Jump to content

User talk:Tim Ross/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

The Achatina fulica article clearly has some copyright problems, and, further, has a "Possible Copyright Infringement" tag on it that indicates two seemingly contradictory conditions: "do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue" and "unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing". I think I can do a good deal of work on the offending language, but seem to be restricted from editing. The week ends January 10th, so I hope an administrator will do what is required to allow corrective editing. Please let me know when I can start editing. (I note there is a provision for a temporary page to work on, but that seems to just be a talk page. I'm clearly confused.) Thanks for your help! Tim Ross·talk 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Assuming you're referring to the Achatina fulica article, it's completely open for editing, and is not protected. You should be able to go ahead and make your changes; if you can't, feel free to leave me a message. Anthøny 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Help deleting subpage

In the process of working on talk page archives, I created an unneeded, unwanted page: User_talk:Tim_Ross/Jan_2008. There is, I think, an official way to request the deletion of such a page, but I have been unable to locate it. I'd be grateful for information on how to make such an official request, or, just for someone to delete the blank page. Thanks. Tim Ross·talk 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You can have the page speedily deleted by adding {{db-userreq}} to it.--Werdan7T @ 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Haymaker Sanfu

No problem, taken care of. Pastordavid (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dark data AfD

Hi Jerry. I notice that you have closed the Dark data AfD as "delete", or at least that's what the edit tag says. The actual AfD page, though, seems to leave the matter up in the air. You might want to take a look at it. Tim Ross 11:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The AFD has the proper closing tags on it. As for the determination of concensus:

Valid Delete !votes:

  1. Carrados nominated the deletion, stating it is a non-notable neologism.
  2. Lesser Shadow supported deletion, as the term was a one-liner.
  3. TheBilly TheBilly calls for deletion because it is a neologism and just a definition.
  4. Rustam calls for delete as unreferenced new term, and states it is not acceptable for wiktionary.
  5. bikeable calls for deletion without prejudice, as a neologism with no momentum.
  6. Pavel Vozenilek calls for delete as neologism.

Valid Keep !votes: (none)

Neutral !votes

  1. UltraExactZZ found one source, and then noted that the term is used a second time with a completely different meaning. His !vote was neutral.
  2. Tim Ross makes a neutral !vote and adds references, and suggests the article should be kept because it will be recreated if it is deleted.

Invalidated !votes:

  1. TheBilly !voted twice, weak keep had poor arguments if x then y and give it a chance
  2. Joseanne !votes keep based on Tim Ross's statement about recreation.

I saw clear concensus to delete. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 12:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Jerry. I guess I wasn't very clear (above). I have no argument with your decision to close/delete. Quite reasonable. I was just trying to point out that there is a problem with the actual page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark data. At least on my browser, the final line is "The result was", followed by nothing at all. Tim Ross 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, well, I think it is a browser issue, although I am uncertain what kind of error it would be. Do you have a monobook script to provide icons on closing decisions and !votes? If so, then you may want to verify the script allows for capitalized and uncapitalized summary terms. Please go into "edit this page" on the AFD in question, and you should see the following:

The result was '''Delete''' <i>[[User:Jerry|JERRY]]</i> <sup>[[User Talk:Jerry|talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jerry|contribs]]</sub> 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)}}
which should look like this:
(You may or may not have the "X" icon, depending on if you use a monobook script to add icons or not.)
JERRY talk contribs 14:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

NEVERMIND

I found the error. I had used the top closing template at the bottom as well. I fixed it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. JERRY talk contribs 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerry, Please don't make false statements about me. I did not vote twice. I made one vote, and I replied to other people's comments. You must be confused by my response to "Darn... Don't most articles start as a one liner". Please strike out your mistake with <strike> </strike>. Although it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, if you had correctly read the comments you would have seen my only vote was "weak keep"

As far as my "poor arguments", I have no idea what you're talking about there. There is no mandate that neologisms are forbidden, only that they must be notable and be more than a definition and etymology. Reducing my argument to "if x, then y" is a straw man argument (a poor argument; a non-argument, in fact! It's a fallacy). My argument was that evidence of notability probably could be found comparable to the neologism "dark fiber". It turned out that no evidence of notability was found, and so it was deleted. If I wanted to say "keep per dark fiber", then I would have said "keep per dark fiber". My only point in mentioning that was to remind everyone that tacking something like "dark" onto a word is not uncommon (English is flexible this way), and it suggests to me that it may be a legitimate term for which sources can be found. If an article does seem to have room for improvement, then it CAN be kept. There was nothing invalid about my arugment, there was merely a strong opinion that notability could not be established. "Give it a chance" is not an invalid request (if notability is not doubted) and it's the reason we have stubs. If you're going to disparage other people's arguments, I recommend you take better care to understand them - especially as an administrator — TheBilly(Talk) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

TheBilly, this seems like a strange place to have this discussion, so I will just acknowledge it and unless Tim Ross wants the discussion here (I can't imagine he would), then let's leave him some peace and go to my talk page instead. JERRY talk contribs 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Hi,

You may not be aware of the following tools:

Also, it's a bit pedantic, but regards your archives:

  1. Archiving on a monthly basis will produce a large amount of sub-pages for what is essentially a small number of posts. The only people I've seen use monthly archives are extremely high traffic pages like User talk:FisherQueen and some of the policy pages. It's your choice, it's just a bit unusual.
  2. You've got external links to the preceding and following archive pages. You could use internal links, they look neater, or just don't bother.

Again, it's a comment because its unusual, there's no real need to listen to my opinion on either of these points. But the tools are super handy, as are WP:POPUPS. WLU (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm truly grateful, WLU, for your efforts at educating me. I'm kind of slow in that regard, but very steady, and am gradually picking up some of the handy and useful niceties. The tool are especially welcome! Tim Ross 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. Let me further your education by saying you don't need to duplicate my entire message on my talk page. I'll either know what you're talking about because I posted the initial message, check your talk page if I don't remember, or ask. One thing you can do is use a diff to show the comment you're responding to. WLU (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dark Data deletion

Dear friends,

This was a fascinating process. So much care and vigilance goes into preserving the quality of Wikipedia.

However, I don’t agree with the choice to delete. Stating that a word or phrase is a neologism is not the same as arguing why it is one.

My problem is: I would like to be directed to a word that denotes what Dark Data denotes. If you could help me do that it would be greatly appreciated.

What are the words we use to represent the “non-relevant” elements in any discussion, survey and experiment? Deleting this entry is a little like not recognizing the existence of something? What "things" live on the outside of our narrow foci? Joseane (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


The usual term, in English, for "dark data" is something along the line of "unanalyzed information" or "unexamined data", or another similar phrase. I don't believe that there is a single word with that meaning.
This is what I said about the article during the Articles for Deletion debate:
I've just done some digging around, and found three more refs, which I added, all prior to the Goetz article. The phrase is a pretty obvious analog of "dark matter", and I suspect it will be re-coined from time to time even if this current version dies out. It is useful and attention getting. In terms of real notability, though, there's not actually much there yet.
Please note, especially, my last two sentences, which I think pretty much sum up the situation. "Dark data" is a useful term, but that doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. It is, in fact, a "protologism", a newly devised term that has not yet caught on. If it does become widely used, it should and will be placed in Wiktionary. It might not, even then, be acceptable in Wikipedia, since there is a restriction against simple, dictionary-like, entries: WP:DICT.
If you would like to try again, perhaps with an expanded article, I would advise you to look for sources which discuss the "concept" rather than just the "term", sources which deal with the handling and storage of unexamined data. Feel free to send me any new thoughts you may have for such a project. Tim Ross 12:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Change my username?

Is it possible for me to change my name? I would like to change my name. Is that possible? Can you please tell me whether it is possible or not to chang my name? Is there perhaps some wikipedia-page for people in need to change there username for a valid reason? I am new here, so I'd like some help and some directions. Shojaijekhi (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it is fairly hard to do, Shojaijekhi, but I have no real experience with the process. You should be able to find all the information you need at Wikipedia:Changing username. Tim Ross 21:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We have only been using one wikilink per city on this page as per wikipedia guidelines for wikilinks or else it becomes redundant. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding, FieldMarine, that what you are saying is usually only applicable to articles which are expected to be read from top to bottom. There is no need for more than one link in such cases. In a list of this sort, though, especially one in which the locations are scattered throughout a long listing, it is most useful to have each instance linked to help users, who are likely to be looking for some specific entry, and who may not be reading the whole article. I just checked out the Connecticut and Michigan lists, and they both link all instances of locations.
There does not seem to be any mention of this convention for the Florida article on the article talk page. Perhaps it would be useful to hear from others, so I will place this there, too. Tim Ross·talk 15:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it does not matter to me & I did what you did only to have my edits changed back later by someone else. As far as the discussion goes, this page (as well as all the other lists of museums for each state) was recently separated from List of museums in the United States & that is where all the real history is for this page (and the other state lists of museums). Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the background on this. A check back to the List of museums in the United States discussion page didn't turn up any agreement or even any discussion regarding some special restriction on numbers of links for these lists, so I think it would be wise to continue to do what both of us have apparently attempted: Make it easy for the users to find the Wikipedia entries for the museum locations, by linking the city names in the articles. I'll forge ahead and see if anyone complains. If that happens, we can talk about it some more here. Tim Ross·talk 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(See Talk:List_of_museums_in_Florida#Wikilinks_on_Florida_Museums for a continuation of this discussion.)

Image deletion questions

Hi, Tim. I would like to do the right thing with the image license on this photo in Marjory Stoneman Douglas, which you tagged for deletion. I can imagine you deal primarily with editors ignorant of the rules, and this is the case here, unfortunately. I'm not sure what it is I need to do here: search for a different photo that would be free (and I don't know the characteristics of non-federal government, post-1923 free photos), or put a different license on the image? Your assistance is appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm a little confused about the Marjory Stoneman Douglas photo. Is that really your upload? For whatever reason, I had thought it was done by Noles1984. In any case I explained the details to that user, along with a possible solution [1]. If that's not enough, please get back with me. Tim Ross·talk 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

US Museum discussions

I've asked Ben Boldt to comment on the discussion at Talk:List of museums in the United States when he gets back. After he's commented (or if he still hasn't been back to Wikipedia after a few more days), I think it's time to wrap up the discussions and decide that we have a consensus on what the lists should look like to start out with. I've begun adding lots of museums from the online list FieldMarine had linked to, starting with List of museums in Rhode Island and List of museums in Maine. Sound good? Noroton (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine, Noroton. I think the consensus version as it has developed is a good one, and the "no consensus" areas are not really flaws, merely allowances for some editorial judgement. Good job! Tim Ross·talk 11:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Columbus, Ohio, university region

Hi Tim. I'm not active as an administrator anymore. I suggest you tag the article with {{subst:prod}}, following the policy on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. -- Tim Starling (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I tried my hand at the task. Tim Ross·talk 16:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tornado myths

You reverted this to a 2005 revision because it contained the same text as here. I have reverted your changes, since that page clearly says that they copied from the Wikipedia page. -RunningOnBrains 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I certainly missed that one. Thanks very much for covering my mistake. Tim Ross·talk 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pay-per-view web sites

I seem to recall reading, some time ago, that web sites which require payment for use are not acceptable as providing verification of information. Now I can no longer locate that statement. Did I imagine this? Any help would be welcome. Tim Ross·talk 01:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not sure whether I have a definitive answer. I searched WP:V and WP:RS just now for the word "pay" and didn't find it. Normally, books, newspapers, scientific journals and so on require payment to read a copy. These are generally considered perfectly acceptable sources. Many scientific journals have websites where their content can be viewed only by subscribers. Having such a website should not, in my opinion, disqualify the journal from being used as a reliable source just as it would be if it had only a paper form of publication. I'm leaving the helpme template here in case someone else can come along with a better or more complete answer. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:EL specifically lists "sites that require registration" as links to be avoided. That's probably the statement you found. Depending on how many other references you have in the article and the potential unavailability of a free reference, it may be acceptable to use as a reference, however those alternative methods should be exhausted first. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A reference doesn't necessarily have to have a link. Some references may only be available as paper books or whatever; they're still perfectly valid references (if there's reason to consider them reliable sources). This still doesn't completely answer your question. It may be a matter of judgement in each case. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, everyone, for your help. I now feel well informed on the subject. Tim Ross·talk 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip Aziz

Hi Tim, just read your concerns about the Philip Aziz WP page. Most of those links worked fine at one time (I put the WP article up two years or so ago) but the City of London has redesigned its web site and the London Free Press it seems moves to a registration system after a certain period of time after the original article first appeared. This is likely a problem with hundreds of thousands of WP articles and frankly, I don't really have the time or inclination to be returning to the scores of articles that I've put up to be re-sourcing them. The Internet, as a reference tool (even apart from WP) has its limitations due to web site changes and dating back to only 1990s etc.

I live in London, Ontario, a mile from Philip's home at 150 Philip Aziz Avenue, but if you fail to believe that London has renamed a street after him, I won't lose any sleep over it. As I say, I've grown tired of WP and am moving on. I've done my bit. If editors want to re-write history and reality, que sera sera. There's loads of nonsense that occurs around here and frankly, its tiresome.

If you think the information is bogus, then go nuts and delete whatever. It's WP's loss because it's all 100-per-cent true and verifiable. I've pretty well moved on from WP due to all the in-fighting, editing wars and general lack of knowledge of many administrators and editors. Barry Wells (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Reasons for Designation of the property of Philip Aziz, here's a link that works:

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_Ross/Archive_3&oldid=1139341986"