits until such time as you can be civil and mature toward each other. I haven’t looked into either user’s editing history, but it seems clear to me just from this exchange that one (if not both) of you is in the habit of personally attacking the other. Things shouldn’t be made personal here, and egos should not get in the way of being constructive—whether that’s adding pages of quality content, or explaining the concept of WP:cruft to a well-meaning contributor.

In short: Be civil to each other (at least in public view), or leave each other alone. —Frungi (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@gwern: You did nothing to stop those articles from merging, thats probably because you couldn't, so if you could you would right? You're playing with hypocrisy. If you're a beter editor, then fix the articles, because you sure wont let me. And the glossary had to be deleted because it was just fancruft info with no reliable third party source. if it had to be redefined in other articles, then so be it. Thats a price wikipedia is willing to take. It was affecting the quality of Wikipedia and we both know it. You get easily offended when it comes to editing what you already added which suggest even more on ownership. You ask, "And the rest: they can be, but why should they be?", thats probably because they aren't notable on their own, and most likely wont ever be (especially the video games considering they are japanese only games that barely have)

The article has flaws, i may not be the best researcher, but it's not all about research to make an article better, there are cleaners who merge/delete non-notable articles, make sentence structure more simple and condense the information, and even remove trivia. You want me to become the editor you want, and if i'm not what you want me to be then you label me the worst editor you ever met.Lucia Black (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You stirred this back up, Frungi, so I'm not much inclined to take your advice on what to do since your judgment is questionable at best.

Breadninja, it's not a price Wikipedia is willing to pay - it's a price you are willing to pay. We all have strength enough to sacrifice others...

I don't know how you can say you are not the best researcher when you've never done a lick of research in any Eva edit I've had the misfortune to see. And yes, you are the worst Eva editor I've ever seen who has not either stopped or gotten themselves banned. --Gwern (contribs) 22:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw incivility, so I pointed it out and asked for an end to it. I don’t see how that’s stirring things up. It was your choice to continue being rude and making personal attacks. Maybe that’s just your personality, I can’t say; but if it is, you really ought to keep that in check. If you really think someone is the worst thing to have happened to Wikipedia, there are ways to deal with that and even have that person removed, and hurling insults and accusations are not among them. If you think I’m wrong, then I’m happy to be corrected, but I really don’t think that’s the case here. —Frungi (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if you need an example of being civil while pointing out a problem with someone else’s edits, see my most recent post here. I could have chastised that editor for being lazy in adding that quote without including any information about the source or its translation; instead, I kept my insults to myself and calmly explained my reasoning, after making the necessary changes myself. (Note: I haven’t searched through the edit history, so if it was you that added that quote, I apologize for the unintentional irony—though I do hope you see the irony in calling others lazy while demanding they do your work. Also see WP:POINT.) —Frungi (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be referring to the Tsurumaki quote since it does include adequate citation info for an interview which is cited frequently both on and off-Wikipedia, so I assume you're referring to the 'metafiction' term; I have laid out how very easy it is to find citations for that in multiple sources. So if there is any irony here, it's that you're not a particularly good researcher yourself.... --Gwern (contribs) 04:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pointing fingers. This isn’t about research skills (and mine were at least good enough to give more information than that editor did). And as I said on that talk page, a bare title is not adequate citation. —Frungi (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me about pointing fingers when you were the one bringing it up and complaining about it and saying it was ironic. The ref identified it adequately since anyone who cared could find it in less than 5 seconds with Google (and the interview was linked in the NGE TV article where that material was originally written and where best practices are to not repeat all the citation info but just give the title or the author/year). I see you're being clueless about 'metafiction' as well on that talk page; though I'm probably wasting my time on someone kvetching at length over such minor issues... --Gwern (contribs) 17:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reader shouldn’t have to search out the publication information himself. That’s what references are for. And citing a source by title alone is dangerous, since any number of items can have the same title, and would be distinguished by author or by the publication they appeared in. As to your justification, the citation in that article is missing the same information (in fact neither the book nor the translator are mentioned anywhere in the article), though at least it is linked. I’ll fix that now. Even if that weren’t the case, it’s a separate article; the argument you made is for a source used multiple times within a single article, which isn’t the case in either one.

If you wish to continue this conversation here, please break it out of this longer, unrelated discussion. —Frungi (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Back at it again? I guess it didn't help after all. Good raise 01:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwern: you really dont follow my edits. I dont edit in Eva articles because of you. I do research and add info to several other articles. I recently added to Neon Genesis Evangelion:Death and Rebirth.

No, I don't follow your edits because they are worthless and because such wikistalking might have untoward consequences for me. I've looked at the D&R article history, and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be impressed by. Adding one review as a one-line addition? Copying 2 images from another article? Well, I guess those edits aren't completely worthless... Congratulations? --Gwern (contribs) 04:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodraise. Do you ever leave it be? This isnt your battle, so why try to be the wikipolice if you dont even care about the details of the situation nor do you want to help either of us. All you did last time is try scare tactic. I grow weary of this and i want to edit the Eva articles, but it aint happening because the editing that i believe needs to be done is summarizing heavily unnecesary detailed info. And all that is what Gwern has contributed. So i draw my hands....i may have been uncivil in the beginning, but just the thpught of both of you in the same discussion is just at a level of a migrane. Im leaving this discussion, another pointless discussion and ill just take it up at WP:RS/U.Lucia Black (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Goodraise was subtly pointing out that this has been going on for at least a year. Helpful info for someone like me who was unaware of the context. Anyway, Lucia, that seems like the right call. —Frungi (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Frungi: That's pretty much it. I couldn't just let you stick your hand into the bear trap without warning.

@Lucia: In case you're still reading this, don't worry, I'll stay out of your "battle". I'm aware that the kind of help I offered, wasn't to your liking. Too bad for you. This would have been long over by now otherwise. Good raise 04:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not bad for me at all actually. I like it that you don't get involved, because you rather take forceful action or give vague help. You had no intention of helping "me" or "gwern". You get involved, but not directly, and that bothers me. Please, avoid me.Lucia Black (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwern: Sorry for hijacking your talk page like this. I have a feeling you don't mind. If I'm mistaken about that, please let me know.

@Lucia: Forceful action? Like what? That you are unwilling to, or perhaps even incapable of, understanding what people tell you doesn't mean they are being vague. It would appear you only consider actions help if they are "helping to win battles". It's unfortunate. You will continue to have this kind of problems on Wikipedia until you change your attitude. In any case, I have no need to actively avoid you. The number of pages we both edit is negligible. If, however, the two of us should ever get into a content dispute I'll gladly demonstrate to you how effective Wikipedia's dispute resolution process can be when at least one party bothers to pursue it. Good raise 22:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting blocking both of us. Attempting to threaten. Al of that for a dispute you didnt really involve you.And its nothing to do with winning a battle, it has to do with the reasons behind why one "battle" is won. You represent everything that i have a problem with wikipedia, on how people can sleeze out of discussions when its convenient to them and stalk and deny things when it comes to their personal interest. You may have no "need" for avoiding me, but i do. And no, you dont edit any article really that goes within my scopes. All i see you do is comment in wikiprojects that im part of. So i ask you again to avoid me, you give me migranes and i dont ever want to talk to you.Lucia Black (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be so obliging. Fortunately for you, you don't have to talk to me. You can avoid me as much as you like. Good raise 01:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your comments on AdSense

There are two quite different AdWords products, AdWords for Search (Ads triggered by search keyword) and AdWords for the Display Network (Ads triggered mainly by web page context), corresponding to two different AdSense products, as explained here. I agree that the AdSense article is not very clear. LittleBen (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you talking to me here rather than fixing the page, if you know the details? --Gwern (contribs) 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of other stuff going on here. I was trying to encourage you to find out more and have a go if it scratches your itch—like Tom Sawyer and the fence whitewash job, I guess ;-) Best regards ;-) LittleBen (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Road (marketplace)

You need to read up on WP:V and WP:BRD, as I've already reverted the information out, twice now, and adding it back will be viewed as warring. The burden is on whomever wants to add information, not on who deletes it. As you have a conflict of interest here, I strongly suggest you leave that "fact" (which is contradicted and is not verifiable) out of the article until you take it to WP:DRN. Otherwise, you will be taken to WP:EW and likely blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe on the Silk Road talk page I have demonstrated I have a far greater command of policy than you do, so your lectures are not appreciated. It is not revert warring to revert once, and once is all I have reverted there, and comes nowhere near 3RR. Your invocation of WP:V is hilarious given that you are strenuously arguing in favor of banning any links which would make the claim verifiable - but fortunately in this case, the SR rules have been quoted off-SR and though you unaccountably omitted to do any search (though you are able to dig up false articles about child porn... wait, I believe you were saying something sarcastic about facts?). Finally, I did BRD: I reverted and explained on the talk page, even pointing that out in my edit summary.

Oh yes, one more thing: I have no conflict of interest here. My 'conflict' is merely about my SR page on my site, which has nothing to do with the issue of the SR rules or even the larger issue of whether we can link them. Do try to keep these things straight and not make baseless block threats, which as an administrator one would hope you are above. --Gwern (contribs) 03:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image discussion at article 17 Mile Drive

A discussion is underway about images on an article you have contributed to. Please help find a consensus for the article stub at: Talk:17-Mile Drive#17 Mile Drive info box and section images replacement.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelion music

None of the albums have their own article so it doesn't make sense to provide that list on that page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does that follow at all, that 'none of the albums have their own article, so we must delete any summary'? This seems like a complete non-argument.

Here's an argument: 'we have traditionally summarized the contents of a 'main' link so readers know what is to be found at the extended full article; deleting the list summary removes this information from the reader; therefore, deleting the list goes against our usual practice and should not be done'. --Gwern (contribs) 17:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning

Seems A&M has a bit of a problem. I hope you see me as a worthwhile addition to the sector, I am not a major scholar, but I do try my best and NGE holds a special place in my heart. It was the first anime I ever did an academic paper on! I spent maybe 20-30 hours with the material and analyzing and comparing my notes to other reviewers and academics. I had like 20+ pages of notes of the theology and symbolism alone. And, while I am well aware of that infamous interviews with the Christian symbols being simply "foreign" and of no "Christian message", but such was said of FLCL. People do see deeper meanings in anything they want to see deeper meaning in, but after a certain point some sense rises up that "something" deliberate is being done. Shinji and Asuka's path across the Sephirot seems more than just "monster of the week" and given by all the attention spent in drawing and maintaining these symbolic presences, the artists or at least the supervisors had to be aware that intentional development is occurring. Studying "things" people seldom care about can lead to some amazing insights into how "the world" works. Maybe you could share your thoughts with me about it. I'd like to hear more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Neon Genesis Evangelion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neon Genesis Evangelion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NGE

You are probably the best person I can think for help in fixing NGE and getting it to GA and FA. I need your assistance and expertise and getting the whole picture of NGE a proper focus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aiming for FA is a complete waste of time. You could only do it by removing every bit of value from the articles, and even then you would probably fail. You've never done an FA before, as I recall, so you aren't familiar with the process - it's arbitrary and insane, and maybe even worse than RfA these days. Fantastic articles routinely fail for the nitpickiest of reasons. I tried FA a few times, and when my best article ever, Fujiwara no Teika, failed, I simply gave up on it. An anime article? A camel has a better chance of passing through the eye of a needle. --Gwern (contribs) 23:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you are active again! I've been a good influence in the area - but I've been so busy as of late. GAs should be the collective target, but I've been finding it to be far more productive and require less hours to get GAs on non-cultural items. I've been trying to balance the needs of our readers and the difficulty in fixing the pages. Most of the difficulty is not in research or maintaining the pages, but content disputes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really active again: my editing lately has been focused on correcting the historical record of MtGox, since everyone consults Wikipedia for this. As you note, WP is a very bad place to contribute content to these days, and why would I work on Wikipedia articles when my own site is such a convenient place for me now? --Gwern (contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelion

Two days ago I opened up this formal move request based on the suggestion I initially made at WT:ANIME. As you contributed to the original discussion, your input is welcomed at the new one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Locke

Looks like John Locke is now longer than John Locke (Lost). Crasshopper (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. --Gwern (contribs) 23:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons

The article The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Missing sources, and any evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Reference Book

Template:Infobox Reference Book has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Star Wars AT-PT walker.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Star Wars AT-PT walker.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:New-essential-chronology-cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:New-essential-chronology-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible research

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I enjoyed reading Talk:Dionysius_Lardner#Did_he_actually_say_that?. Antrocent (♫♬) 11:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Witch-Hunts (album)

The article Witch-Hunts (album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced album that has been tagged for notability for years

Foreign wikis have even less info.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Databank listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Star Wars: Databank. Since you had some involvement with the Star Wars: Databank redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canal-22 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Canal-22. Since you had some involvement with the Canal-22 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Raymie (t • c) 06:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Radar display

An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar display , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOT-FOR-GETTING-OTHER-PEOPLE-TO-DO-YOUR-HOMEWORK listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:NOT-FOR-GETTING-OTHER-PEOPLE-TO-DO-YOUR-HOMEWORK. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:NOT-FOR-GETTING-OTHER-PEOPLE-TO-DO-YOUR-HOMEWORK redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of All:Hakaba Kitaro

A tag has been placed on All:Hakaba Kitaro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

The title starts with a namespace: "all" is a search namespace.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Cpiral Cpiral 02:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Gai Daigoji edit

FNORD

Miyamoto Musashi

Can you help me with the Susan J. Napier article

From Dan Weinreb

Blank lines before stub templates

Question

Quote from the O.C. Bible

Eva plot summary

How'd you find the SR S2 parodies on my user space?

Kirby

Categories

Your recent edits

Jihad in Ismailism

Atala T

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-2.jpg)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-3.jpg)

AFD for Vsevolod Holubovych

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-2.jpg)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-3.jpg)

Redirect of Danger Ranger

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-2.jpg)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NGE-angelic-days-cover-3.jpg)

Recent DBZ AfDs

Rikdo

Your edit

Library of Alexandria

Disambig and archives

Re: Lolcatese

AfD nomination of Captain Obvious

Mindless

Re: Monad transformer

Re edit summary

Re: Fuyutsuki

Merge proposal

Thanks for your comments on the manga article

AfD Nomination: Xmonad

Your peer review comments on manga

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Past-master-book-cover.jpg

Manga Peer Review

Re: User:Haza-w/cactions.js

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Speedy deletion of Finger tree

The stupid Evil Overlord list entry.

Raymond E. Feist

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Past-master-book-cover.jpg

Ringworld / Orbitals

Thank you!!!

Revert on Xft

Revert of Skuld

Skuld

Re: Essjay

AfD nomination of Cruel Fairytales

Your behaviour on Jim Bell

Search with Wikipedia

images from northwester.edu

Cabal update

undo at Zui Quan

Cordwainer Smith

requesting speedy-delete of typo Phule's compnay

RfD nomination of Abortion (murder)

Eva quote IP

RfD nomination of Gaemcube

RfD nomination of Gamaecube

User pages

Sorry

AfD nomination of Gaba Kawa

Edit summary

Image copyright problem with Image:RuriH.JPG

Consensus poll on Rebuild of Eva 1.0

Distributed Proofreaders verb

Removal of deletion discussions without archiving

Re: Cactions bug

Proposed deletion of Shadowknight

"Not even looking for archive links"

Re Mind Game Film Article...

Haskell function

Monads

Reverting section links to red-links?

Etheron, California listed at RfD