User talk:Danny lost/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

redirects

I saw you systematically work on bypassing redirects. You obviously have good intentions, but there is a guideline that explains that this is a little more damaging than helpfull. trespassers william, an impressed newbie.

That page says:

In particular, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

That is idiotic! If an article misspells a person's name in a link, so it goes to a page that redirects to the correct spelling, I should just leave the misspelled name in the article??

People who write Wikipedia policies using the words "always" or "never", especially when emphasized like this, are almost (ha!) always being similarly stupid. Michael Hardy 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(You are unplesant to talk with, please) your case does not apply here since, as explained thereafter, in the quoted sentence the two instances of redirect stand for exactly the same wording. In its terms, what you are suggesting is replacinng [[redirect]] with [[target]], which is indeed helpfull in such a case. So the discussed form is probably more appealing (but redundant) in descriptive cases, say [[|syntax|syntactic]] vs. [[syntactic]], where the adjective redirects to the noun. I can't think of a case when this appeal is justified. But really, is all you were doing was fixing erroneous redirects? trespassers william 11:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

When I write "bypassing a redirect page" in an edit summary, it is almost always because the redirect is to a misspelling or something with inappropriate capitalization or a misnomer or the like. If it says "[[Kat]]s are different from dogs." and "kat" redirects to "cat, and I change it to "[[Cat]]s are different from dogs.", then I write "bypassing a redirect", or words to that effect in an edit summary. So then you came along and told me I shouldn't do that, and cited that policy page. Michael Hardy 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You now use both wider definitions that you used to and an unhonest blatant example (plus bad writing) in order to disguise your misunderstanding and might-be-errors. Anyway, now that i have made sure you are aware of the situation, i will not bother you further with the subject. trespassers william 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so hostile? My example is not dishonest; it is a fictitious composite. I was just as aware of the situation before I heard from you. What you wrote to me originally was misleading. Michael Hardy 22:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I felt some hostility on your side, and i am sorry of overreaction. Now i don't think this discussion can be continued practically. if you like to argue some theoretical point, I will be glad to. trespassers william 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements and propositions

There is a clear difference between a statement and a proposition in philosophical texts. Many, if not most, analytic philosophers use "statement" as the general case and "proposition" with a specific meaning. In the context, "statements" was the better term. So I reverted it. But then I noticed that you had been busy elsewhere, and that the article on Propositions needs work, and I gave up. Too big a job for me to fix at present. Banno 23:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal Color

Hey there Danny lost. I noticed your comments over at Portal talk:Roman Empire. I changed the color slightly, and wanted your input. Darker, lighter, just right. Your comments would be welcome. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Embryo

Heh. Don't you just love it when people mindlessly add "Citation needed" when there already is one? --EncycloPetey 00:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of this template isn't much more than an intellectually disguised snort. However, there is also a possibility the template was left by an editor who responded to it by writing the next sentence, but didn't know how to remove the request. trespassers william 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wittgenstein edit

I have put a comment on the Wittgentein discussion page concerning your reversion of my edit concerning Wittgenstein's 1939 Moscow visit and the $50,000,000 extorted from the Wittgenstein family by the Nazis. I intend to repost my original should no reasons be offered to justify your reversion. Thank you, Kimberley Cornish (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaufmann resource request

It's been filled].--droptone (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandberg Prize

For meritorious sleuthing in elucidating the authentic eponym of the Sandberg Prize.

You are certainly correct - the Sandberg Prize is associated with the Israel Museum. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Mordecai Sandberg, which was my original guess. Thanks for solving the mystery! I was surprised to hear the answer after all this time. Have a cookie! --Reuben (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Boltzmann's quotations

Do you remove all quotations in articles where you happen to come across or just Boltzmann's article? What about Konrad Zuse, Plankalkül etc.? Boltzmann seems to have no entry in Wikiquote – it makes no sense to delete it here and not insert it there with a link here. So you made the article worse - that should be obvious. Christian Storm (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I don't have a detailed procedure for editing, I'm doing it freestyle. If I had one, deleting very specific, detached quotes would probably be part of it. Now, there are plenty of places to put quotes on, and WQ is probably one of the easiest. WP on the other hand discourages heavy use of primary sources, which, however charming they might be, are better dealt with by historians and the like. In our case, this deviation was accompanied by a very partial citation. Notice that I do not disregard quotes, and at an earlier time, after reviewing one of the external links at the article, I added an indication that it contains many. But I don't think WP should become a hub for them. Forgive me if I am too tired to understand what about Konrad Zuse, Plankalkül etc, right now. trespassers william (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Quine on Paradox

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, you requested access to WVO Quine's article "Paradox" from Scientific American. I will retrieve it during my next library visit unless you no longer have a need for it. Once I have retrieved a copy of it, I will be happy to e-mail it to you if you can provide an e-mail address or other means of getting it. Hope that helps. –Tom Morris (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have since ripped myself a copy off Google Books, so it isn't needed. I hope I will have the chance to help other requesters soon. trespassers william (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

links to book detail at Amazon when there is no Conflict Of Interest In An Editor

Regarding the following: the Walter Kaufmann page: my having added a link to Amazon for the Faith Of A Heretic book: your comment 'no commercial links please': your view may be valid, but i was not readily able to find a source for such view. (The link to Amazon would be very useful to readers because: on the Amazon site one can see the extremely-useful full title of the Heretic book; and the Kaufmann page's linked Archive.org page seems not to permit downloads from there.)

One Wikipedia principle initially seemed applicable: an editor should not write a link to Amazon if he/she has a Conflict Of Interest In An Editor. But there is no such COI here.

I looked at the Wikipedia Amazon page and near the end there are multiple links to Amazon.com.

Thanks in advance for any citation to a Wikipedia or other source, so that i can keep a note of the view. Bo99 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. It is rare to see a polite question in Wikipedia.

I am always happy to link to the Internet Archive, as it is a non-commercial site with books that are really freely available to download in multiple formats. Now something very strange has happened in the heretic page, as i once downloaded the book as a djvu file from there. I am going to write to them, thank you for the alert.

Navigating amid the WP policy pages to justify a simple move is a peculiar kind of fun. The most relevant one is WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. You can see it is not overly definitive, but #5:

Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.

plus #14, fit exactly to rule out Amazon. #15 is also relevant in case the are several editions (I don't think it is). Anyway the rational behind the ISBN WP mechanism is not to choose the businesses the user goes to for him.

As far as I have seen, it is not customary to put subtitles, especially lengthy ones, in bibliographies, but then it isn't a proper bibliography. Anyway you can put it in the page, I don't think it really requires independent sourcing. Amazon.com is not a categorically bad site. The thing is it is a very accessible one, and anyone who wishes can go there without us messing the page with excessive for him. trespassers william (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's useful. So i am restoring what i previously added in the Walter Kaufmann section 'Original Works', minus the Amazon.com link.

I see above that you endorse politeness. We all can encourage polite reactions by following Reverting Principles And General Courtesy (Not Policy Or Guideline), e.g. 'It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. [I would add: Try to disclose the link for the Wikipedia principle you are applying. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.] A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor ... . This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem.'

Even better, we all can encourage polite reactions by following the Don't Revert, Do Edit Principle (Not Policy Or Guideline)

I think that this matter is now resolved and that no reply is necessary. Bo99 (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Categort:Thai dictionaries

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Categort:Thai dictionaries requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GILO   A&E⇑ 21:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Magic Slim

Do you have evidence that Torrence and Torrance are the same place? I raised the question on the article talk page - perhaps you could clear it up there. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Danny lost; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite ODNB

I have posted a late reply to your question at Template talk:Cite ODNB/Archive1#2004 edition -- PBS (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey Danny lost :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Vatican Splendors

Hello, Danny lost. Is it your intention to nominate The Vatican Splendors at AfD? I'm not sure what's going on there—the sequence of events isn't clear to me. Can you clarify? Thanks! --71.178.50.222 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is!

On January 5 I tried to nominate it but did some bad template substitution. Afd page was created, but on the afd log the deletion rationale was added at the top, with no separate section, and then mingled with other sections. I tried again in January 6, with no success. The night of the 7th was to change the fates of all involved pages.

As I glazed the screen, the workings of the afd spell became clearer, and I was soon to realize I created a new afd. Only a mistype crept in, so the page was at "The Vatican Splendor" (01:01) but the afd log pointed to "Splendors". I didn't notice and went on to move the old "Splendors" one to my userspace (00:59) and request its deletion, noting it used to be an afd page. An admin User:Nyttend deleted it (01:37) and the old, but unclosed afd page "The Vatican Splendors" (01:38). That made me notice my mistype, so recreated the "Splendors" page and redirected it to "Splendor" (03:32).

Lesson: Why, dear lord, you have to study full pages of instructions when you want to say goodbye to a bad page? There is already one useful fill-in box on the afd page, why not push it up, make another one next to it and be done with it? trespassers william (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Danny. I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful response; but, as much as I admire and am amused by your style, I'm afraid I have to oppose deletion of the article. I will give my reasons on the AfD page. I'll also alert Nyttend to this page so he's clear on what you intended, too. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for contributing to the chaos. Would it be okay with you if I deleted everything, reverted everything, etc., and then created a new nomination with your original text? Nobody's participated in the AFD yet, so it should be fine to start over from the beginning. Once I've everything, you can look at it and tell me if I did what you wanted me to do. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you see best. user:DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER AND Special:Contributions/71.178.50.222 had already editted, and to be honsetly I don't have much to say if he adopts it. trespassers william (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Done; I've deleted everything I could find, recreated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vatican Splendors, and added some explanatory notes. DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER simply did deletion sorting, and the IP came along after I proposed this; since he asked me for help in the situation, I don't have any problem with getting rid of his comments and then copy/pasting them into the new page. For future reference, the process is actually pretty simple. (1) Tag the page with {{subst:afd1}}; this will produce the box saying that the page is at AFD. (2) The box will now produce a bunch of code; copy the text {{subst:afd2|pg=PAGENAME|cat=|text=}} ~~~~, and then click on the big redlink "this article's entry" at the top. (3) You're now at the article's AFD page; paste the copied code into that new page, replace PAGENAME with the article's name, and after |text=, write your deletion rationale. (4) Go to the current day's AFD log (just go to WP:AFD and scroll down; it's the first dated entry, just below the table of contents) and add the page by putting {{subst:afd3|pg=PAGENAME}} at the top of the list and replacing PAGENAME with the article's name. If you somehow forget to add the AFD to the daily log, I don't think you need to worry; if I remember rightly, there's a bot that goes around and adds orphaned discussions to their logs. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what happened in regards to the history moves and problems with the code, but Nyttend's solution seems sensible. Thanks for linking my alt account so I was aware of this discussion. Danny it's probably best if you use Twinkle to assist you with future nominations very straightforward that way. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Danny lost. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 10.
Message added 01:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories

Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Josephus bust

Hi, not very much really, except that it was the frontispiece and was said to have been discovered in Rome. If I remember rightly the book was in the British Library. Jack1956 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nabataeans

You are of course correct, although I don't understand why Palestine doesn't have a corresponding category. In any case, I'm not sure why you didn't add the correct category, which I've done. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Jewish dates

The best way is to use the parser functions, described at MW:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##time. For example, you can use {{#time:xjj xjF, xjY|January 1, 1900}} to produce "1 Shevat, 5660". -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Li Wa Zhuan files

Thank you so much! I got them! WhisperToMe (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Labov

Hi! For the Labov piece you sent me--is there any way to save it or view it for a longer time-period, or was it set only to be available for a few short days? Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I'm not one to detach a dog from his book. Usually when somebody at Resource Exchange say he got the link, that means he's downloaded it and the uploader can delete. So I just moved it to my own stash, and now put it back on. Use rightclick or what you usually do to save it.

More importantly, the file name contains a big clue to what site that came from - you'll find this is priceless knowledge. trespassers william (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Ciao Danny lost,

Why you did this to me? Did I do something wrong in your opinion? Good they created the notification system so you may explain this rude behavior.
TIA, greetings & salutations from Tuscany, Italy,  Klaas|Z4␟V:  22:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dobar dan. Yeah I see it was a bit rude but keep in mind it was not done to you but to an article. From its description I understood the link was to a two-column, page, one rolls the Arabic text of Al-Fatiha, the second - of Genesis, and so on. You'll agree this is useless? Clicking it I saw indeed two Arabic columns, so I rushed to remove it.

I apologize. I see now in the English version that it is a more thought out comparison, but still don't see what it contributes that's not in the previous ELs, what translation it uses or who is the author of the introductions. trespassers william (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Study books by subject

I've reacted in a pretty old category merge discussion which isn't closed yet, in which you also participated, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_30, about Study books by subject. Please feel free to add your opinion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hatshepsut image 83d40m

You know File:Trees to transplant from Punt to Egypt - Hatshepsut Mortuary Temple.JPG? It is rotated top-to-right so it is unusable. At Hatshepsut I switched to the version from Commons. Why keep it here? trespassers william (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

would like to discuss this with you. Your place or mine?____83d40m (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a curious mess, my 2006 original uploaded and displayed correctly in the article, Hatshepsut, the date indicated is 2008. Later it was added to the commons and I am guessing that it skewed in the process and was rotated and renamed, because now it is listed as,

.

At one time a 2011 version, Trees_to_transplant_from_Punt_to_Egypt_-_Hatshepsut_Mortuary_Temple_c.jpg, (which I can see today when accessed from your file as another version—no matter that here it is displayed as a non-existent file) was derived from my original by User:JMCC1 I objected to the use of this because of the distortion of the color. At that file there is a reference to my original file. Perhaps this is when the file was rotated, but I do not recall it skewing in the article then.

Don't know whether it is possible to determine an accurate chronology for all of this.

Now these images are used in five articles, however, with file names that were not created by me and without annotation at the original file or being cross referenced to my gallery.

It should have been tagged "KeepLocal" so I have corrected the file today and although I do not mind the file being in the commons, I still would like a copy of the correctly-oriented image that now is in the article to be kept local so that I may view it in my gallery. I do not see an option to edit the new commons file with a "keep local" tag. What options are available to achieve that? Can you help me with that?

I made a copy of this to reside at my talk page. ____83d40m (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Two things

First, it is quite common on en.wiki to provide translations (e.g., in Harrod_the_Great#New Testament references). Second, don't assume genders. Not everyone on the internets is a dude. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Antipatris

added a link pointing to Ottoman

Nelson Glueck

added a link pointing to Transjordan

Tall Zira'a

added a link pointing to Transjordan

Yenoam

added a link pointing to Jordan Valley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)