This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2009, October

Chloe Agnew's voice

Find out what her range is and categorize her. Rammer (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

sage ...

Ya know, I remember very early on when I was following you around and reading through your edits and stuff - trying to get a handle on how things work here. I remember this editor bickering with folks on an article, then coming here and calling you some pretty nasty names. I then saw you fix the article, with an edit summary of "Please don't edit war" ... or something to that affect. I knew then and there that this was the type of calm and cool that I wanted to embrace. But yea, ... I do love your humor too .. lol. ;) — Ched : ? 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My philosophy is always "avoid drama at all cost". I can politick with the best of 'em, but I don't find it enjoyable. Unfortunately, those who do enjoy politicking typically lack tact and simply escalate the drama, but I can't do anything about that. I enjoy my little corner of the intarwebs. I also avoid stand-up, but sometimes it finds me. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that I have injected myself in a few recent events that I could likely have avoided; however, I felt it was the right thing to do in stating what I knew. An outgrowth of a recent request now has me responding to various items, but I hold no ill-will towards those on the opposite viewpoints. I realize that I have participated in some small part in some of the recent drama, but I try to state my thoughts, clarify if necessary, then leave the floor open to others. I don't want to bicker with folks, and I'd truly prefer to avoid confrontation, yet I believe I often "do the right thing". (or at least I try to) I guess the community, and history, will be the judge of that. I guess all I can do is try to be fair, open-minded, calm, and level-headed. Much of this I have learned from your example. Perhaps I've disappointed a few folks (Pedro, you, Royalbroil), in my recent edits - after my vacation, I'll try to return to my roots. ;) — Ched : ? 02:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

MTSU and UTK

Hi. I believe there was news a while back to the effect that MTSU's undergrad enrollment now exceeds UTK's. (It needs a source, but I'm pretty sure the edit you reverted in Nashville was true.)

Regardless, I don't believe that MTSU's enrollment should be discussed in Nashville -- it's in the Nashville metro area, not in Nashville per se, but that's a different (and broader) topic for discussion. --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Found a source: [1] --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Evanescence

If you think [2] was an unnecessarily edit, you should know that it is even more unnecessarily to undo, when I didn't debased the article in any way.--Buggwiki (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Convert deadlock - engineers versus others

12-Oct-09: Hello, Hunster. Wikid77 here. I'm contacting you separately because the Convert talk-page (unarchived) has become too large to focus the massive deadlock about rounding. I realize, finally, from several heated replies, that Template:Convert has been "taken over" by engineers, who obviously have hundreds of formulas depending on the current rounding and precision. They quite rightly "own" Convert, and a different conversion template is needed for general users: we cannot find a "one size fits all" middleground within the single Template:Convert. The engineers are rightfully adamant, when thinking about the impact, of even a small change, to affect, perhaps, many of 40,000 engineering articles that consider "200 whatevers" as rounded to the nearest hundred (2 hundred). I am hoping you see the current debates as endless: the engineer viewpoint of "200", as rounded, will never match the general-public view, when they know an athlete weighed exactly 200 pounds, or have a town "exactly" 200 km away. We can't expect a novice user or young teenager to truly understand the notion to always assume 200 is rounded, just because Convert cannot "read minds" but expects people to know (surprise) "200" means plus/minus 50.
Creating Template:Gconvert - I must create a separate variation of Convert, using just a few altered top-level templates, that shifts the level of rounding, away from the engineering measurement-brackets (plus/minus 50 in 200): this new template (don't delete it!) will be "Gconvert" (for "general-purpose convert"). Note: the original Convert will be entirely unchanged. By careful design, the new Gconvert will tie into the vast ocean of Convert's 2,410 subtemplates, but shift the rounding (away from engineers) to match what the general public expects (Google says "32m is 105ft" not 100ft rounded). Again, I am contacting you, as an admin aware of Convert, who has also seen many people concerned about the rounding that doesn't match common notions of weight or height or Google's "32m = 105ft". I think, eventually, we can bot-edit articles containing 200, 300, 400 (etc.) to use "Gconvert" and let users know that the original Convert is (actually) an engineering tool, but the new Gconvert is for general-purpose numbers. The decision, to surrender Convert to the engineers, isn't about who has more articles, but rather concerns which articles would suffer more from changes in precision. Definitely: 40,000 engineering articles are more likely to have details tied to exact conversions, rather than in general articles. I finally realize that, to many engineers, if they said "Pi is 100 glom-units" they would convert pi as 2.99 because "100 is an estimate" to many of them. We must let the new Gconvert become the general-purpose template that numerous people have tried to write, but finally as a template tied logically to Convert without changing anything there. This is just a heads-up notice for why another template is being created. We will avoid months of heated debates if we can allow the 2 separate viewpoints to each have their own template. Please reply below, if you have any major concerns with this proposal. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm almost finished writing Gconvert, and to help convince people to accept, it could be presented as the equivalent template for "Simple Wikipedia" with simple enhancements:

Why have 2 Convert(s)? - why have 2 English WPs; one is simpler
It will allow commas for people who forget: {{Gconvert|8,848|m}}
Math formulas will be allowed for teenagers: {{Gconvert|6*17+9|kg}}
Errors will be explained: "Invalid abbr=yes, try abbr=on"

Although the main intention was to round the calculations, in the manner for the general public, Gconvert can be considered the novice-version or teenager-version to be used in Simple Wikipedia. I don't want a war over the problems that commas will cause inside the original Convert, but teenagers could use commas (in Gconvert) if they forget. Perhaps later, it would be discovered to be simple to allow commas inside Convert.
I'm a computer scientist: I've spent years re-writing software systems to protect general users, engineers, scientists, and bankers (etc.) from dozens or hundreds of nitpicking errors or typos. However, another technical reason to have a 2nd interface ("Gconvert") into the Convert tree of 2,410 subtemplates is because of the frightening impact of changing things inside those 2,410 who-knows-what modules (40 modules to handle all precisions; 20 modules to do any conversion).
The users debating at the talk-page were never going to solve the problems at that rate: the same deadlocks kept re-surfacing: "if people understood 200+/-50 the answers would be fine" or "we must fix the problems forever using square-root of 3 until 10" or "let's scrap the whole system and use the standard output precision as 2+1" and "let's also change temperatures too" (which were already accurate). It began to seem like "Britannica employees" were trying to delay improvements in a rival system: "As long they mis-convert 200 by 5% they'll never have accuracy at Wikipedia" (or some such plot to derail). Anyway, now we have a 2nd variation Template:Gconvert to test for general rounding. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Evanescence

So you mean that the Youtube video should be flagged for breaking against the copyright too?--Buggwiki (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Webcitation.org

I saw your comments at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, and I thought you might be interested in a related discussion taking place at User talk:WebCiteBOT#Concerns about webcitation.org--Blargh29 (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

H2O Just Add Water

Well like I said in the update note I only confirmed the first episode as oct 26, all the other dates were already there but far too early so I just pushed them ahead to be in line as if it was the same date each week with no delays, for the s03e01 release date on the 26th I found the reference on 3 different places but the only one I remember is http://h2ojustaddwater.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwizardry (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

citation

Your advice please: I have the link to an online book, which I am including at Sima Nan, in the 'Further reading' section, and I don't quite know what to do with the various parameters. Thanks, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Arlene Dahl

Why did you change Dahl's year of birth? She was born in 1925 per the 1930 United States Census (Hennepin County, Minnesota). [email protected] (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Your edit summary comment re Arlene Dahl: "Changing date of birth back to 1928, per cited book. Both external links agree with year. Ancestry.com can't really be used here, since there's no way to verify data without a paid account" is factually inaccurate and sets a dangerous precedent as it would disqualify any edits based on info from the censuses, the Oxford DNB, Elsevier and other such sites. As far as Dahl's year of birth, you just have to click on the link here to see that there are two Arlene Dahls in Hennepin County, Minnesota (Minneapolis, where Dahl was born). Of these two, Arlene Coral Dahl (middle name Carol misspelled) is the right age. Just move the cursor to "View Record" and it shows her age as 4 9/12 (4 years and 9 months old), which is exactly right for Dahl's 1925 birth. Long story short, the 1928 year of birth is incorrect and cannot stand. I don't want to violate WP:3RR or get into an edit war so I will bring this matter to a mediator as soon as I get the chance. Yours, [email protected] (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I strongly disagree with using census records, especially ancestry.com translation of census records, as a source for an article. As for the original edit I made to the article, I reverted what appeared to be an inappropriate edit using an inappropriate citation. I have no interest in this article other than that. I'm rather concerned that you feel so strongly about this article that you'd take this edit as an offense and file a mediation case against me. I will not participate in it, and have no interest in pursuing this matter further. Please pick a fight with someone else (or rather, don't pick fights to begin with). — Huntster (t @ c) 23:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, again. I thought seeking mediation was the preferred and professional way of handling disagreements rather than getting to edit wars or feeling optionless. I was not "looking for a fight" and I'm sorry you view it that way. I am not obsessed about the article -- it was on my watchlist, but I have removed it. If 1928 stays it's not the end of the world. I really do apologize if anything I wrote above sounded overly aggressive. Yours, [email protected] (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle Video

Hi, even though the copyright holder uploaded the video onto youtube that is not the issue. This video(the official one) is copyright restricted and not viewable to many people, all of UK and other countries.

That violates WP:EL.
- Is the site content accessible to the reader? NO.
- Is the link functional and likely to remain functional? NO.

SunCreator (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Everestwatercom.jpg

I have emailed the appropriate documents as per Wikipedia regulations to '[email protected]' as per this photo. Please let the admins there do their job instead of trying to do it for them. Or dont you believe in following Wikipedia rules? Mateyahoy (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Oh Sorry I didnt realise you were an admin, appropriate emails were sent regarding this image. Should they be sent to a different email address than the above? Cheers Mateyahoy (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

2009, November

Oasis of the Seas

I note in your edit summary that you state the use of the flagicon is deprecated in ships infoboxes. Not entirely so, the use of a large flagicon for merchant vessels in the career header is not encouraged. However, the use of the correct flag in the port of registry section, at a small size is allowed. There are many ship articles which have these flags. I have reinstated the flag. If you disagree with this please raise the issue at the Ships WikiProject. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

sig

Just yoinked the code for the shadowing on your sig. NICE. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft by registration on Commons

Just left you a message at Commons, I have noticed that some editors are removing categories from aircaft images. I have a problem related to the categorisation by registration. Dont have a problem with the registration category but removing the aircraft and operators cats from the images so it only has the registration makes it very difficult to find images. Is their somewhere on Commons to discuss these daft changes. Apology for the duplicated message but I have also raised the problem here on Wikipedia at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Commons_categorisation. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Amateur radio

Don't worry about the pictures, I believed it was better to put two more, but it's fine 1. :D --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do the Evanescence external links fail?

Its their official verified accounts! Why did you remove them? Be more specific please so I can learn =D --Homezfoo (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

oh god that thing is so long LOL! i'll try to read it. But isn't youtube a social networking site as well? --Homezfoo (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey buddy, ...

thanks for the note. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving as well. Sorry I haven't been around much lately - a few minor R/L things been keeping me busy and all. I think some of the health issues are improving, so hopefully I'll be able to get back into full swing here very shortly. I trust you've been taking care of our wiki while I've been so spotty. ;). All my best, — Ched : ? 21:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

2009, December

Just a note

Of all the folks I've run across here at WP .. you are far and away the coolest, and most ... aww crap, that ain't gonna work. Hey, I don't wanna get all mushy and stupid - but I've been kinda sparse here lately due to R/L things. You da man Huntster. I'll never forget that. Sorry if I don't stop by more often and say so ... Hey .. you are the best friend I've ever had that I haven't actually met in real life - I just wanted you to know that. (fuck, I'm gonna regret this post tomorrow - but WTF ... I only have one shot at this life ... I'll be damned if I'm gonna go out without telling folks how cool they are). Hope all is going well with you buddy! :) — Ched : ? 05:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment removal?

Hi, and I literally have no idea how that happened. Went back to check the page edit and history, and it shows the two comments gone. All I could think of is that I didn't schroll down far enough on my edit block, and the two comments were somehow erased, but I swear that when I first looked at the discussion page there was nothing under the comment I answered. I'd edited my comment several times, but it shows it gone at the first one. I have never removed anyone's comment on a talk page (on purpose at least) and this is a mystery to me. Thanks for pointing it out, Aleister Wilson (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another topic. Since you are an admin. could you take a look at the page 'Donkey punch' (I won't link it so it's not linked here). I don't censor, no matter what last night's edit showed, but I guess I would come close on this page. To me Donkey Punch would be the same as providing plans on wikipedia on, for example, how to rape in five easy lessons within the rape article, or how to build a dirty bmb from household material in the dirty bomb page. On Donkey Punch I would personally possibly censor, so at a minumum I'd like to point it out to the admin. Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and for checking out Dky Punch. Guess that's the trade-off wikipedia has to make, to keep the worst of the worse (and I'd nominate that page) in order to soar. You know, from 2,000 to 2,600 people ping donkey punch each and every day. It streches my dislike of censorship. By the way, talking of censoring, do you mind if I remove the discussions off my talk page, I really didn't erase the comments on purpose and that puts me in a bad light (with my philosophy, if I had done it on purpose I would keep the post visible!), and the donkey punch stuff, just to make it go away. Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and when I do erase I'll put the data right in the edit summary so its available. More comments on the Witchcraft and I'll get to to Wicca page soon. Like I just told xxxglennxxx, I'm glad you guys are protecting the Wiccan pages so well, it's good to have people assuring data flow. Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Woman

Thanks for monitoring Celtic Woman and reverting the recent edits by an IP-user that attempt to remove Hayley Westenra from the group. I do find it ironic that Hayley is from New Zealand and not Irish like the other members, but all the evidence points to her being a valid member of the group. My daughter gave me the "A New Journey" CD for Christmas, and it clearly includes Hayley. Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Anuna reference on Celtic Woman page

Apologies if this is in the wrong place, but I noted the absence of a reference to the ancestry of four of the lead singers of CW as having been part of Anuna. I left a comment for you at the edit but must have done it wrong. Please accept an apology for my ignorance. The comment was "Hi. I wouldn't call the info I inserted random trivia. The fact that four of the solo singers came from the ranks of Anuna is acknowledged in all of their official biographies and surely has a direct impact on their style of singing. It is surprising that this fact isn't already on the site". You undid the reference and listed it as random trivia. I think that it isn't, and that wouldn't simply be a matter of personal taste. Meav was part of Anuna for at least four years, Deirdre for at least three years, and Lynn for around four or five. I think Orla was part of that group for around a year. All four women list it on their CVs. Three of those women appear dotted as soloists all over the Anuna albums I have, and it is logical (and I suppose) correct, to assume that they were highly influenced by this group in their vocal approach to the music of Celtic Woman. It was, after all, Anuna that pioneered the "high soprano" sound in the early 1990s through their work with Riverdance, and subsequently produced the soprano vocals of Eimear Quinn, winner of Eurovision Song Contest 1996. You might also note that most of the choral singers in the background are ex-Anuna I believe. I would point out that while you may think this is random trivia, Anuna appear to be still producing something unique enough for Celtic Woman to believe otherwise. 194.46.189.195 (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose "Trivia" was too strong a word to use, but regardless, that information had no real purpose on the main Celtic Woman article. I would suggest going to each of the girls' articles and seeing if the appropriate data is there. Only facts about Celtic Woman should be in that article, not information about other groups. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)