User talk:Gavia immer/Archive 4

Internet harrassment

Howdy Gavia. It's gone beyond Wikipedia stalking, It's now Internet harrassment. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It does look pretty damn bad. I don't have the buttons to do anything more than sympathize, unfortunately. A suggestion: some admins discourage this sort of thing by having two talk pages (e.g., set up something like User talk:GoodDay/IP comments) and semiprotecting the main, visible one. That would allow innocent IPs to contact you, but it would remove most of the incentive to harass you since it wouldn't be a public spectacle. That's just a suggestion, but it's what I would do in your place. — Gavia immer 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He dosen't contact me anymore (not since mid-Ocotober), just simply reverts my edits. Thankfully, I'm not a prolific editor (I average about 5-10 daily). GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter requests

If you have any requests you would still like to see implemented feel free to bring them up with me. Regarding "Disallow creating articles with multiple single quotes", the Title blacklist could probably work better for that. Triplestop x3 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In fact, I agree with you on the single-quotes one, at least now that I have been reminded of the title blacklist's existence (heh). On the subject of the leading slashes, I still think it's worth a filter - I've seen a recent uptick in such creations that I suspect is due to Wikipedia:Article Wizard 2.0 - I can't prove the connection, but the uptick is there - and handling them is a bit trickier since (as outlined) there are legitimate titles beginning with a leading slash. If you're interested in handling that, and you agree it should be done, I'd still like to see it. If you do implement that filter, it's probably worth trying to catch titles beginning with the string Wiki/ as well as the ones I already listed. In any case, I said this already elsewhere, but it's nice to see someone actually looking at the request section, so thanks for that as well. — Gavia immer 19:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama Doctrine

Seriously, what was that all about? If you had put the page up for deletion I would have accepted that - you would have been dead wrong, but at least I would have respected it. But to take the hard work of another editor; a page that's well written, fully referenced and entirely NPOV, and simply make it into a redirect? You should really ask yourself what you're doing here. Lampman (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's about avoiding Original research. Your article lists a lot of uses of the term "Obama Doctrine", and it's well referenced, but there's no indication in it of any specific doctrine, and your own lead says there isn't one - so we shouldn't have an article on it, if it doesn't exist, and we especially shouldn't invent a speculative "Obama Doctrine" on our own to go with the term; that is a kind of original research known as "novel synthesis", and it's not appropriate.

My redirecting the article (which is less destructive than deletion) should not be taken as an attack on either Barack Obama or yourself; it's simply my belief that without the original research the article is left with a duplication of Barack Obama foreign policy - so I redirected it there. You're free to disagree and revert it, as you did, but there's no need to be angry about it. I have a thick skin, myself, but I don't believe your edit summary improved the encyclopedia, and I'd advise you to avoid using such edit summaries in the future. — Gavia immer 05:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was harsh, but in all my years on WP I've never seen anything as arrogant as that. A redirect is not less destructive than a deletion, because the alternative is not a deletion (since there was nothing here to qualify for a speedy) but a deletion review, where the community has its say. By redirecting, you denied the community that discussion. No matter what your opinion is - to which you are entitled - you should learn how to treat good-faith edits. Lampman (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

*cough* *cough* Ahem, if I may step in. Gavia immer, your brash redirect was, at the very least, in bad taste. I actually think that, even prior to beginning a deletion discussion, you should have asked for other opinions on the discussion page, which seems to have only occurred after the initial edit. Lampman, the language in your edit summary is never appropriate for Wikipedia. It is very easy to take it personally when other people change your work so drastically. But, instead of getting entrenched, you should both recognize your imperfections on this issue. I do think that Gavia immer does have some valid concerns, but in, in the end, I think that the existence of the article is warranted (although some changes likely will need to be made). All best, JEN9841 (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You may feel free to step in - I'm glad to have feedback. I agree that I could have spoken to Lampman before redirecting, and in hindsight I regret not doing it. As to the rest, I think the present article (after the DYK listing and associated edits) is better, but I think it still has the same basic issue. Most likely I will simply start a merge discussion at some point, but at the moment I don't quite have the inclination to do so. — Gavia immer 20:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was most unparliamentary language. Please let me know if any merger- or deletion discussion is initiated. Lampman (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly will do that. — Gavia immer 23:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Freddie Prinze did not commit suicide

Suicide is a legal determination. In 1984 a jury ruled that Prinze died accidentaly from a firearms while under the influence of drugs. Your suggestion that it should be discussed on the talk page before being removed is absurd. It has been determined legally that it was not a suicide, and to have these categories that totally contradict those facts, facts which are described on the page makes zero sense. There is no debate or concencus to be reached on the talk page regarding this point. It's the same way that we can't caregorize O.J. Simpson as a murderer, because a legal determination was reached that he did not commit murder. Unless a future jury reconvenes and later finds that Prinze did commit suicide the categories are totally contradictory and false. I hope you understand this, and why this is not a matter of opinion, nor something that should be debated. It is established as a fact by a legal finding as the entry itself points out. If you were to go on televison and say that Prinze commited suicide , you could be sued for liable and you would likely lose a lot of money.(75.69.241.91 (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Comments by Juhko

Blanking talk pages is not allowed. --Juhko (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

^ Forget. --Juhko (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Another dissension, feel free to comment. :) --Juhko (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Shit, that's nothin'.

Back when I was really fast, I could beat ClueBot to an edit... HalfShadow 04:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I meant to click undo, not rollback, so I could explain: In my experience it's generally referred to as Creation according to Genesis, with the the. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, when the phrase "Creation according to Genesis" is used, it is inevitably preceded by the definite article, as noting the fact that there was exactly one such creation, rather than many. People who regard it as only a narrative generally do not refer to "Creation according to Genesis", but tho phrasings like "The Genesis account", etc. Moreover, the definite article reads as much better style in the lead. In any case, I have no interest in your silly edit war and will not repeat my edit. — Gavia immer 21:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations for List of suicides

I've restarted the discussion here. Can you offer your thoughts? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not presume to violate WP:AGF by making an unsubstantiated accusation for which you have provided no evidence. You claim that you can "see" that my notification of editors is "probably" based on the idea that they would agree with me, but you offer no evidence or reasoning to illustrate the idea that I had any idea which way people would decide. Putting aside the fact that the first person I notified was you (and you haven't exactly agreed with me regarding the placement of citations in the article, so your theory kinda goes right out the window right there), I selected people using a very simple method: I went through the List of suicides Talk Page, and left a message with anyone who had posted there, and then did the same with everyone on the WP:V talk page. Period. Quite simple. And in no way a method that would allow me to glean how people would vote.

Canvassing requires four criteria:

• That the communication be made in stealth instead of openly. As anyone can see, I contacted people openly on their Talk Pages. This is, after all, how you and Tbsdy noticed the people I contacted, isn't it?
• That the communications be neutral and friendly As you can see, my messages were friendly, and did not indicate how I preferred that those participating vote.
• That communications be non-partisan See above. I had no way of knowing how any of these editors would vote, as I merely contacted everyone who had posted on the Talk Pages of the List of suicides article and the WP:V policy page. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that User:gadfium has agreed with you?
• That posting should be limited, and not constitute excessive cross-posting As aforementioned, my posting was indeed limited to those who it seemed had an interest in that article, and in the issue of sourcing. So I limited it to people who had participated on those talk pages. If by "limited" this policy intends to limit the number of editors contacted, it never specifies this, or prescribes what that amount is.

Your accusation that I have contacted people "selectively" is a blatant and knowing fabrication on your part, and is your remark about my supposed "misstatements about sourcing", which you haven't even bothered trying to elaborate on. This marks the second time you have knowingly made a false accusation against me by conjuring up a nefarious motive on my part, without excluding other ones, or even talking to me first. I will be referring your behavior to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Nightscream (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw, regarding those suicides that you reverted, without adding citations, you should know that reverting content that is the point of dispute during a consensus discussion on that material is against policy. Please don't do that. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A fresh start

Hi. I really don't want to be involved in any sort of war with you or anyone else. I have no problem accepting valid criticism, suggestions, or conceding when I'm on the losing side of a consensus discussion, and would be more than happy to provide examples to you from my history of this. But if you see me do or say something that doesn't seem right to you, would you be willing to consider that there are always multiple possibilities/motives to explain that behavior, of which a nefarious one is only one? Would you be willing to ask me about it if you see me say or do something you disagree with before accusing me of violating a policy or guideline? I understand that everyone has articles that they consider to be their "babies", in a sense, myself included, and I respect all the hard work you've done on the List of suicides and other articles, would like to work with you to resolve the matter on that one in a matter that best satisfies policy, as interpreted/adhered to by the largest consensus. Would it possible to start anew on this, and if so, to agree to disagree in a civil manner in the List of suicides talk page discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we certainly can have a fresh start, if we're both willing to keep in mind that we're talking to a human being and not just a bunch of text on the internet. I'm certainly willing to do it, too - stress, being stressful and all, is a thing to be avoided. We do have a difference of opinion, and I guess neither of us sees a reason to change that opinion, but we can still work together congenially if we just decide to do - so lets do so. Thank you very much for reaching out on this; that is very often the toughest thing to do. — Gavia immer 17:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Now I haven't counted the number of "votes" in the discussion (though I suppose we could do that), but offhand it appears that most people have concluded--and citing Wikipedia polices in doing so--that referencing each suicide on the list is in order. Before we go further, are we agreed on this point? Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be the current consensus, yes. On the other hand, there is a general lack of editors putting this belief into action by adding references to the list. — Gavia immer 02:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but that's a separate matter. The point is, policy requires inline citations. I can't be everywhere at once, but I did spend quite a bit of time doing so for the A's. Since that article is one of your babies, you could certainly add a citation or two a day. But even aside from that, I think the ones whose parent article lack an inline citation should be moved to the Talk Page until that's changed. Is that a fair compromise? Nightscream (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really seem like a compromise to me - it's more than you were going to do before, not less. I acknowledge that you have done some of the work that you want to see done, but really, if you want the work done you have to be willing to do it; Wikipedia doesn't work on a principle of requiring others to do such jobs. I have been adding inline references (since that is the consensus) any time I have reason to edit a list entry, but remember, I think such references are unneeded. I don't see that I have any reason to do more than that, and I don't see what slashing the list will accomplish that couldn't be accomplished by adding the references instead. — Gavia immer 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've pasted the above four posts to that article's Talk Page, and continued this there. Nightscream (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words

Gavia immer, thank you for your kind words about my work, in your comment at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_15#Paul_Carrigan. It is most appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Thank you for doing all the work that actually moved things forward - a day's worth of actual work to improve things is worth more than any amount of discussion about how to maybe improve things in the future. — Gavia immer 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and well put. I wish this attitude would catch on. - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Carrigan Drv

Question: if consensus is to move article to main space and close would that resolve issue of notability by effectivly overturning Cirt's previous decisions? It may seem strange to be asking this when Cirt is now promoting his own revision, and Epbr123 agreeing not to Afd nominate, but I personally would like to see this issue resolved for the next 6 months and not having this debate again in a few days or weeks. -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from - the kerfuffle about procedural issues does seem to have eclipsed the ability to ask this basic question about notability. Moreover, I'm not one of these people who thinks that the top X% of any group is automatically worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. I personally think that notability has been established now that the claims to notability have good sourcing, though.

To answer your question directly: DRV doesn't make direct decisions about notability; those get made at an AfD. If you think notability hasn't been examined directly enough (it's not clear where you fall on this), you should request that the article be sent back to AfD again so that it can be examined. However, in practice you're unlikely to prevail in that, and, yes, if consensus is to restore, there won't be another direct examination of notability just now. There's no specific rule preventing another AfD down the road, but if another one is opened independently in, say, a week, it's very likely to get shot down on the same "too soon" grounds. An AfD in a month or two would still be questionable without a really good argument. Beyond that, there's no way to say what would happen, except that future AfDs of the article will need really good arguments to avoid being snowed. Hope this helps. — Gavia immer 14:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping a neutral stand in the notability debate. While I'm generally inclined toward inclusion I see good points made by both sides in this area. I had the misunderstanding that DRV would resolve the notability issue for the time being but I was mistaken. It seems clear that there's a consensus to move back to main space though. I see the core of this debate to be values (inclusionism vs. deletionist, censorship vs. free speech, and gay liberation vs. right-wing conservatism) with procedures and guidelines as a cover. :-\ Stillwaterising (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there are a whole passel of political subtexts underlying debate in this subject area, to be sure. I certainly have opinions in this area, myself, but I deliberately do not bring my political opinions to Wikipedia, except insofar as you could deduce them by way of the topics that I do not edit since I could not do so usefully, and my position on Wikiphilosophies is simply that of being opposed to them - all of them, as a general concept. I point this out to say that not all of the debate in this area is intended as a proxy war; as far as editors' personal agendas go, you can't stop editors from having agendas, so you have to hope that they mostly cancel each other out in the long term. I've been here four years, and there have been times where it wasn't possible to make certain deletion arguments without being attacked, and other times that it wasn't possible to make certain keep arguments for the same reason. At the moment, Wikipedia is leaning toward deletionism, at least in the BLP area - but in the long term I think it has always tended toward a proper balance. — Gavia immer 00:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No objection to an AfD

No objection to an AfD on Flagged revisions, however, I must oppose any discussionless deletion. There are lots of wikis running on MediaWiki besides us, and this has the potential to develop into an article. However I agree that it may be better to steer those peopel towards http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs. In other words, I just think we should discuss this, whether it be on an AfD or on the article talk page, before deleting. —Soap— 01:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably will AfD it some time this evening, and I'll make sure you're notified when I do so. I simply don't see any sources out there discussing the actual extension (as opposed to speculation about what the WMF is going to do with it), and I doubt there ever will be much other than the extension documentation. You disagree, of course - but thank you for being polite in your disagreement. — Gavia immer 02:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Its on my watchlist, so I dont really need to be notified; however User:Chzz probably should be, as he created it, but didnt get the first revision so he wont get automatically notified by the Twinkle script. —Soap— 02:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Soft dedirect

Tergiversation.

Sorry about that it seems I edited a previous version of the article by mistake..

I removed this comment from an earlier edit....

Tergiversation originates from the Latin word tergiversatus (past participle of tergiversari), which means "to turn one's back, to shift." Tergiversari's root is Italic texttergum, meaning "back," and versare, the frequentative of vertere, meaning "to turn." Its verb form is tergiversate.[2]

and this is the citation content...

Tergiversation comes from Latin tergiversatus, past participle of tergiversari, "to turn one's back, to shift," from tergum, "back" + versare, frequentative of vertere, "to turn." The verb form is tergiversate.

which did appear to be a bit close to the citation content. I will take care not to do that again, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; I've done similar myself. Thanks for clearing up what happened. And yes, if the content of some dicdef matches a reference site that we know wouldn't copy definitions from us, then by all means nuke it. I'm trying to decide whether to take that to RfD, myself. — Gavia immer 15:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased Arabic Wikipedia Template

Hello! I am requesting a re-evaluation of the unfounded deletion of my personal space page about Arabic Wikipedia template. The request for re-evaluation can be found here. I would greatly appreciate your input in this matter. Thank you in advance. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit comment

This [1] was not a very appropriate edit comment and is worse than the vandalism you were removing. Just pointing that out to you. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was "worse than" the spam (not vandalism, per se) that I was reverting, but it certainly was intemperate, and in any case it was not required. I'll keep in mind the fact that others might not like to see such edit summaries in such a visible place. — Gavia immer 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't early!

Regarding my post on WP:AN, it was gone midnight! Unfortunatley, Wikipedia seemed to think I am still in GMT rather than BST (British Summer Time), so gave the time as an hour earlier. Ah well Stephen! ^Coming... 10:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wesnoth

Hi Gavia, it's unprotected now. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

research page deletion

Hi there,

Please consider withdrawing your deletion nomination here. I'm not sure you know the history of this -- this went through a LOT of discussion in various places, not just between researchers but researchers & Wikipedians, and it is something that people who have a lot of experience actually researching Wikipedia felt was needed. It really was considered by a good number of people -- it's not "researchers with a sense of entitlement." It's researchers trying to do the right thing because people *did* complain that studies were being done without a structure. More research than you probably realize happens about Wikipedia; this is an effort to try and make researchers work better with the community, not the other way around. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it was debated extensively, and I saw a notification about it on {{cent}}. I never saw, anywhere, a notification that it was proposed to create a new bureaucracy from whole cloth to regulate how researchers may interact with Wikipedians. I oppose on the grounds of the bureaucracy - if it can be destroyed (it must be, and just that) without completely destroying the policy, then I would have no further objection. If it were something like WP:SUP, right now, I would have no objection. I cannot help but object strongly to the proposal that actually exists. — Gavia immer 03:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

autonym vs. autological word

I think I gave sufficient reasons for not confusing these terms [2] [3]. Can you explain why you nevertheless want to add "autological word" as a target to the dabpage "autonym"? --92.72.188.90 (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC) ([4])

"Autonym" is not a common word in English regardless. Even if the original redirect was a mistake, others might well make the same mistake about such an uncommon word, so we should make certain they can find what they were looking for even if we also think that they are mistaken about it. Although our article content should be correct, for our navigational content the first priority is to be useful, and correctness is only second. — Gavia immer 14:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! It helps to understand your reasons, but I am highly unconvinced!

"Others might well make the same mistake" is a claim not really founded on anything but the fact that one person in WP once happened to made this mistake and other editors, at least for a while, did not correct it. Or can you adduce any sources where this particular mistake is attested and corrected? I have managed to spot one single book -- and only in German -- where this same mistake occurs: not enough for making it relevant for WP. It's just a fact of WP version history, not a relevant fact in the outside world.

"for our navigational content the first priority is to be useful, and correctness is only second": What is not correct is unlikely to be useful. By your adding the wrong target to the dabpage -- without any hint to the fact that both terms are actually unrelated -- you are feeding incorrect information to readers who browse this page but do not follow the link to the wrong target. And even if they look up the target page, they will not find anything about autonymous words there, because, as stated before, this is not a relevant subject for an article on autological words.

Best, --195.233.250.7 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)

List of Spammers

I need your or someones help with what looks to be a rogue editor, UnnotableWorldFigure. How to suggest we proceed for the good of Wikipedia? Danke, Luitgard (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care about things like the high school article, for instance, but if he reverts on List of spammers one more time, I'm definitely going to escalate things. Please bear in mind, you are involved in this yourself, so you should avoid doing anything that would get you in trouble if administrators were examining the issue. Thank you for actually communicating, by the way; I've asked UnnotableWorldFigure to discuss things, but he isn't discussing his reverts. — Gavia immer 14:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response! I'm not as experienced with Wikipedia as you, but I've tried to be fair, calm, level headed and communicative. Of course, if you have any advice, I'm all ears. I form the impression UnnotableWorldFigure sees her or himself as something of a lone wolf with a mission, but I hope cordial communications can be established in the fullness of time. Best Regards, Luitgard (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Time to "escalate things" as at 21:04, 23 April 2010 UnnotableWorldFigure reverted the List of spammers, completely ignoring all the references supplied and no attempt made at addressing the reasoning put forth. Just the same argument as before, that one of the articles mentioned only Jumpstart. No mention of the Time Mag ref that mentioned Tseng or the BBB cit that lists him as CEO of Jumpstart. Luitgard (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What I'd like to understand is why the very first edit of Tseng's wikipedia article is Luitgard "re-creating" the page and why he is so excited and proactive about smearing another human being. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello UWF, I explained on the Greg Tseng talk page about the early deletion and resurrection of the article. As for "smearing", I would be very upset if the positive things about Tseng were removed from the article. I do not wish to inaccurately portray him, I want the good and the bad. I feel he is at least as well known for spamming as he is for being an Internet entrepreneur and that if one is mentioned in the intro, the other should be too. Please see my talk page for a more detailed addressing of your concerns. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Gavia, any chance we could get your input on the intro for the Tseng article? And thanks for your efforts on the list of spammers! Luitgard (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oral Roberts' mother -- Claudius Priscilla Roberts

It is an established non-disputed fact that Oral Roberts' mother's first name is Claudius. Every biographical account contains this fact, and one of the dormitories on the campus of Oral Roberts university is named after her. I really don't know how to go about referencing and documenting this. To list her first name as Claudia appears to be a typo, and in my opinion, warrants only a simple correction.

Priscilla-jesus (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've actually looked at this, the New York Times obituary, which can be assumed to be very well researched, gives her name as "Claudius". I'm going to change this in the article, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. — Gavia immer 20:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem

Ahem. If I were interested in bashing, I wouldn't be advising people not to do very counter-productive things. Right now, I'm just sitting back and enjoying the popcorn (though who knows what the future may bring ...). Really, you shouldn't devote too much worry in my direction, given my civil-liberties background. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Seth, we both agree that the course of action under discussion there would be counterproductive, and I certainly agree that you are not, say, Cade Metz. I have a particular opinion of you and your employers' reporting on Wikipedia that has been formed by reading you and your employers' reporting on Wikipedia, and I'm going to leave it at that. Having said that, if you think there was an issue with the particular phrasing of my opinion, rather than the opinion itself, then I am perfectly open to phrasing the same opinion in a way you find less problematic. — Gavia immer 04:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I was going to let it go, but the recent spike around the discussion indicated maybe I shouldn't. Yes, I think that phrasing was problematic, most especially when I was contributing advice that people not perform hasty actions which might result in a bashing from the press. Couldn't you have just said something like "Unfortunately, a siteban won't fix this, and harsh detractors will just use it as an excuse to bash us, so it would be counterproductive"? It's hardly the worst I've ever experienced, but wasn't it also counterproductive to take a little personal shot at me there? What did it accomplish, except to have me think more negatively about the culture of Wikipedia? It's quite sad that the price of my giving even the most obvious advice is to make myself a target. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Seth, I understand where you feel you're coming from, and remember that we both agree with what the real-world consequences of this business would have been. Unfortunately, you are also a member of the press, and you can't be separate from that, and when you make one of the first comments in the discussion for the purpose of saying "be careful of the press!", the fact that you are the press gives it a certain connotation that you can't really avoid. Yes, that can suck.

As I said, I'm not willing to omit that portion of my comment, but if you think it is unduly singling you out, I will rephrase it not to call you by name. As you know, however, the section is currently triple-archived, and it is possible someone will revert my revision of my earlier comments in order to stop the section from flaring up again. If that happens, I will not edit war over it, because there would be no point. We'll see. — Gavia immer 16:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Further, here's a diff for you: [5]. Is that fine? — Gavia immer 16:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the refactoring. My understanding is that the triple-archive didn't affect any internal edits, as it's all just wiki-markup. I'm not denying my comments can carry certain implications (though I'm sensitive to the issue), but it was the aspect of unfairness which I felt was unjustified in this context. There's a big difference between "Doing this provides ammunition useful for people looking to harshly attack Wikipedia", versus "Doing this provides ammunition for me in specific to harshly attack Wikipedia". The point being that the latter can be distinguished from the former, since if I was looking to harshly attack Wikipedia on that bit of drama, I wouldn't be advising people not to do the ill-considered action. On reflection, I see what you were seeing in the comment, but I meant it purely as a recommendation not to further inflame an already highly emotional topic. Maybe I can't effectively give such advice. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted section, Work on gender equality

Gavia immer, please see my 2nd entry, addressed to you, on the talkpage Talk:OECD Development Centre, thanks. For7thGen (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

the brand

I'm surprised you're getting the same time-out error when searching for this phrase. Any idea what/why is happening here? I find it very puzzling. -- œ^™ 21:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish I knew. All I can say is that I can reproduce it. Mind you, the new search function is extra-buggy, but I don't know why this specific string would trigger a bug. — Gavia immer 00:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me how I would go about reporting this bug? and to whom? Is this something that should be reported at all? -- œ^™ 01:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The first thing to remember is that the developers are currently doing a lot of work on the search function, because they opted not to test it during the six-month beta test of new features and therefore have been scrambling to do they work they should have done already. I suspect that by next week, we will have a completely new search interface installed, and because it was rolled out in a hurry to fix the previous buggy interface it will have new, different, and unpredictable (for now) bugs in the interface. What this means in practice is that I would wait a few days - up to a week - to see if the problem goes away on its own, and then report it on bugzilla:. Unfortunately, the bug-reporting interface can be daunting for anyone who's not familiar with such things. Having said that, reporting it on VPT, as you already did, is a good idea too. TheDJ makes a point of acting as a communication channel between the developers and the English Wikipedia community, so posting on VPT helps get things reported. — Gavia immer 01:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks alot. -- œ^™ 05:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter Rudin

Today is a furlough day at the University of Wisconsin. The whole campus is closed down and we are not allowed to work today. This is presumably why no official announcement of Walter's death has been made. Nigel Boston http://www.math.wisc.edu/~boston/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.35.221 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That might very well explain why there's no information one way or the other about this, so thank you for informing me. However, Wikipedia policy is clear that we cannot report someone deceased if there's any doubt about the situation, for reasons that I hope are obvious. If that means waiting for a day or two in order to confirm Mr. Rudin's passing, then no particular harm will come to anyone by waiting. — Gavia immer 17:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that there is now official confirmation - http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/article_b6fa8098-6512-11df-9cbf-001cc4c002e0.html Nigel Boston —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.35.221 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Moves

Trust me I did but talking these editors is like talking to a wall. Anywho the reason I put those articles up for RfD was because they have so little history and according to the RfD policy you can do so. Am I wrong? EunSoo (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You can put them (or any other redirect) up for deletion, but unless they harm the encyclopedia they shouldn't be deleted. The redirects you've nominated are a benefit to the encyclopedia. If you want to move the articles, use Wikipedia:Requested moves for that. If you want to do something else, please be specific. If you want to have these deleted just because they theoretically can be deleted - well, that won't happen, so I'd advise against pressing your case on that. — Gavia immer 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of suicides in fiction

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply:Redirect discussion here

Imam Muhammad is used extencively for Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani,student of founder of Hanafi Madhab;Imam Abu Hanifah.As for so called "shite" imam,Muhammad ibn Ali,he's called Al-Baqir al-Uloom.

Coercorash^TalkContr. 05:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

NaSHA et al.

I noticed you requested NaSHA to be restored. I had also AfD'd Spectral Hash when I prod'd NaSHA. You might consider commenting on its AfD page. -- KTC (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I managed to miss both nominations, so it's kind of you to point that out. I'll add my opinion at the discussion. — Gavia immer 22:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Elena Kagan

I suggest to do at least a little background search yourself before deleting addition. I expect more from you than just a button click. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.253.81 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

About BEST KOREA

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to BEST KOREA, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed.

of course than it was constructive!!, why you don't think so?

please don't impose your subjetive POV when reverting editions, don't abuse of your power please, there are alredy enought trolls around in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.19.47 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh?

Hardly a reason to delete an unreferenced section? It might not be appropriate to carry such an irrelevent section, but perhaps some more reasoning for following eds to understand your issue with the overloaded info? SatuSuro 04:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't think the nonsense about Abraham Lincoln owning a bearcat was an obvious enough reason? If you want to try to salvage the only salvageable material (the bit about school mascots), then I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the rest of it, because it was worse than useless. — Gavia immer 04:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you completely - the in popular culture debate was well and tryingly scratched out over the place the other year or two back - and the trivia crap that creeps in is tediously unsupportable - nah - I suppose it is the edit summary issues really in the end - but hey at times maybe its the only way to put it anyways - I'll leave it myself - still cannot work out why it was on my watch list SatuSuro 14:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Persian vs. "farsi"

Gavia ... no matter what people might say, the English word for the language Iranians speak is Persian. As i have probably noted before, the usage of the word "farsi" in the English language is like somebody coming up to you asking if you speak "magyar". In English "magyar" is Hungarian, "al-arabiya" is Arabic, "deutsch" is German, "farsi" is Persian, "italiano" is Italian, "svenska" is Swedish, and so the list can go on. It's pretty simple, realy, when you think of it. Thanks, Kamran the Great (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Saw you comment over at WP:AN that the reason for the whole site going down was an air conditioning failure and server crash. Were is technical information like that posted on this site? N419BH 03:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Usually if the wiki is up at all there will be some discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical), and if it goes down there will surely be discussion there afterward. If you can't load that page, you may be able to reach the server admin log, and there's also a user-updated non-WMF status report at [6]. Unfortunately even the last link isn't bulletproof - during major outages there's an increased load on that page that can cause it to be unreachable or lagged. Supposedly you can also get status info on IRC, but I never use IRC, so I can't help you with that. — Gavia immer 03:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I've been thinking of getting into IRC but not yet; too busy. N419BH 03:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Gavia immer 03:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical thinking

Dear Colleague

Please help me understand why you undid my edits to the "critical thinking" page. I've been involved with critical thinking for over 40 years and the substantive edits I proposed were not made without a reasonable level of knowledge regarding the development and research base. Perhaps if we were to communicate about this we could come to some mutual understanding of the reasons why you believed that my edits were not acceptable.

Thank you. Regards,

Peter Facione —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.240.25 (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, your version of the article was far too promotional of your own work - see WP:COI for our policy on editing articles when you have some involvement with the subject. Also, large changes like that should preferably be discussed on the talk page of the article before making them, or if they are reverted by another editor, rather than edit warring to return to your preferred version of the article. In addition, you should also be aware that you have been discussed on one of our administrative noticeboards; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pfacione and please feel free to comment there if you wish. Mostly, however, please discuss your edits on the article talk page Talk:Critical thinking, and remember that we work by cooperative editing, not by force. — Gavia immer 04:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential reviewer candidates/Exceptions

Seeing as you have the reviewer right, would you like to have your name off of this list?--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What I object to is being listed in the big table that's sortable by edit count as a supposed good/bad ranking. If I won't be readded to the "editor worthiness by edit count" table, then I have no problem with being off the "exceptions" list. If I would be readded, or especially if withdrawing my name would be seen as some sort of approval of the concept of such lists, then I don't want my name removed. I haven't looked at the way these lists are being used, since I had what I wanted, and that means you know better than I what would happen. If the only consequence of being removed from the list would be to make the list shorter, then go ahead and do it. — Gavia immer 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can ask whoever compiles the list to keep yourself off of it and then we can remove you from Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential reviewer candidates/Exceptions so as to not confuse anyone about you having the reviewer right.--White Shadows ^{I ran away from you} 19:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, there's a particularly stupid edit war occurring over there. Why didn't you just say so? I'll go add an annotation to my name, and hopefully that will clear things up. — Gavia immer 19:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Gnevin (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I know how to capitalize. I don't need to be taught. It was a simple typo. As you are perfect in every conceivable way, and not at all an embarrassment to your parents, you would never understand what a typo is. Consider yourself lucky. Had I the power to edit my own talk page, I would make the correction to your delight. Also, I apologize for my "snide" remarks. I now understand that defending yourself and stating FACTS are inappropriate behavior. I should endeavor to adopt remarks that are in no way snide such as: "Want a true statement? Your talk page privileges are now revoked." You, sir, are a paragon of etiquette and civil discourse. How may I become more like you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.67.126 (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Battle for Wesnoth

You reverted my edit to this page (add Category:MorphOS games). MorphOS port is mentioned on this article and at http://wesnoth.wikia.com/wiki/The_Battle_for_Wesnoth. Or did I miss something? Xorxos (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That page is obviously a copy of our article, and in any case Wikia is an openly-editable wiki, so it's not a reliable source. Can you point to an actual working distribution of Wesnoth for MorphOS? if not, please don't readd it. — Gavia immer 13:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh indeed, silly me :) Yes here: http://www.amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5373 (it is available only via torrent). There is also (rather dated) game review in French, http://obligement.free.fr/articles/battleforwesnoth.php Xorxos (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that looks fine. Pardon me for objecting originally, but the MorphOS version isn't available through the official distribution channel, so I didn't know about it. — Gavia immer 15:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bjarne

The article Bjarne has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A non-useful and non-encyclopedic list of persons with the first name Bjarne.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bigvernie (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dumbravita

Why did you remove the text and photos I've worked on editing on Dumbravita page? You don't give any reasons but point to a pdf article that isn't even available at that link? If you imply I've copied and pasted the text from elsewhere, you're wrong. I've given the links to some of the information translated from Romanian and used, the rest is my own knowledge of the comune. I await the explanation of your actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromocea (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I found multiple passages that were obviously taken from that PDF and subjected to low quality machine translation. I agree that the original PDF has now disappeared, which is unfortunate, but I notice that you have now attributed the text to http://www.e-primarii.ro/~dumbravita-tm/index.php?msg=ok, and it obviously is a low-quality machine translation of that page, which the PDF may also have been a copy of. Mechanical translations like that are a copyright violation in just the same way that adding the Romanian text directly would be. I have removed this material again; please don't readd it. — Gavia immer 22:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just Marketing International

Gavia,

Thanks for commenting on the JustMarketingInternational page - this page doesn't exist anymore and all I want to do is get this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Marketing_International uploaded onto wikipedia but I am having serious difficulties...

I dont want any other pages, just the link above... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbampton (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that you had copied the article into multiple places. Don't worry about it; the version with the misspelled title will be deleted by an administrator, but this won't affect the copy with the proper title. However, in the future, it's worth making certain that you get the title correct in the first place, since there will be no need for cleanup then. Please be aware that I have had to remove some promotional language from the article; I advise you to read our policies on Wikipedia articles that cover currently operating businesses, including Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and Wikipedia:Autobiography. I have no doubt that JMI meets our standards of notability for coverage, but we are not an advertising or promotional vehicle. Thanks for reading, and feel free to ask me if you have further questions. — Gavia immer 14:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, I am sorry you felt I was being impatient - that was wasn't my intention and I do really appreciate your sage advice.

I am having a problem with this logo and I am not sure why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JMI_company_logo_2010.JPG

This is my logo and I tried to show this with ({{GFDL-self}}) but apparently this is not acceptable? It has marked as a candidate for speedy deletion, would you mind telling me what i have to do to rectify this?

Many thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbampton (talk • contribs) 09:30, 2010 August 3

Our image licensing can be confusing. According to what I read on http://justmarketing.com, the logo is copyrighted by JMI, which is what I would expect to be true. Merely copying it here does not make the logo your own work. Moreover, even if you are authorized by JMI to release the logo under free terms, you almost certainly don't really want to do that, since it would mean that anyone could use the logo for any purpose as long as they don't violate JMI's trademark rights. If you do want to do this, please be aware that we no longer accept images under GFDL-only terms; you would have to release the image under our normal CC-BY-SA-3 terms, which you do by using the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} template. Again, that is probably not what you really want to do.

If you aren't authorized to release the logo under a free license, or you don't actually want to, the correct thing to do is to follow our policy on non-free content. You will want to read the whole, long page, but the short version is that you must provide a source (the company name and website are sufficient for this) and a fair use rationale that explains why we have a reason to use the non-free content on at least one article, with the name of the specific article included. It is generally sufficient for an article on a company to list "identification of the company and the company logo" as a rationale. However, you should read the page I linked above rather than use my answers as a cheat-sheet, in order to insure that you get things right. Hope this helps. — Gavia immer 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

re List of compositions by Friedrich August Wilhelm Baumfelder

Hi there Gavia immer,
Your last edit (here) to this article ("rm link to article creator's work elsewhere") seems to have broken the second table, so I have fixed that. I also tagged the article as unreferenced and original research, which may mean it should be deleted or userfied until it has proper reliable sources. Just FYI! Regards --220.101talk^\Contribs 06:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeking suggestions for new title for WP:AMORAL

You have previously commented regarding the essay WP:Wikipedia is amoral; I am soliciting suggestions for a better title for the essay. If you have any, please list them at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_amoral#Suggestions_for_new_title.3F. Thanks, --Cybercobra (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

• News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee

• In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more

• Admin stats: RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging

• Sister projects: Strategic Planning update

• WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformats

You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland

It seems that you probably have violated 3RR on the named article. However, some of the reversions are arguably of BLP violations (but not the last 3; they're just undue weight and misplaced). I'm not bothering to report it to WP:AN3, because it's over 24 hours old.

The statements that he has been reported as having no scientific credentials or training should be in the article somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jorma Jormakka's proof of Statement D of the Clay Math Navier-Stokes problem

Dear Gavia immer,

You did not allow some person unknown to me to insert a statement that the Clay Math Navier-Stokes problem is solved on a peer-reviewed journal paper: Jorma Jormakka: Solutions to three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations for incompressible fluids. Electron. J. Diff. Equ. Vol 2010(2010), No. 93, pp. 1-14, http://ejde.math.txstate.edu.

You asked for the proof to have been reviewed by others and posted by third-party sources. The article has been reviewed by the journal, and by several third-party mathematicians. The person who posted it is unknown to me and if a third-party source. There was also public discussion of the counterexample in reddit.com. It ended up to the conclusion that all arguments against the counterexample were found incorrect. I think all conditions that you stated are filled and the link to this article, with te statement that it solves the Clay Math problem as it is stated, can be safely put to Wiki.

The final conclusion of the discussion of this proof in reddit.com was that the article published in a peer-reviewed journal does indeed contain a valid counterexample to the Navier-Stokes problem as posed by the Clay Math Institute. Notably, the article proved the Statement D. The article has been checked and published in a peer-reviewed journal. It has also been checked by third party mathematicians, some of whom are thanked at the end of the article.

See the discussion in

http://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/d3uzv/navierstokes_as_stated_by_clay_math_has_been/

The final conclusion is that the arguments against the proof were all found incorrect:

YottaByte -1 points0 points1 point 2 days ago[-] why do you think the author is a crank I simply based it on the OP's analysis which was well done IMO. Only after reading your refutals am I figuring out that your paper finds a flaw in the problem statement, rather than solve it (whether it is eligible for the prize is arguable and besides the point). Needless to say, the Terry Tao statement applied to Deolalikar, not you. jj2 1 point2 points3 points 19 hours ago[-] No need to say that there was any flaw in the problem. The Clay problem formulation was according to the knowledge of the field in 2000. I would hate to claim that a Field medalist Professor Fefferman made several errors. In my opinion he posed correctly the problem he wanted to be solved. It is a perfectly valid problem and it is solved in the paper. It is also not all that easy, though the solution is so simple. You can see in cowgod42's remarks that there were (still are) some misunderstandings in the field of PDEs. The local-in-time existence and uniqueness theorem was thought to show local uniqueness of solutions for the given initial values, it does not. Every physicist would have claimed that if the force and the velocity are periodic, then the pressure must also be periodic. It is not true. Finally, the solutions to those initial values were thought to be either energy-limited non-periodic (also pressure) or completely periodic (also pressure), i.e., live in different function spaces as cowgod42 puts is. This is not true, one must especially demand this to be true for the pressure. These misunderstandings are what the silly solution discards as false. The main contribution of the paper is that do not expect that it is all true what people think is true. Freedom of thought and own research. YottaByte -1 points0 points1 point 2 days ago[-] jj2, if you are Jormakka, or even if you are not, you are defending the proof very well. Shot down those comments made against the paper way-too-easily.

Here is the final conclusion with the Ph.D. student cowgod42, who tried to argue against the paper:

jj2 2 points3 points4 points 18 hours ago[-] The paper presents a counterexample to the Clay problem formulation, which for the space-periodic case is stated in R^3, not in R^3/Z^3. Thus, the space-periodic case is not in a torus\times time but periodic functions in R^3\times time. There are no additional physical conditions which are not stated. Surely, it would have been more reasonable to pose the space-periodic problem in the torus. The problem as it is formulated is solved. You may say it is a semantic point. Let this opinion be accepted, the paper is a solution to what is stated. If somebody poses a million dollar problem to the world, let him first check he is asking the problem he want to be solved. Surely you remember from children tales that you could ask a dragon a question, and the dragon would answer it correctly. Only you never managed to ask what you wanted to know but always formulated your question poorly. So got a useless answer. The same thing here. You try to say that the problem is not as you would have formulated it, and this is easy to believe. It could have been formulated in a better way, but it was not. Actually, one physicist said after reading the counterexample that the Clay problem is formulated in a criminally poor way and no physicist would have formulated it so poorly. I do not think it was criminally poor, but yes, it was a bit poorly formulated. If you ever try to publish solutions to well-known problems in a journal, the best way is not to announce in the beginning that you are going to even treat the famous problem. Journal editors and referees are just of the type who hate so called cranks. You better hide what your paper actually says. So, the only place where the Clay problem is stated is Section 4 and it is only stated in a way that the referee accepts. But a statement "Unless Theorem 3 is accepted as a proof of Statement D, the official problem formulation must be corrected" is of course the same as saying "Theorem 3 is a proof of Statement D and only by changing the problem statement it is possible to render Theorem 3 not a proof of Statement D". Whether you like the paper's style or are convinced of the author's knowledge is not important. It is not a paper for earning a Ph.D. or for impressing fellow mathematicians with your knowledge. Just a simple paper that should give a million if the Clay promises are fulfilled, and if not, make people working on PDEs feel a bit more stupid as they did not notice such a simple thing. However, it does point out to a wrong use of the local-in-time existence and uniqueness theorem and points out that there can be undefined parameters (time derivatives). Maybe they have relevance to the mystical aspects of turbulence. cowgod42 1 point2 points3 points 18 hours ago[-] Great, it sounds like we agree. I suppose we both have spent more time than we intended to on this issue and it is past time to stop. Perhaps we both could have said things more carefully, both in terms of their mathematical and person impressions. Let us put any bad feelings behind us. I wish you all the best in your endeavors, and if we happen to see each other on the internet again, I image it will be a happier meeting. Best regards, cowgod42

Best regards, Jorma Jormakka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.55.128 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Jormakka:

You should understand that I have no special power to "not allow" material in an article. I did argue against including material on your paper in Naiver-Stokes existence and smoothness, the article on the Millennium Prize problem, and also against including any mention of your paper in Navier-Stokes equations, the main article on Navier-Stokes generally. I still would tend to oppose it, not because of any merit or lack of merit in the paper, but because Wikipedia relies on secondary sources (such as a newspaper article about your paper, if one were published) rather than on primary sources (such as your paper itself). If secondary sources come to exist for your paper - this would include the Clay Mathematics Institute responding to it, for example - then I would support mentioning it in the article on the Millennium Prize problem, but until then I do not support mentioning it there. Again, however, I have no special ability to include or exclude such material on my own; if you feel that your result should be covered, then you should raise the issue on the talk page of either article - the same place where I made my opposition known. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer 18:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gavia immer,

I think you misunderstand this article. From most scientific articles there is never made any story in a newspaper and the Clay Math gives its decision concering the millennium prize in two years, they do not comment earlier. I think you raise this article from the role of a normal mathematical contribution with relevance to the Wiki page into something that should appear world-wide in newspapers. The article is correct and what it solves is the exact statement of the Clay Math Institute, i.e., the problem from which they offered a million. It also would be difficult for the Clay Math to try to recover the original problem by some reformulation since there does no exist any more original problem than the one given in the problem statement. However, for most people the problem that Clay Math formulated is not the "famous Navier-Stokes problem" that would make big news. I do not think my solution for the exact problem that Clay math stated is not going to make big news. The article is correct and generally accepted by the scientific community, but it is not considered a bigger result than the other partial results mentioned in Wiki. It may get the millennium prize, but still it is not seen as a huge result that requires to be stated in a newspaper. If you want to put there a fully noncontroversial statement of my article then it is:

The article [Jormakka] presents a counterexample to the space-periodic case as it is formulated in the Clay Math Navier-Stokes official problem statement. From the article follows that also in the nonperiodic case there is a counterexample constructed in a similar way. The article lists the changes that are needed in order to reformulate the problem statement so that the presented counterexample is no longer valid. These changes are not small. Whether this solution is egligible to the millennium prize is up to Clay.

Jorma Jormakka Professor, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.55.128 (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I have no particular power over the material in question. However, I don't believe that it's worth including uless there has been independent coverage of your paper. — Gavia immer 16:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gavia immer,

For me it is not important whether there is any information from my paper in Wiki or not, but from a military point of view I am quite interested in the way to control of Wiki material is made, and you seem to be a controller. Thus, a peer-reviewed paper is not evaluated independently of the author? Or do you mean that all scientific papers referred to in Wiki pages have appeared in newspapers or been commented by the Clay Math institute, or some other American university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.55.128 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Still a bit more. I am (continuously, for my work) doing a study on media control in the Internet and Wiki is an interesting case. You seem to have some knowledge on it. Let us say that I or somebody else would put this reference to my work to the Wiki pages. Would it be taken off, by whom, and why? As a background, a very strong case can be made by example cases for the existence of media control in the Internet, according to what I have found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.55.128 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't help you with your media theories, I'm afraid. If you want to edit the relevant articles, I suggest that you go ahead and do that, and I will respond at the relevant articles. Otherwise, I don't see that there's any more to discuss here. — Gavia immer 18:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gavia immer, just checked what you would do as you were unwilling to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.55.128 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavia immer. I added a small correction. It should go to the 3rd item of the Partial results. it kind of jumped to notes. I guess you are more from humanistic fields but you can believe me, it is correct. The reference explaining it would be my paper, but the comment is correct even without references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.55.128 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gavia immer. I added the reference to my peer-reviewed journal paper that has been checked by very many people. The reference is certainly reliable (Americal peer-reviewed mathematical journal of good reputation) and nobody has tried to refute it, while many mathematicians know of this paper. I also do not claim in the reference that the paper proves Statement D but only say that so is claimed (in my paper, no need to say as that might be felt as self-promotion). This is not self-promotion. The person who first sent a reference to my paper is totally unknown to me, I dd not even think of originally putting it here but was interested in the claims of 911 Truthers etc. that there is censorship and wanted to see is there actually. I just put the reference to a form that does not irritate people and can be accepted. It is a result of interest to the community, since it shows that a theorem long thought to be true is actually false, or at least incorrectly used. In the scientific practise, if a result is published and not refuted, it is assumed valid so far. It does not need to be verified by newspapers. Most scientific papers do not make it into newspapers. All we know in science is only valid so far. Absolute certainty cannot be achieved, but in the case if the result that I quote, we can be pretty certain that it is correct and will not be refuted. It is totally elementary mathematics and has been reviewed for 25 months in journals, and by several experts and nonexperts. I would say it is as correct as anything you find in science. Thank you for not deleting the small edit I did. I hope you let the reference to the paper also stay, as the information in Wiki should be quoted to reliable sources. This source is more reliable than most. I have really no intention for self-promotion, while it would be nice to get recognition or at least discussion to the result. Let us mention that the journal is American, so also American mathematicians have made a positive statement of the proof. I would not expect any public statement from Clay before the two-year period at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.55.128 (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Against Pending Changes

Add this userbox to your userpage to advertise your opposition to WP:Pending Changes, and tell 10 like-minded users to do the same and vote!--Gniniv (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

{{User:Gniniv/Userboxes/NoPend}}

Human

Thanks for your input. See Talk:Human#Update -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavia, if its not too much trouble, could you please undo Chrisrus' revert to the human article? He has achieved no consensus for it. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(A Year Without Rain)

I noticed that, but the contents of the article were speediable under A10 as a duplication. He had created the talk page as a stub of the article, apparently not knowing how to undo the redirect to expose the earlier article. The history of the redirected article has a tolerable stub that will form the basis of an article once the song meets WP:NSONGS, which should happen in a couple of weeks.—Kww(talk) 05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

hello

hi gavia, sorry about reverting that page. went to go undo my revert when i realized but you had already done it. my apologies, just getting used to lupin.

any way, i was wondering if you could point me in the direction where i could get the plain "this user is a native speaker of english" userbox. i've been looking all over and cannot find it.WookieInHeat (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem - unfortunately, the Shane Dawson page attracts a great deal of lameness, and I am used to having to go back a ways to remove bad additions that have crept in. DashBot or any other bot can't go looking for better old versions, so it reverts instead, but it's better for human editors to check for a recent good version even if it takes a few seconds more. As for the plain English userbox, {{User en}} with no parameters should do it. On the other hand, I think the Canadian English userbox is a nice feature simply because so many editors like to think of the English language as being divided neatly into "American" and "British" English, and a reminder that Canadians don't fit neatly into either camp is always welcome. That's just my opinion, of course. Hope this helps. — Gavia immer 04:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help! WookieInHeat (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Frank Buckles

Thanks for changing "Casualty" to "Casual" on the Frank Buckles article following my edit on the WW1 surviving veterans page and crediting my verification. You beat me to it by a minute or two! Regards Moldovanmickey (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I would have assumed that "Casualty" was correct, if you hadn't done the research. It's nice to see us get something like that right. 15:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexander of Abonoteichus

Nice merge. Jheald (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It could use another looking-over, though - if you see anything that warrants improvement, go ahead and just fix it without regard to me. I'm not an expert on the subject, I just happened to stumble across it. — Gavia immer 21:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your very motivating and convincing ANI arguement on getting people to play nice. Ishdarian|lolwut 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will confess that I am not a personal fan of barnstars, but I absolutely appreciate the sentiment it which it has been given. Of course, I also can see that my appeal has not succeeded :( Nonetheless, positive work really is the cure for drama, if only you can get the dramatists to see it. If I were really deserving of the comparison to Socrates, I wouldn't have a problem with that last part... — Gavia immer 06:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

At least you tried to put an end to the discussion. Also, I had to go with that barnstar because there were no Iron Fist or Hammer of God options. Ishdarian|lol^wut 07:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh. — Gavia immer 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pig bladder

Hi. I much appreciate your help with Bing (province). Along similar lines, could you add links to Pig bladder? Wikipedia has over 100 articles containing "pig bladder". 69.3.72.249 (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am generally willing to create reasonable redirects by request if you see one missing. Do you have a suggested target for it Pig bladder? I haven't looked, but probably most of those are looking for the content we have at Football (ball). Is that what you're looking for? If not, please be specific, and I'll probably create anything that seems reasonable. — Gavia immer 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. Pig bladder was an article that got deleted because it was a stub. Many mentions of pig bladders are not in the context of footballs. What I am asking for is someone to use a tool to link (wikify) the many instances of "pig bladder". 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it, sorry for not understanding. I'll take a look at this and see if they are worth redlinking, but they may or may not be. — Gavia immer 00:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done some; please be aware that a majority of the links I created are actually to pig's bladder, which was the most common form I found in article texts. If you have a cunning plan for these links, remember to take that into account. — Gavia immer 01:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I do have a cunning plan: building Wikipedia. Heh heh. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Now Pig bladder is an article. Also, I have proposed moving Bladder (disambiguation) to Bladder, here. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent piece of work. Thanks for contributing it. — Gavia immer 01:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

JouieM

You mention in this edit summary[7] that an editor you are reverting, User:JouieM appears to be a banned user. I had noticed here[8] that they mention having edited under another account two years ago, and use the term "fanboys", which at least one of the prolific sockers used. Do you have any inkling who it might be? Unless they go away, we'll have to request blocking, better sooner than later if they're going to troll the Obama pages with accusations about the editors there. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of anyone two years ago, but of Grundle, who had 60+ socks blocked recently and who always returns to "Well, we don't have to say [bad thing about Obama] even though he says it himself [wherever]". I'm perfectly confident it's him, though I welcome dissenting opinions. — Gavia immer 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. The behavior doesn't fit anything I know of Grundle. Lately he just posts his screed to a few pages, sometimes complains a little about bias and unfairness, then goes away for a few days or a week. There were several sockmasters a couple years ago (e.g. User:BryanFromPalatine, User:00frodo, User:QuirkyAndSuch), some making very aggressive attempts to harass and discredit the legitimate editors through repeated accusations and administrative actions. I was wondering if one of them was opportunistically using Grundle's latest visit and some editors' apparent gullibility to fall for the troll bait. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's definitely not Grundle, but more likely Gaydenver/JB50000 or one of the users that was topic banned(Jzyehoshua,Duchamps comb,etc..). Either way, you're right, if the editor insists on keeping up the trolling something will have to be done. Dave Dial (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurm. Well, some returning socker is using this style of argument repeatedly; I'll look for some diffs to show what I mean. You revert more crud on that page than I do, so if you say it isn't Grundle, I have to accept that. It may also be that because I know of the big Grundle sockfest recently, I'm simply predisposed to think it's him. I hope it's not simply a mater of finding what I expected to find, but in the meantime I really think this is a returning individual. I edit conflicted with DD2K, so I'll leave my original comment and strike it. It's Gaydenver I was thinking of, and I did mislead myself due to the big sock farm recently. Shit. — Gavia immer 02:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Good to know my concern is rightly shared! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Aitnia

I read the section four times, trying to figure out a literal translation from Italian but I'm lost too! --Vituzzu (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I've just understood the meaning...may I say "gibberish"? :)

--Vituzzu (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hee hee. Well, Alpha30 seems to have backed off of whatever they were trying to do, so I wouldn't worry too much right now. Hopefully this doesn't come up again. I think that everyone understands that you had a dispute before, and they can see that Alpha30 was in the wrong last time, so if they want to make allegations about you, they will have to back them up very strongly or the administrators will just ignore it. — Gavia immer 21:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Anyway I had something to do with several trolls just a bit more "skilled" so I don't worry so much about it. Only copyvio's accuses sound **so** offensive to me and a bit ridiculous as an OTRS volounteer :| but I shouldn't take care of them.

Have a nice day!

--Vituzzu (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Saltz image

I realize I may have replaced an image that you uploaded for Jerry Saltz. I replaced the image because the one with Bill Clinton, although a "free" image, comes at a cost to Jerry because it is ugly and unflattering. It seems particularly unfair that an art critic should be represented by an image that was either poorly taken or digitally edited. The photo I offered is a drawing of Jerry by Phong Bui, who regularly draws portraits of people for the Brooklyn Rail. The newspaper is a freely distributed in print and online, so the copyright just means that people can't use that image again, say in another periodical without Bui's permission. However, your image is not useful for that purpose anyway because no one would want to reprint it. I hope that you consider the consequences of image selection for this biography of a living person.Warrenking (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, we do not use non-free images of living people where free images are available (I agree that the previous image - not mine - is pretty ugly, but see first part of sentence). Secondly, you have uploaded a large number of non-free images of living people, not just that one, and added copied, copyright-violating text in several places. Thirdly, the greater part of your contributions seem to involve promoting Jennifer Dalton and Winkelman Gallery. I am still going through your contributions, and will be marking more images for deletion. — Gavia immer 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know all the wikipedia shortcuts by heart but one that sticks in my mind is that someone has to make the content/start the pages. I've started several pages with the hope that others will follow and edit and improve them. Unfortunately, there has been little action in the visual arts pages in the last few months so I have to make the pages myself. And almost no one edits them. For example, the Deitch Projects page was written in the present tense for several months after the business closed and Jeffrey Deitch relocated the MOCA. I would like wikipedia to be a place for consensus but that requires people to edit the pages (not just delete them). Being overzealous with deletion does not help the encyclopedia. Please participate and contribute the visual arts pages.Warrenking (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Saltz Facebook

Jerry Saltz's facebook usage is a central aspect of his practice as an art critic. Several articles have been written about this or have mentioned it in some way. He mentions facebook himself in his own new york magazine articles. It is central to the way to his own stated goals as a critic to reach a wider audience and further is changing the way that art criticism is distributed. Dalton's quote sums up well how he is engaging in social media. Art criticism has traditionally relied on the authoritative voice of the critic but jerry seems to want to be a part of a community discussions. I would love to write a whole page about jerry's use of facebook but don't have time right now. Please do a google search and start on the task yourself. You have demonstrated your own ignorance on the topic of Jerry Saltz by stating that facebook use is off-topic. He's on facebook more than anyone else in the art world and it should be noted and discussed thoroughly.Warrenking (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pros and cons of adding 1,000,000 articles to the list

I've opened a discussion to discuss the merits and flaws of reporting French and German Wikipedias as having one million articles.

See Talk:Main Page#Proposal: Add million-article level to Wikipedia Languages section.

The Transhumanist 05:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Google financial data and tax rate

Hi. I wonder why you reverted my recent edition of Google about financial data. I have left a comment in the Discussion page. I beg you to state your opinion there and hope that you will reconsider your reversal. Regards. --Hispalois (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 23#MediaWiki:History short

Hi Gavia immer. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:History short, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 23#MediaWiki:History short. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Novus Orator 06:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

What I tried to do here was to make the name of the article The Secret Sense. Hoy can I do that? Thanks. --Againme (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want links to the article to be italicized, you have to italicize them individually. If you want to italicize the title as it appears at the top of the article, you can use the {{displaytitle}} template as described at the linked page. Please don't, though. As a matter of style, we don't italicize the titles of fictional works when they're used as the title of an article on the work, because there's no need to do so. — Gavia immer 22:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for explaining. I was about to do it with every piece of fiction by Asimov. --Againme (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)