User talk:Tarl N./Archive 4

Alpha Centauri edit

sorry about the confusion - you are of course correct. thank you. --97.121.17.94 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 September 2017‎ (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tarl N.. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed link...

Tarl, I'm pretty sure you meant a lower case "e" in the space elevator talk page link you made on Dir70's talk page. The talk page with upper case "E" leads to something confusing. Normally, changing what someone else says on a talk page is very very bad manners. But I did it anyway for expedience and because it was minor. I'm hoping that was okay with you. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that page shouldn't even exist. I've nominated it for deletion. Thanks for fixing it. For the record, the proper way to deal with something like that is to add a comment below indicating what the correct link should have been. Alternatively, if you feel it absolutely needs to be fixed in place, use strikeout to cover the incorrect text and the insert the correct text. E.g., Talk:Space Elevator Talk:Space elevator. The theory underlying that form of changing talk page comments is that someone may have already read (and in this case possibly bookmarked) the text, and needs to know what changed out from under him without looking at the edit history. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Good points. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Tarl_N.|<font color="green">'''Tarl N.'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<font color="teal">discuss</font>]]) : Tarl N. (discuss)

to

[[User:Tarl_N.|<b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal">discuss</span>]]) : Tarl N. (discuss)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Super Bowl LII

The New England Patriots really were the fifth defending Super Bowl champion to lose in the next season's Super Bowl. They joined the 1978 Cowboys, the 1983 Redskins, the 1997 Packers, and the 2014 Seahawks.Dancs1985 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. But there is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Super Bowl LII on the form that comment takes. In particular, the list of five other teams has nothing to do with this Superbowl. Please discuss this issue there. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Mistaken undos.

You reverted a number of edits to pages for certain Roman Emperors made by the IP 107.77.223.20 for being uncited — when in fact most of them were very clearly cited. I've undone the edits that removed cited information, if something never had a citation (which, admittedly, none of the infoboxes you reverted did) then I kept them reverted as they really were uncited. Be more attentive in the future, make sure what you remove for being uncited is actually uncited. 24.38.192.180 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Uncited includes meaningless citations; citations only count if they are WP:RS. That website is essentially someone's blog. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

However, as informal as the website may seem (IDK if 'blog' is really appropriate but, don't get me wrong, I see your point) the citations on the website are very much valid. Beckerath and Lepsius are authoritative figures in the hieroglyphic cartouche field (as weirdly specific of a sub...subject of a field as it may sound), and I double-checked the citations, and they are accurate and widely cited and supported by other sources (most notably, though not really good to use as a citation, I've seen pictures on Commons of multiple cartouches and they all match as far as I've seen) [...] 17:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC) (unsigned) —2600:387:5:80d::b0 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 April 2018‎ (UTC)

If you have access to Beckerath and Lepsius, and you are willing to cite from them directly (chapter and verse, or page and section), you can do so. But you cannot cite from a evanescent single-author web page. A year down the road, after that user has taken down his web page, a future editor maintaining that article has to have access to the sources cited, and we have to have confidence that the source isn't just a single author claiming stuff (which means an editorial process). Please read WP:RS on what is acceptable - anything outside of WP:RS is effectively uncited.

As for you, with your multiple changing IP addresses, all of them in Brooklyn, please create an account and use it (and only it, see WP:SOCK, which I'm sure you're well aware of). It's next to impossible to have a conversation when I don't know whether the person talking is the same person I was talking with yesterday. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Jordan Matthews

I get where you're coming from, although far flimsier sources have passed without problem here. I think this is as good of a source as we're going to get until it's made official in May, generally when minicamp starts. Not worth starting an edit war over this, but I'm fairly certain I'll just be doing this again in a month. Elijah (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup. The main thing is that we see battles from people across the globe to assign numbers (different numbers!) to players before they have numbers. I don't understand what the motivation is, there must be some game where they gain advantage by setting the player numbers. A secondary game is they like to change the positions players play - I assume that gets them some advantage in a fantasy football draft or something. One other thing I've seen is attempts to influence team number selection by pre-emption - if everyone documents he will have xx, the hope is that the team will just accede and give the player that number. As long as we stay out of those games, I'm not terribly worried. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Tarl N.. You have new messages at KENGRIFFEY24FAN's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

April 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A direct copy of the warning I left on your talk page is meaningless. It's to notify you about a policy, and since I notified you about it, there's no point it telling me about it. The only requirement for the warning is that before I reported you to the edit warring noticeboard, I had to have notified you. Both are done now. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A copy? You do realize that it's a template on Wikipedia, right? I'm merely notifying you as well, since you violated the three-revert rule. You continue to engage in hypocritical behavior. Furthermore, you want to know what's "meaningless"? The fact that you left that ridiculous message on my page, thinking you have the power to block me. You're really full of yourself. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarification on Patriots numbers

Just making sure there's no ambiguity regarding unofficial numbers for sources, as I'm mentioning in the talk page.

We're actually in agreement regarding making sure numbers are official before adding them to roster templates. I'm mentioning unofficial sources (players' Twitter accounts, for instance) in the talk page just to mention that those number claims are out there, while also making sure they aren't added to the template until official.

I'm sorry if I've caused any confusion. Thanks for helping keep the roster correct. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

We're cool. Thanks, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Buffalo Bills Numbers

Go look at the video of Allen and Edmunds 1st day as Bills on BuffaloBills.com and you'll clearly see the NUmbers I edited on those players lockers. I wouldn't change them blindly [unsigned, adding so section can be archived] —Mavbmf22 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 May 2018‎ (UTC)

The problem is that I have no idea what you are referring to. "There's a video" doesn't help me, you need to be somewhat more specific. I don't watch every video ever created by every football player on every team. We need citations, which we can refer to. Does the video say "these numbers are assigned to these players", or does it show a player picking up a jersey, or does it show a player saying to nobody in particular "I'd like number nn"? Tarl N. (discuss) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I found the video in question. He was referring to the nameplate above the players' lockers, which shows their numbers. The video also shows Allen receiving his #17 jersey and Edmunds picking #49. (And the roster page on the team site now lists all numbers anyway.) DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk:BatteryIncluded

I apologize for being a bit curt, but that whole "NinjaRobotPirate isn't a checkuser, and he even if he were, he isn't even allowed to offer to help you" came out of nowhere. I'm trying to help someone here, and I don't really like having to argue about whether I'm allowed to even make the offer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, again. I made a bad assumption. I've seen other people (e.g., SummerPhDv2.0) get screwed by losing their credentials, I was under the assumption there was less that could be done about it than you are suggesting. I remember your RFA (where, ironically, your username became an item of discussion), and thought your adminship was more recent than it was, so becoming a checkuser already was unlikely. A bad mistake on my part. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the report

Thanks for your AIV report of 147.0.136.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), really is a long sequence of unhelpful edits. Hopefully the block at least gets their attention, it feels like they may well be entirely well-intentioned but seriously not helping. Let me know if you notice this individual reappearing. ~ mazca ^talk 16:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for blocking him. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Eris

I don't edit Wikipedia often, so I am unfamiliar with the procedure. I updated my website to reflect that the resonance probably does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony873004 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

Tarl_N., thanks (I'm new at this), but there is a problem with the way the epicenter of the earthquake is described as being "at an underwater depth of approximately 29 km..." because it implies the earthquake was 29 km "underwater," when, technically, it was 24.4 km beneath the seafloor. And this info, BTW, does come from the U.S. Geological Survey (which I should have cited):

Saying 29 km underwater is misleading, and anyway, the deepest depth of the ocean (the Marianas Trench) is only 11 km. CloudioOU (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudioOU (talk • contribs)

References

@CloudioOU: Depths of earthquakes are always reported as depths beneath the theoretical sphere of sea level. This periodically results in disconcerting numbers (such as in the current Kilauea eruption), where negative depths are reported (they aren't above the ground, they are above sea level). If you find the description incorrect, fix the description, not the numbers. In this case, the numbers are correct. And be very careful to not cite an obsolete source - the edit I reverted showed a NASA reference which was clearly obsolete. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Further, the reference you cite above specifies a depth of 29 km. Very top of the page, it says:

M 9.1 - near the east coast of Honshu, Japan
2011-03-11 05:46:24 UTC 38.297°N   142.373°E    29.0 km depth

Tarl N. (discuss) 05:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@CloudioOU: Digging further, at Technical, we see all the various estimates that were made. The origin is listed at a depth of 29km - there is an "OFFICIAL" line, which is generally accepted as definitive. The figure of 24 km depth comes from a page down under "Moment Tensor", on the third US line, which is something else. If you click on the "US" in that line, that leads you to the detailed page for that data, here, which notes The data below are NOT the most preferred data available. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 06:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Super Bowl LIII Article

I Did Not do that Super Bowl LIII Page 68.103.78.155 (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't you, then someone else using the same IP address as you, within minutes of your edits did: [1]. —Tarl N. (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Suspended players (for apparently the third or fourth time)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Suspended players (for apparently the third or fourth time). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikibreak

For what it's worth, I'm on a semester-long wikibreak. I only rarely edit, probably not getting to check my watchlist more than a couple of times a week. Among other things, I'm dealing with what I'll need to do to start a PhD, so my time available has decreased. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Deerfield Beach Island

Tarl edits were made to the page Deerfield Beach Island because it does not exist. There is no such geographical location recognised by any city, county, state, or country. Deerfield Beach is located in that area with Boca Raton and Hillsboro Beach. Lighthouse point is not part of that area, it is across the Intercoastal. The Intercoastal is part of the Army Corps Of Engineers. The ACOE does not recognise the barrier island as Deerfield Beach Island. In the event of an emergency, Deerfield Beach is a separate beach from Boca Raton Beach and Hillsboro Beach. Deerfield Beach is also a city. Boca Raton is also a city. Hillsboro Beach os a city that is at the south end of the barrier island. It is not part of Deerfield Beach. This entire entry is false information. One look at a map will tell you the correct identification of the area. Yes, the city of Deerfield Beach put up a sign. This does not mean the accuracy of the geographical description of "Deerfield Beach Island' is correct. Now, I will ask you to put the truthFUL post up under Deerfield Beach Island. This is a gross misuse of information should not cause any more discourse. Thank you.IM7707MSL (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC) IM7707MSL

Responded on the user's talk page where the conversation started. Take it to the article talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

SA-500F sources

Hi Tarl,

The sources that I linked to are reliable. One source (James (Lockheed)) got the information he provided from people at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. The other, Ed Kyle, runs http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/, and he knows far more about historical spaceflight than I ever will. The original source in the article is the only one I've ever seen that says that S-IVB-500F in on display at KSC.

Also, there are only two S-IVBs at KSC, 514 and 209 (I've seen both in person). 514 is part the display Saturn V, while 209 is on the Saturn IB at the visitors center. The Saturn V page contradicts itself with that (it says both 514 and 500F are on display at KSC, which simply isn't true). It also says further down that 514 is part of the Saturn V on display, and quotes a source from NASA.

Thanks, -Ian

References 1. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6263.msg104353#msg104353 2. https://www.drewexmachina.com/2016/09/23/the-saturn-500f-the-moon-rocket-that-couldnt-fly/ 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-500F 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB 5. https://www.johnweeks.com/spacecraft/saturn_v_ksc_3.html

(unsigned) —IanThePineapple (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

mafia sources

Hi Tarl, I received it as a gift and read the original version in the original language (the thesis). I did not see any COI just be cause I read it before the english version. MOreover what is wrong with the reference?

(unsigned) -- —2804:14d:1a87:1102:d980:5ddb:8aba:cd64 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 27 December 2018‎ (UTC)

Answered on the IP's talk page, where the discussion started. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Giants edits

What do you mean, I needed sources? I get the somewhat flowery writing, but most of the info I put on there didn't need to be cited. There's something called observation and comparison. In fact, I calculated the 2007 New York Giants' strength of victory all by myself. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page, where the discussion started. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Really?! You're telling me the point differential has to be cited? All I had to do was look at the standings to find that out! You mean I have to put THAT as a citation? GRRR! This is frustrating. Can't people look at it for themselves? It's not rocket science! But whatever, I'll take a look at it. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Mk8mlyb, please read the yellow box on the top of this page. Again, I'll answer on your talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Look, pal, I'm just following what I see on the page, okay? If you read the articles, they have the same stuff throughout. All I'm doing is staying consistent. Look at the playoff section of the 2007 season article. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey! I put some sources on both articles. Is that enough? Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, responding on user's talk page. With WP:AGF, I'll assume some problem in understanding the yellow box. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your reverts

You undid several of my edits and gave a wrong description. You have to look precisely, e.g. Quaoar is no asteroid and this is why I removed the term. And please, don't write anything onto my talk page, let's talk here if you wanna, but better you stop watching me. Some of your comments are nonsense or evil. --212.186.15.191 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Tarl N.'s revert of your recent edits, nor do I see anything wrong with the edit summaries he left when he did so. Please do not engage in the hostile use of words by telling him that he "better stop watching you" - this kind of word use and tone begins to set the discussion toward the path of being uncivil. Please remain positive and open-minded in your comments and discussions, and work things out peacefully with other users. Thank you - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I did mistake the edit to Extreterrestrial skies, I thought you were adding "the asteroid". That one is correct. The rest of your edits, though, were wrong. We don't need "anything and anybody" in an encyclopedia. As for watching, that's what patrollers do. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And why are you writing something onto my talk page although I wrote you please don't write anything there? And Oshwah is obviously joking (I'm just telling not to watch me please) and didn't see Tarl's previous edits on my talk page and in the comments. The use of Twinkle and Huggle is an over-exaggeration. They are thought to combat vandalism, not good faith edits. In the article about Moon's gravity there stands "16.6 % (1/6)". This is wrong, 1/6 is more than 16.6 %. You can write something like "about 1/6" if you wanna. Why don't we "need 'anything and anybody'", what's wrong with it? 212.186.15.191 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If you read the top of this talk page, it states that when I respond to a comment on my talk page, I will leave a talkback on yours. As for Oshwah joking, he's an administrator, and he doesn't joke about threats on Wiki. It's something that is taken very seriously on Wikipedia. As for the general issue of reverting your edits, please read the policy WP:BRD. When one of your edits is reverted, for whatever reason, the next step is to discuss it on the article's talk page, not simply re-revert. Please also read WP:3RR. Tarl N. (discuss) 08:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I made no jokes in my response and I meant everything that I said. I'm just looking out for you both; I don't want things to turn heated and nasty like I see happen with other users on Wikipedia. Just keep civil, and understand that messages and notifications are going to be left on your user talk page. Otherwise, you won't be notified at all when Tarl N. responds to you here. He's doing this to be courteous to you; the notifications are for your benefit, not Tarl N.'s. Don't be so quick to interpret messages as hostility; assume good faith and give others the benefit of the doubt in cases where the intent isn't clear. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I've also left a notice on your user talk page regarding edit warring, which is disruptive and not allowed on Wikipedia. Please avoid repeatedly reverting articles in a back-and-forth manner with other editors; you need to discuss disputes and issues properly and come to a consensus instead. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, allow me to convey my apology to 212.186.15.191 - I let myself get irritated, and my crankiness clearly showed on that talk page. I was less polite than I should have been. My regrets, Tarl N. (discuss) 08:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I forgive you both. But please correct the phrase in Gravitation of the Moon because 1/6 is more than 16.6 %. 212.186.15.191 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither the surface gravity on earth nor the surface gravity on the moon are precise values; they both vary by considerably more than the difference between 0.166 and 1/6th. If you read the sentence before the one you modified, it says exactly that, and provides a map showing the variations on the moon. It already has established in that sentence that the value is an approximation. So the change is inappropriate. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but to write "16.6 % (1/6)" is a lie because 16.6 % isn't 1/6. So better to write "...(about 1/6)". Nothing would be wrong with that. 212.186.15.191 (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:UNCERTAINTY. Given that the previous sentence says it varies by 1.6% across the surface, which is far greater than the difference between 1/6th and 0.166, it isn't necessary to specify that it's an approximation. The actual relation between the nominal lunar and terrestrial gravity is actually 0.165816... and it's not necessary to specify that either. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I also reverted your change to Impact crater. The value given was 500 km. You must work with that value, not come up with a new value which produces 500 in the convert template. And you need to check the grammar, which you got wrong. You have been reverted, per WP:BRD, you must discuss this on the article talk page before proceeding. I feel the conversion to miles is unnecessary, and that discussion should take place on the article talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me be more precise in the complaint about using 310 miles in the conversion template. If a source says 500 km, the article should specify the value the source gives, and only make the conversion to other units. So it would be something like "500 km (310 mi)". But in any case, astronomical objects are generally measured in km, there is no need to convert to miles. That discussion is the one which should take place on the article talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Exoplanetswiki

Hi, yeah, I can change my username. And nop, my account is not for spam. I have no relation with any of the sources I add on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoplanetswiki (talk • contribs) 04:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I'm still learning how to use wikipedia, I thought I could delete it after having requested a change in username. Cheers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoplanetswiki (talk • contribs) 06:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments on user's talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Tom Brady

Brady won the AFC Championship Game, which means he will make his ninth appearance in the Super Bowl. I looked at the Crystal Ball guideline you linked, and I don't see how that applies. Are you saying that noting that violates that guideline until the game actually starts? I mean, this is not speculative. Unless something with a VERY low percentage of happening happens to Tom Brady in between now and the start of the game, he will be the starting quarterback in that game. Allow me to quote the first rule of the guideline here: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Without doubt, the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Please be reasonable here and let's not turn this into a revert war. Please get back to me on this at your earliest convenience. Aoa8212 (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

This is speculative. He might break a leg. He might accidentally utter a racial or sexual slur and be banned. He has not made his 9th appearance. He has an invite, whether he actually attends is still unknown. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I suspect we differ on what "almost certain to take place" means. A lunar eclipse in May 2021 is almost certain to take place. My waking up tomorrow is likely, but falls short of the standard "almost certain". Tarl N. (discuss) 06:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed we do differ on that. Perhaps we should start a discussion on the talk page... Aoa8212 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aoa8212: Sounds like the right idea. I'll do that now. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aoa8212: Started. Please discuss. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do... Aoa8212 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Super Bowl LIII Article

Listen to me That Should be top performance you Idiot. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Evidently this is in reference to this edit.

First off, read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Second off, you don't get to make article importance evaluations. Whether something is top importance or mid importance is a decision voted on elsewhere, not simply set by someone who wants a higher evaluation. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I note that this isn't the first time I've warned you on editing importance templates on Super Bowl LIII. The last time you did this: [2], and you promptly claimed you hadn't done it: [3]. You're pushing the limits of WP:AGF here. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Space elevator. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Tarl N., Thanks for the notice about this matter on DRN. I did pipe in. I also notice that Kvaalen did not notify me when he posted it. Hmmmm... 40.117.60.104 (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your time and assistance! FrostCzar (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

AAA Battery

Totally agree on your revert of the AAA battery name (Micro <-> Micro Mignon). I just had a wrong reference. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.44.207 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Tom Brady changes

I'm looking at your comment on the reversion you made to the Tom Brady article. I'm not sure why you chose to revert the user's edits. Your reasoning, "The reality is that this is vandalism-bait while he's still playing. It's subjective ("many"), we'd need a specific reference stating just how many outside New England are willing to categorize him as GOAT," doesn't really add up. First, accusing the user of semi-vandalism here is really poor form. I see no vandalism there. Furthermore, I see legitimate scholarly reasoning to have the article state that many journalists consider Tom Brady to be the greatest and not just "among the greatest," that being, that it's an overwhelming fact and the prevailing narrative in sports media. Without "greatest" instead of "among the greatest" readers can not as accurately understand who Tom Brady is and how sports culture perceives him relative to other great quarterbacks. Thus, the article's academic legitimacy is limited with "among."

You might have had a point if the user wrote, "Tom Brady is the greatest QB of all time." That is semi-vandalism. More than anything, please do not throw around the term "vandalism" lightly. That is not an ethical way to edit Wikipedia articles and debate changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben00rs (talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstood the "vandalism bait". People who dislike Brady, seeing that comment, are likely to do things like change "greatest QB" to "greatest cheater" (this is an empirical statement, having observed the process in action). While he's actively playing (and associated with "Darth Hoodie"), there are a huge number of people who fall into the category of disliking him. As a pragmatic measure, we shouldn't be adding things that invite what they think of as "appropriate retaliation". Tarl N. (discuss) 06:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

integration

Hi Tarl. Yeah, I was going to say
"5) It would be hard to justify a complex integration done by an editor as not being WP:OR, as the ease of making mistakes has been demonstrated. Even if an integration/refactoring was indeed done right, the verification of it, by discussion among editors, is exactly what's done in research. Thus, it literally bears real hallmarks of real research! We need to be very careful about that."
in my list of comments. But, I "redacted" it from my draft because I figured it was blindingly obvious to them and they surely would know it already. I didn't want to upset the new peace. But also, I thought it would be better in my/our back pocket(!). And, Klavn is a sensitive boy. He must always defend himself against the slightest of perceived slights, as he does with his walls-o-text. I figured not mentioning that particular elephant in the room (integrations being OR) for now could help keep everyone in the present more-cooperative spirit. 40.117.60.104 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

C'est la vie. I don't know what Kvaalen's background is, but I have repeatedly butted heads against him on this type of issue. I'm reminded of the comment about four types of officer: intersection of {energetic, lazy} axis with {competent, incompetent} axis. The first couple of times I pointed out where he had made mistakes, but after a while with endless walls of text, I gave up on that. At this point, I'm down to simply checking that what he says matches a RS, and if it doesn't, I complain. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should just let Kvaalin cry himself out on talk page without too much response (even though it's supposed to be for discussing the article, not for inventing and reviewing WP:OR). If he actually tries to put anything uncited on the main page (or cited, but crap) it will get reverted either right away or in due course -- and he will have filled the talk page up with evidence of all the work he did deriving something new. He's got some issues that we can't manage by telling him "No" on the talk page. That just results in more of the same endlessly repeated drama. We're getting dirty fighting a pig who likes it. Maybe we should let it run around in its sty all it wants instead of trying to hold it still. Should we only worry if it jumps the fence? (previously IP...104)RFinlay72 (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup. My experience is that he will take silence as assent (which is the general characteristic of anyone who resorts to WP:WALLOFTEXT), so we will eventually have to revert. At that point, the discussion will probably continue on ANI. I know some of the admins have gotten tired of him, we'll see what happens. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. RFinlay72 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Tom Brady Kids

Is there a reason you left the birthdate of his oldest son? Bmorrow151 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Didn't notice it. I just noticed your additions, and wanted to point out WP:DOB. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely see what you mean about the birthdates. I just was trying to be more accurate, but for kids of stars you don’t need all of that. Thanks for letting me know.Bmorrow151 (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And nowadays Spaniards are considered white?

And the rest of southern Europe? With the immigration of Italians the American people did not consider them white.

Thank you very much. JamesOredan (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@JamesOredan: Can't speak to Italians. I grew up in Mexico and have spent some time reading writings from the Conquista and New Spain eras (i.e., pre-Hidalgo), so wanted to mention that I didn't see the fixation on skin color we ended up with in the 'states. The "Casta" system with limpieza de sangre (cleanliness of blood) was inherently racist in that your ancestors mattered (and were believed to dominate your behaviour), but this originated in anti-Jewish sentiment from the reconquista (recovery of Spain from the Moors) rather than skin color. Spaniards of the time were more likely to self-identify as Christian than as a racial category. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

But in the United States and Europe are Spaniards considered by others as white? In Belgium (I am originally from there) I would say yes.

And the rest of southern Europe? (Portuguese, Italians, Greeks, etc.) JamesOredan (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@JamesOredan: Ah. In the U.S.? It's not a subject for polite conversation these days, just discussing it can get you ostracized or brought before a board of review now. Generally, any European was considered white. For some people there was a sub-category of Nordic or Aryan (depending on which era you were talking about), but that distinction doesn't seem to have been all that significant. The intra-white ethnic slurs were simply anti-minority - e.g., those who were anti-Italian might also be anti-Irish (who were certainly not dark-skinned). Sometimes the prejudice was anti-catholic, and a general theme of anti-semitism was present - more often it was simply "not us".

In general, a century ago, the big issue was "non-black" - one drop of sub-saharan African blood made someone "colored". Even octoroons who were visually indistinguishable from pure Europeans were considered non-white. Amerindian and oriental heritage was less of an issue, noting that major league baseball players had dark-skinned players who were described as Mexican, long before they had players who were specifically black. But it all varied depending on the location and specific era, and I'm certainly not an expert on it. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 18:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Spygate

Hey, I made a couple comments on the spygate page. Would you please check them out? videotaping — Preceding unsigned comment added by DubsOnly (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Bill Belichick

Want you to know all my sources and info was true. He did deflate balls. He knew about it. All what I said there was fact. Just want you to know muchacho, maybe your sources aren’t reliable Chico Mambagoat24 (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. The debate on the deflategate article has been ongoing since inception, and Wikipedia has standards on how this is handled. Just blasting random chunks of your opinion into biographies (see WP:BLP) is unacceptable. Something you should note, any addition to a biography must be cited by a reliable source. The absence of that, is by itself, sufficient reason to immediately remove the change. In this particular case, the blatantly partisan viewpoint and poor formatting made it mandatory. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

But it was true the pats vs the colts, that the pats won the game. That they only allowed 7 points. That the balls were deflated. That Brady was given a four game suspension, that Belichick denied any involvement. Crazy. U can maybe say “the info didn’t fit their” maybe I shouldn’t have put it their but it was all reliable muchacho. Mambagoat24 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That discussion is on the deflategate page. Regardless, you cannot make edits to a biography without having a reliable source citation for what you are adding. Do not try to add that back. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Tom Brady

Okay, but as one last thing, can you tell them I'm sorry for any mistakes I may have made and if I rubbed them the wrong way? I'm sorry if I acted a little heated all that time. Thanks. Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: I would suggest adding a comment on your own talk page (perhaps below my comment), expressing contrition and your intent to avoid edit warring again. If you put it on your talk page, add a {{ping|Bagumba}}, so he notices your apology. Alternatively, you could put your apology on WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mk8mlby_reported_by_User:Bagumba_(Result:_). Explain something like given time to reflect, you understand the problem. Keep it to a couple of lines, any longer than that won't be read. Good luck! Tarl N. (discuss) 00:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: Actually, I just noticed that as I was typing in the above, your case got closed with a warning. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mk8mlby_reported_by_User:Bagumba_(Result:_Warned) . Take it to heart! Tarl N. (discuss) 00:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand. Why me? I'm just one of the guys involved in this thing. Why does @Footballeditor3: and the others get away with everything else? That's just not fair. 05:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: Well, life is unfair. But in more detail, probably because Footballeditor3 hadn't reached his current levels of "I'm gonna keep at it" until after Bagumba decided to leave the article. That sometimes happens - Admins burn out too, and this particular case was one where Bagumba stepped back and asked for other Admins to handle your case. He could have blocked you directly, but given the situation he did the professional thing and let someone else look at it.

I don't know if EdJohnston is going to directly intervene on the article, but I do know the admins have talked about the problem presented by the polarization seen in Brady's editors. I suppose someone could report Footballeditor3 to ANI, which would probably result in a block because of his refusal to participate on the talk page and willingness to declare that he intends to keep on warring. I don't recommend you try it, though, you're on thin ice and could get measured for WP:BOOMERANG.

I'm going to give it a couple of days, and if nobody suggests anything better, I'll try my compromise and see what happens. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Do I just lay low and limit myself to the talk pages? Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: No, just edit normally. But before reverting anything, think it over, and make sure you aren't engaging in an edit war. A 1st revert, explained calmly, isn't an issue. A 2nd revert starts to be an issue. There is a policy WP:3RR, which you ran afoul of, where more than three reverts is a red flag and requires a block - but you can get in trouble without reaching that level. Certainly Foobtalleditor3 is begging for trouble with his latest edit comment, don't do anything like that. As for the talk pages, just be careful to be calm - avoid getting outraged, and if you feel angry while writing, step away from the keyboard for a while and see if you can complete the comment later without getting angry. If you can't, it's probably better not to make the comment, but instead seek help from any of the numerous dispute-resolution mechanisms available. Unfortunately, none of them are going to work on the Brady article, so some admin is likely to come in with a big hammer. You don't want to be in the way of that :-). Tarl N. (discuss) 06:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I should mention another policy, WP:BATTLEGROUND. What's going on in the Brady article right now is classic battleground behavior. Admins tend to use heavy hammers when this happens. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG essentially says don't complain about other people's mistakes if you've done just as bad as them, right? Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: Essentially correct. More accurate would be to say anyone reporting an incident on WP:ANI is going to come under the microscope themselves when the entire incident is examined. It's not unusual to see incidents resolved as "both reporter and target blocked". Tarl N. (discuss) 23:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: WP:RECENTISM means don't let recent hype impact what Wikipedia says, right? The whole Tom Brady issue essentially comes down to this. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: Recentism is the underlying issue, it's the reason so much passion attaches and we see edit wars to support one view or another. My two issues are the specifics of the statement made (make sure we don't engage in WP:SYNTH from biased sources such as google searches), and the pragmatic issue that even implying GOAT status in Wikipedia's voice will attract vandalism. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(response to "Issues with current wording" post) @Tarl N.: I'm sorry about that. I'll try to keep things more organized if I can. But that's my point--there's a lot of evidence against Brady as there is for him, so we should not be giving him undue credit. Am I the only one who feels this is being done by a massive hype train? Wikipedia can't fall victim to those. But to be fair, from your perspective, do I look to be backing Montana a bit too much? Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: Yup. The issue we should be discussing is not whether there is evidence Montana is greater than Brady (or not), but how we deal with the sentence in the lead. You need to learn how to do more with less. Some rules of thumb:

• If you write stuff in the middle of a discussion (responding to a sub-paragraph way above the current end), it's likely nobody will read it.
• If you write more than 2-3 lines, most readers will probably only skim what you write.
• Rule of thumb is that persuasiveness is roughly related to the inverse of text length. The more you write, the less effective you are to a wide audience.
• Note, references are an exception, because they are out of the main line of text. Do add a {{reftalk}} when putting references on a talk page, so you get a block with them near where they are made.
• You've made your position clear, and nobody really disputes it - Brady vs. Montana is still debateable.
• What Bagumba wants is to have a sentence in the lead which reflects wide opinion, whether that opinion is deserved or not.
• What I want is a sentence that is precise and verifiable to a citation. Tomorrow, I'll probably add a comment about "consider" being incorrect, because it is present tense, whereas what we do is document the past (maybe they considered, we don't know if they still do).

Very few editors are focussed on one article - I just looked, I have somewhat over 1700 pages on my watchlist. And I'm relatively tame, I know some editors whose watchlists go well into five figures. That means, like most editors, that if I spend more than a minute or two on Brady, I'm not doing my job elsewhere. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: Yeah, true. My view is that if Montana vs Brady is still debateable, and there are many people supporting both sides, then Brady doesn't deserve to have the GOAT label on his article because all this time, that honor could have gone to Montana's article. And if Brady doesn't deserve to have the label, then we shouldn't be putting it on there. The original statement is both necessary and sufficient. To the contrary, the GOAT label is sufficient, but it's not necessary. That's what I'm trying to say, but I can't stop running my mouth because I'm too busy fighting with @Bmorrow151:. Mk8mlyb (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: I can't stop running my mouth because I'm too busy fighting with... A major life-lesson there. When you find yourself in a running argument (here or elsewhere), the best thing you can do is step back for a day, and then write a short comment the next day that makes your position clear. There's no hurry on Wikipedia, and taking a day to distill your comments will gain you credibility. Wikipedia editors really resent the WP:WALLOFTEXT syndrome, and by participating in one, one loses credibility. Hence my comment about dialing it back. You're new, you'll need to get used to the way things are done.

I'll note that I've been considerably more verbose than usual in this discussion here - that's because it's a conversation directed at a single individual, rather than to a group. If this were a wide-ranging discussion on an article talk page, you'd see more than a day between edits, and each one would only be a couple of lines long. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 01:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: Is it just me, or is Bmorrow151 being a huge jerk? I want him to calm down, but I don't seem to be helping. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: He's being a newbie, and violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It's perfectly obvious to the old timers reading the comments. Best thing to do with that kind of comment is to either ignore it or briefly mention WP:CIVIL and move on. Leaving it alone for a day is probably best, that leaves his comment as the most visible for a longer time, letting more people notice it (which reflects on him, not you).

Tomorrow, I might add a comment suggesting to him to tone it down, and mention those policies. The key comment from WP:NPA to keep in mind: Comment on content, not on the contributor. When one person is being derisive, and the other keeps to business and ignores the insults, it makes a telling difference in perception. Which matters. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling I'm triggering him. I haven't been a paragon of virtue throughout this whole thing, you know. Am I doing anything wrong aside from WP:WALLOFTEXT that I need to keep in mind? Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: Don't worry about it. Just improve your own editing, that's what you can do. At this point, stepping away for a day would do more to calm things down than anything else, let BMorrow151 worry about his own problems. Tomorrow, go over the talk page comments and see if there's anything new that needs to be said. Try to avoid repeating anything you've said before. Note, not saying anything is perfectly acceptable. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I the only one who's being relentlessly attacked by someone, or am I just throwing an ill-advised WP:BOOMERANG? Have you been on the other end of someone's barrage of insults and accusations? Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: Bmorrow is being a jerk. It happens. That will cost him during some future conflict. For example, EdJohnston cut you a break in a recent trip to ANI, largely because Ed looked at your history and decided you weren't being malicious. If BMorrow does something that brings him up to a similar forum, he probably won't get as much slack. The best thing you can do is develop a thick skin - there are obnoxious people all over WP. In the particular sequence on Brady, I would have answered that comment in one line something to the effect of "See WP:NPA, specifically, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Don't personalize it." I'd have left it at that, and just kept in mind that other editors remember such interactions. At this point, the discussion is over, the rest just comes across as recess-time taunting.

An example of what can happen when things don't go so well. That was a really sad situation, where an editor evidently felt unable to let someone else have the last word. It cost him. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking because I want to be sure I'm not triggering anyone or horsing around in ways I shouldn't be. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: You probably are triggering in the sense that he needs to have the last word. Let him, it makes him look bad. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: Oh yeah, true. Remember how everyone seems to think that getting the last word means they're right? And ah, the days of recess. Those were the DAYS, weren't they?! Right?! RIGHT? XD Man, you got me all nostalgic. We all wish we were elementary schoolers, don't we? Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Re:March 2019

No, the edit was not a test. I had provided an explanation, I've no idea how it could be perceived as a test. 188.222.60.185 (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I was being polite. It was an unnecessary edit and actually incorrect. As is, the sentence specifies what is nearest to what. Your change (from "nearest to sun" to "nearest after sun") removed the explicit declaration and made it implicit (presumably to "us") and added an unnecessary complexity. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It was not incorrect. It claimed the Sun to not be a star, which it is. It's better to be slightly more complex than outright incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.60.185 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tarl N.

Thank you for your message. I am now creating Article about nomad Barista Coffee and it will be complete within minute for introduction. Thank you for your advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minealpha (talk • contribs) 04:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Another wall-of-WP:OR from EK?

Tarl, EK made another wall of the same old OR. I wonder if it should be completely ignored and maybe he'll stop trying to goad us into enabling his sad and lonely psychological needs. I'll take my cues from you (I'll ignore it if you do). RFinlay72 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

For your work Polly7423 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Image use question

Hi Tarl, and thanks for your recent assistance! I would like to add a photo to Sarah Hicks, a living orchestra conductor. She has a publicity website, and has two downloadable photos there on a webpage labeled presskit. I would assume these are free content, but Wikipedia's copyright rules are complex and I'm inexperienced. What's the best way to proceed? Ran0t0 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ran0t0:Indeed, Wikipedia's copyright rules are complex, and the fact that something is downloadable is not sufficient to mean that wikipedia has rights to use the image. The key point: Freely licensed: You can prove that the copyright holder has released the image under an acceptable free license.

My suggestion would be to ask at that website if they have a picture they are willing to allow being used by Wikipedia, which generally means they allow free use of the image. You might also try reading WP:IMAGEPOL (Wikipedia:Image use policy), which describes the constraints on images we can use. Once you are sure you have rights to an image, then WP:UPIMAGE will tell you how to go about uploading it - or you can ping me again, I've done that part before. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 19:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)