User talk:WikiTome/Archives/2010/November

Barnstar

Thanks! — and sorry for being so fast ;) --Caltas ^(talk) 21:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to slow it down some, I want to add another edit to my edit count today =) WikiTome ^Talk 21:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Ostroff

Being listed in ANB is notability. PamD (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought a reference that requires payment to view is therefore blocked to the majority of viewers and therefore an inappropriate source. WikiTome ^Talk 08:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That might be the case, except that American National Biography is also 24 physical volumes available in libraries. Sources do not need to be online to be reliable. Books still count. PamD (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. In which case the book needs to be referenced as supposed to the website. WikiTome ^Talk 08:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well American National Biography is linked in the reference, which I reckon is enough. The editor concerned is bulk-creating stubs from ANB entries, so you may see some more of them. PamD (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I Downloaded a Ghost

Why did you revert my edit to "I Downloaded a Ghost"? I merely added Ellen Page's link to her character's name in the plot, which is done for almost every other actresses/actors in other movies in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.102.155 (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I just checked it out: I reverted it by mistake, we had somebody else earlier that day who was adding in Ellen Page links in a lot of articles that had nothing to do with her. I have just changed it back, my apologies. WikiTome ^Talk 08:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Greets.

Is this a bot? Fine, I'll cite the post with a reason. --144.131.105.68 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a paragraph about somebody wetting themselves added to an article about a type of graphic novel usually qualifies as vandalism. Having read the context of the article, I am now reverting my edit. WikiTome ^Talk 14:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Keep up the good work.--144.131.105.68 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"100Gbit Ethernet" and "40Gbit Ethernet"

Please see http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%2240Gbit+Ethernet%22 and http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22100Gbit+Ethernet%22 for a demonstration of the plausibility of these spellings. -- The Anome (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are implausible misspellings. The links you provided do not in any way show otherwise. Additionally, one of your edits redirected "40Gbit Ethernet" to "100Gbit Ethernet": these are not the same thing. WikiTome ^Talk 15:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(a) Although not standard, these are variant spellings, not mere misspellings, as the Google links above reveal.

(b) If you had read the article (the first three words would have sufficed), you would see that it deals with both 100 Gbit and 40 Gbit Ethernet in the same article. This is not surprising, because 100GbE and 40GbE are actually the result of a single standardization effort, and are about as closely related to one another as two different networking interfaces can possibly be.

-- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

I removed the speedy deletion tag you made to a redirect (See what you did here). R3 only applies where the article text was incorrectly spelt, not when the "redirect" text is in non-caps letters. Minimac (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually those seem to be implausible spellings because of the lack of a space between the number and "Gbit" WikiTome ^Talk 15:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they are in practice real variant spellings, used among other places in articles in technical publications. I would imagine that they were created as partial expansions of the common abbreviations 100GbE and 40GbE. -- The Anome (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Intra legem

Hi. What you save in main article space is immediately visible and is referenced by Google in seconds. Please consider developing new articles either offline or in your user space until they are ready for public view. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. I'm almost done now, it's the definition page for a law term. WikiTome ^Talk 07:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. The problem now is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps you would like to consider making it a WP:soft redirect to Wiktionary. If you don't, somebody else (not me) probably will. --Kudpung (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright I'll go do that now. Thanks for the help. WikiTome ^Talk 08:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd acceptance of unsourced edit

Can you explain why you accepted this unsourced edit to an article subject to WP:ARBMAC? It was quickly reverted and is exactly the kind of edit that the pending changes is supposed to prevent. Toddst1 (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the edit was correct and simply lacking in a reference. I have re-accepted it and added a reference. Please fact check before reverting an accepted version. Thanks. WikiTome ^Talk 06:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, now you're misrepresenting your own actions. When you found a source, you changed the number. The number you accepted was 4.4, the number you cited is 4.6.

This is a highly contested subject and subject to WP:ARBMAC restrictions. In that context, I have removed your reviewer bits for misuse of the privilege on an WP:ARBMAC related article and misrepresentation of your actions. Toddst1 (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Please keep a few things in mind.

a) The CIA fact book changes frequently and could have been changed since the edit was made

b) I was misrepresenting my actions by accident; both numbers were far more correct than the original number, I knew it was 4.something, I just didn't check

c) I knew for a fact that the number was over 4 million when I accepted the reversion, and although I didn't know exactly how much over, I wasn't simply randomly accepting changes since the pending revision was definitely more correct than the previous version

Thanks. WikiTome ^Talk 14:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't appreciate your lack of WP:AGF and your taking such actions without the benefit discussion. WikiTome ^Talk 14:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean this discussion?

You not only misrepresented your own actions, but you misrepresented mine. I did not "revert an accepted version" in any way. I rejected a pending change - something you should have done when the change failed WP:V. Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your own words above say "It was quickly reverted" -- I had accepted a change, and you then reverted it back to its previous state. This is called reverting an accepted version, is it not? Furthermore, I should not have rejected it, as it was an acceptable edit that was factually more correct than the previous edit, and in no way controversial! WikiTome ^Talk 14:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

JNW (talk · contribs) reverted the change you accepted. Not me. Stop now. Toddst1 (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. Sorry. The confusion is understandable, as your edit summary says this: "Undid revision 394004676 by Mahmut Delic (talk) reject unsourced addition". At any rate, I don't agree that my acceptance constituted abuse as I knew the edit was more correct than the previous version, and had never heard of WP:V since I'm fairly new to this. WikiTome ^Talk 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like your heart is in the right place. To be fair, the whole Balkans area is a hornets nest. There aren't a whole lot of admins that will deal with the chronic militant nonsense that goes on there.

I think with some more experience and more familiarity with policies (WP:V is a biggie), I'd support getting your reviewer bits turned back on. Let's revisit this down the road. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the...learning experience. I guess I'll fire up Huggle again. WikiTome ^Talk 15:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Per the CIA factbook I've changed the number back to est. 3 million. It appears that the 4.6 million figure refers to the entire population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Bosniaks accounting for 46% of that population, or the 2+ million indicated in the article. Let me know if I've misinterpreted. JNW (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop wasting other editors' time

Please remove the fake "You have new messages" box from your talkpage - it's disruptive. PamD (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage that as well. Toddst1 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is humour and humor. It's not 1 April, and it's not funny.--Kudpung (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree about it being funny, it pokes fun at Wikipedia policy and the stiff atmosphere everybody has here which I think is a good thing (the humor, not the atmosphere), but if you don't want to see them, don't look at my userpage! Its really quite simple. While I do appreciate that people are looking at what I'm doing, there are many articles over Wikipedia and I don't think it is in any way fair to say that I can't add a humorous link to my personal user page. Its not as if I added these to any articles or anywhere outside my user page.... However since everyone seems to have a problem with it, I have removed them. WikiTome ^Talk 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, too. The problem was that it didn't look as if it was something added to your user talk page, so wasted time of people who were visiting that page "on business". I wouldn't have had such a problem with it if it had been purple instead of orange, say - it would have looked like the jokey parody it was. PamD (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can see your argument just fine. Although I do prefer to think of it as something other than a waste of time =) WikiTome ^Talk 08:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reverting userpage vandalism

Thank you for the barnstar! It's an honor to receive one from you. That was rather unusual vandalism, though something similar happened to be once ages ago. I'm not really sure how they found you in the first place. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was odd vandalism. Especially since the barnstar was originally given to me by somebody whose only other edits to Wikipedia consisted of vandalism and resulted in him getting banned very shortly afterward. Anyway... Cheers! WikiTome ^Talk 12:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re your message: You're welcome! I think I'm glad that you kittynapped the kitten. It would probably make me sneeze and sneezing all over the monitor is not a very good idea. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)