User talk:Andrewa/archive8

This is an archive page, please don't update it. All new discussion should go in user talk:andrewa. TIA. Andrewa 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Transition metal

I have just come across your comments on this article. Basically, you're right, and thanks for the edits, which did indeed improve on the previous versions. To answer your specific questions:

1. The definition of a transition metal is still controversial, dispite IUPAC guidelines. The article is still not completely internally consistant, and I shall try to get round that without offending any of the (many) opposing camps!
2. There are four periods of transition metals in total, whatever definition you choose, but all elements of the fourth period are radioactive and most do not have any substantial chemistry.

Thanks again for spotting this article and for doing what you could to improve it. Physchim62 21:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AwesomeFunny

You voted keep on the VfD for AwesomeFunny. I just wanted to let you know that the article has come up again on VfD, if you wanted to weigh in again. Cheers! EvilPhoenix talk 22:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power phase-out

Would you have a problem with me removing Austrlaia's entry from Nuclear power phase-out, since we have never had nuclear power? --Commander Keane 11:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better to NPOV it and add the other relevant countries. Australia is a major supplier of uranium, as is Canada, so I think their politics are relevant to this article. So are those of France, not currently mentioned at all in the article when I looked before.

France is a major exporter of nuclear electricity to those closing their nuclear industries, of course, and it's hard to imagine them not continuing and expanding these exports, and even harder to imagine them going back to imported fossil fuel to do it.

I think this could be a very good article, but I also suspect that some of its authors would then either need to change their views or would want it deleted. It should give an accurate picture of the scope and success of the movement.

The scope means confined to the mainstream politics of some European countries, and the fringe politics of some others. Among the industrial economies of Asia, there's no talk of nuclear phase-out: Japan, China, India, Taiwan and South Korea all see expanding nuclear power as one of their key economic objectives; Malaysia and Indonesia both have an active interest in starting programs; Hong Kong is now part of China. This is very relevant surely.

The success means looking at the balance of closures versus new and upgraded capacity, which isn't mentioned by the current article, and also looking accurately at the results, which are selectively quoted. There's no mention of the transfer of generating capacity to fossil fuel, which is what has happened to Sweden, or to countries with continuing nuclear programs, which has what has happened to Germany and Italy. There's no mention of the Philippines, the only Asian country to have yet implemented nuclear phase-out. This is also relevant IMO.

Thanks for your interest. It will get more interesting still I predict. Andrewa 16:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Bernard Cohen

Just thought I'd mention - I nominated the Cohen article for VfD because there doesn't seem to be any encyclopedic information there. My guess is that some content will be added and save the article - otherwise - waht's the point. You might want to vote, comment, or, if you have more information, add to the article. Benjamin Gatti

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Cohen and form your own opinions as to the real reasons it was nominated. Andrewa 22:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing space

Welcome to Wikipedia. Here is your very own User:Andrewa/Sandbox for testing things. (SEWilco 02:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

I think you are referring to Talk:Sustainable energy#My proposal. I deliberately didn't create this as a user subpage. Do you think I should have? Why? Andrewa 10:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you should recognize that it is best to edit someplace private rather than expect others to not edit for 4 hours. (SEWilco 18:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Hmmm, I don't agree in this case. What I requested was that people didn't edit an empty section which I had created, headed my proposal, on a talk page. The heading and message were all that were in this section for that entire time. It's an adversarial situation, and I wanted to avoid the ettiquette quandry if someone had inserted something sarcastic. Was that really unreasonable? What would they have wanted to add to it, anyway?

Adding the header without any text is a pretty standard technique and a good one.

I'd only intended the message, which was initially a request for 60 minutes, to be there for 15 minutes or less. I actually had the text ready in an offline Word file (user pages are not private), but other things distracted me (unavoidably) and when I returned I found I wanted to make more changes, and was running late for work. I suppose at this stage I could have temporarily deleted the new section, but as I said I don't think the 4 hour request was unreasonable. (I didn't quite make it, if you check the history.)

I'm afraid I didn't find your sarcasm helpful. Editing should be fun. Perhaps I need to lighten up a bit myself. All the best. Andrewa 20:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant

Thanks for the reference to an interesting article. The popular Australian attitude to the nuclear power lifecycle industries puzzles me. The timing in the article is confusing - Prime Ministers of Australia says that John Gorton handed over to [[William McMahon] on 10 March 1971. I'm not quite sure if this fits the timeline for the change of prime minister having the effect of further deferring the project by a year which seems to have happened in 1970. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right, the first deferall was by the Gorton cabinet, not the McMahon one. I will double-check that, and see whether I can unearth the reasons. McMahon is reported to have said to the AAEC something along the lines of how can I build this when I need to cut child care places in the same budget. The first deferral is a bit more puzzling. Thank you!

I think the problem is that there is no popular Australian attitude. Nuclear matters are only really on the political horizon for a relative few, but owing to our compulsory voting system we all need to make up our minds occasionally. I support our system, this consequence has some positives. Andrewa 20:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We seem to have plenty of space to store the waste, or better still open up a reprocessing business. But too many people think it's not a good idea. I've never heard the reason why we can't just shove the waste back in the hole the Uranium came out of in the first place, either. After all, if we hadn't disturbed it, it would be there anyway. Oklo is an interesting article about a natural reactor, too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If I had my way, Australia would be the biggest supplier of PWR fuel in the world. But we wouldn't sell it, we'd lease it. We wouldn't just agree to take the spent fuel back, we'd demand it back. No proliferation risk. Put the fuel elements back into the ground, as you say. Sweden has an excellent copper encapsulation technology for that. The cost would be factored into the fuel cost, and the customers would love it. In about 3000 years the spent fuel elements will be less radioactive than the original ore body was, if they stay there. But they won't stay there, we'll dig them up long before that to reprocess them into FBR fuel, which is not economic yet but will be. This is exactly the deal Russia is trying to sell to Iran, just BTW.

The reason we can't do that? Politics. People really do believe that plutonium (which is 200 times less radiotoxic then natural radium) is the most dangerous substance known, that everyone is going to make bombs from their power reactors and not otherwise (the NPT nuclear weapons states all had bombs before they had power reactors) and that the waste will be dangerous for millions of years (which is true but very misleading, see above... the material was already dangerous, and won't be any more dangerous for nearly that long).

But the times are changing. I don't think we can claim a victory yet, but it's just possible that generational change will see a postmodern new green movement that sees best-practice nuclear as very green indeed (as I have always done). The challenge will be China. I don't think the European greens have any idea how desperate for electrical capacity China is. Will they heed the lessons of Chernobyl, and do better than the USSR did? The French publicly warned the USSR in the 1950s that their plans for the RBMK would produce reactors that were inherently unstable.

The environmental movement has a role in watching this, and they can't do it if they regard all nukes as absolutely evil. Some are better than others. But if they start learning about that, they may even find that some of them are quite good already, and this will be something of an identity crisis. And we all know it. Andrewa 07:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you've researched the topic better than I have, but pretty much confirmed my opinions, too. I haven't heard a "greenie" opinion of the Solar Tower Buronga yet. That could leave them a little confused, too — a 38 km² roof can't be all "clean and green", whether it's over natural desert/bush or farmland. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there's been some very eloquent opinion expressed if you know where to look.

The greens' problem is, there's the risk that debate about this project will become quite a fight. The promoters already have some local government money. If they're lured into doing some honest arithmetic on energy generally, before you know it the figures on bombs, wastes and accidents will be scrutinised too, but this time by the mainstream greens themselves. And then the whole house of cards may come fluttering down.

Generational change is challenging for the old guard.

As I've noted elsewhere, my personal interest in solar power goes back to 1962. As in, that's when I first used a hacksaw and hard-solder torch to help build a solar hot water service. Research isn't just words. Andrewa 15:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

IN RE Helicopters...

A good try, but why?

Thanks for asking. Mostly as an exercise. It was fun! Stripping it down to its core makes it easier to see it for what it is. I wanted to find out if there were other dubious factual claims hiding behind folksy banter. There sure was a lot of fluff. Don't get me wrong, if you can be dense, factual and a bit folksy, I really don't mind. Paul Klenk 01:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I cannot at all fathom what you mean about GFDL in your comment... What does that have to do with anything? Also, please note I underlined the phrase "I stand by my delete" to reiterate it. Delete is really what I want to do. I know it's confusing... sorry.

Please sign your posts here, Paul.

Under the GFDL, authors retain copyright of their work, and this is vital to the viral nature of the licence, which is what distinguishes copyleft from public domain. Therefore we must keep a record of who those authors are, and at Wikipedia we do this mainly by the edit history. When two articles are merged, Wikipedia has regarded the GFDL as satisfied if the text from the two is merged by cut-and-paste and one of the articles then becomes a redirect to the other, thus preserving the edit histories of both. This is the background to the comment at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion regarding preservation of the history, and some of the comments at RfD and elsewhere, to the effect that significant history must be preserved.

We also see copyright as not applying to information, so if information is copied but rephrased, there's no GFDL issue. The thing that makes cut-and-paste important is that the text is copied, and the text is subject to copyright (as are lists, just BTW).

With me so far?

One complication: The author of the text is in a unique position, in that they and only they can cut and paste the text into another article without violating the GFDL. So having refactored the article as heavily as you have, it's probably quite valid for you to do this merge even if it would be a violation of the GFDL for anyone else to do it - maybe. The maybe here is, have you as the author authorised the merge by voting merge and delete? Let's not even go there! That would mean that your vote would be valid until someone else edits the page and perhaps not afterwards... yuck.

IMO the only reasonable thing is just to say that merge and delete is not ever a valid VfD vote, but I lost that debate long ago. So things are a bit messy, and that's the reason IMO. Any clearer? Andrewa 16:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, there's another thing that confuses some people. The function of VfD is to authorise (or not) action by administrators, who have the authority to delete a page. So, there's no need to list something on VfD if the intention is to merge and redirect, as some do from time to time, because anyone can do that. Likewise, there's no need to list something on VfD if the intention is to stubify it. Anyone can do that, even anonymously. The only real decision to be made on VfD is to keep or delete. This means that merge and redirect is a variety of keep vote. On the other hand we've noted the problems with merge and delete.

In view of these problems, my advice to those who want to vote merge and delete is as follows: Do the merge you propose yourself, immediately, without editing the page up for deletion. Nobody is stopping you and there is nothing in Wikipedia policy against it, provided you heed the GFDL requirements by either rephrasing in your own words or somehow preserving the significant history. Then vote delete, noting there what you've already done to preserve the useful content. Andrewa 21:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks. A lot of information, and very helpful. Wow, I as the author only can authorize that. Amazing. I guess by that thinking, I could publish it under my name, as long as I did it under GFDL. I guess in my past vote and discussion, I have done just that. I'll do it myself once the facts are established. Or, maybe I'll just move the text to Brazil and leave a "fact" template tag there. But the page title -- we should just delete that altogether, IMO. A redirect? Waste of time.

Andrew, sorry about the signature thing -- I usually sign my work, reallly, you can look!! Also, sorry I overlooked the blanking deal. Just went over my head. Thought as long as it was saved somewhere, everything'd be okay. I have only been doing editing of any consequence since about Aug. 12, actually, so I am still experiencing a heavy learning curve. I really appreciate your effort to get me up the speed. (You sure know a lot.) Thanks for checking in. Regards, klenk 23:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

About copying text in whole from one page to another

I noticed that User:Toya moved, in whole, text from September 11, 2001 attacks to her new page, Public response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Per our previous discussion, is this a violation of GFDL? Previously, I've encouraged her to expand the page. paul klenk 04:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Several things here.

Firstly, I don't see where she has moved text. I think it's just been copied, and I think the place it's been copied to is going to be deleted for other reasons anyway. Good nomination, BTW.

Secondly, it's not her page. Even our own user subpages belong to the community, not to us. This will seem like I'm quibbling I guess, but it's an important principle. See user:andrewa/creed for some of my thoughts on this.

Thirdly, personally I think there is a problem, but it's not one that the Wikipedia community has ever worried about. The attitude seems to be, as long as the edit history is preserved somewhere, the text can be reused anywhere in Wikipedia. I'm not comfortable with this, but it's a fairly subtle point and the consensus seems to be against me. So the policy in practice is, it's OK. Andrewa 07:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Pointer(s) to AFD discussion(s)

• Organ recital (AfD discussion)

Uncle G 20:00:00, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Swing rhythm

See also talk:swing rhythm.

Concerning this edit, I have to assume you realize that quavers are the same thing as eighth notes (since you're from Australia); I don't see the value in linking both words, since one is a redirect to the other. The Manual of Style suggests using both terms the first time they come up, but there's no reason to link both. The "or" you put in suggests a choice, which doesn't make sense. (Also, try clicking on Quavers to see what happens.) —Wahoofive (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Correct on most counts.

I (wrongly it seems) assumed that this use of square brackets edit was a mistake on your part. I've never seen square brackets used in this way in Wikipedia before, and recommend against it.

The only disagreement I have is that I don't think that what I left implied that the meanings of the two terms are different, I think it makes equal sense read as being two terms for the same thing; IMO it was ambiguous. Agree that it needs improvement, and that the double link is inappropriate. I left it there because I was guessing that you intended it for some reason I didn't understand.

Fixed now I think. Andrewa 20:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Another question. Regarding this edit, what publication of Satin Doll are you referring to? It's been published numerous time with numerous editorial comments.

Not sure of the edition, I just chose it as one of the many swing standards that I know I've read as 4/4, three authors I think on that sheet from memory, one of them the Duke of course. I'm assuming that they wouldn't have changed it from compound to simple time, so that's going to be the original published time signature. But it might easily have gone the other way; Do you know of any subsequent edition that was written out in compound time? That would be far more interesting. I think that possibly the Real Books took this approach for some standards at least, but I don't have them at my fingertips at present to check. I do know that I have seen standards written both ways over the years! I first learned Black Coffee from a version published in compound time for example.

Satin Doll is probably readily available on the web. Or if you have a better example, feel free to use it instead. The citation could go into a references section if you have it handy.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. All editions of this song are in 4/4 (AFAIK), but it's the indication "medium swing" that you mentioned which I think might be editorial. Strayhorn wouldn't have felt the need to write such a thing down. What I'd like to keep straight in the Swing rhythm article is a distinction between terms and concepts used by real jazz players, especially mid-century, and those used now by pedagogues dumbing things down for the masses. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Firstly, in order to make this distinction, you'll need to decide who is a real jazz player. Again, I preach caution. It may be possible to decide this in an NPOV fashion for mid twentieth century players, but IMO it won't be possible to draw the line for more recent music. And even for mid twentieth century, have you for example listened to Everydays, a track on Time and a Word? If so, is it real jazz? If not, worth a listen. BTW, despite what the Wikipedia article says, don't expect to hear strings on this track! OK, it's jazz fusion; Is that real jazz?

Secondly, the term swing does not IMO belong exlusively to the jazz fraternity, whether that's going to include Bill Bruford or not. Sorry! That's part of the problem here. We also need to cater for example for the dance fraternity. Some of them literally do not know a waltz from a march, even at a surprisingly high level (bitter and in hindsight hilarious experience), but they still manage to dance well once you figure out what they want.

And I think Wikipedia could be a little more helpful in this! Have a look at West Coast Swing#Music. I'm guessing that the dancers know whether they want a swing rhythm or not, even if the article doesn't! Andrewa 16:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The English language fails us again! By real jazz players I meant real players (of jazz), not players of real jazz. I realize the term can be used outside of jazz, and I wasn't intending to restrict in that way.

Glad to hear it. So, should the article introduction read In jazz... as it now does? In music... would seem more helpful to me. Certainly swing is intimately connected to jazz, but the term is used outside the genre too.

The distinction I intended to make was between expert use of the term and a simplified version often provided for beginners (while realizing that, as in any other WP article, the definition of expert is debatable). The article Internal combustion engine doesn't just say "it burns gas", even though that's how most people think of it, and that's how we'd explain it to a beginner; it gives a more specific technical description of the chemical reactions involved, based on expert understanding. The article Earth doesn't say it's round, even though that's how I'd explain it to a beginner. My view is that the 2:1 ratio is such a simplification,

Similar to saying that the earth is round or that gasoline engines run on gasoline? How are those simplifications?

If you look at those articles you'll see that internal combustion engines run on a number of different types of fuel, and the earth is an oblate spheroid. Both of those article provide the expert understanding. —Wahoofive (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I understand what you're saying now. You're saying that the earth isn't exactly round, so there's a sense in which the statement "the earth is round" isn't true, and an expert knows better? I think that's a bit of a stretch! "Round" in this sense doesn't mean "exactly circular". Similarly, a triplet doesn't mean "exactly a third" any more than a crotchet represents an exact interval of time. In all written music, you can't put everything on the chart. But to say 4/4 is four equal (as far as time is concerned) beats to the bar isn't dumbing it down. Experts say that too, and there's a very helpful sense in which it's true, even if it's not exact in some pedantic sense.

You'll notice I said "gasoline", for several reasons. Now I understand what you mean here too, and again I think it's a stretch. If you told someone "internal combustion engines run on gas", then I'm afraid I think you'd be misinforming them. It's true in a sense, but it's not the best way to say it, and is likely to be misunderstood. The article says they run on fuel, which is correct. In Australia, I might tell my five-year old niece "our car engine runs on petrol" (she speaks Australian English of course, and to us "gas" means LPG), but nobody is suggesting that we write English Wikipedia articles like this I hope. If they do, perhaps refer them to Simple English Wikipedia. Andrewa 18:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

and I've backed it up with the New Grove citation. (The article from the general New Grove encyclopedia is equally cagey.)

Yes, and this material should certainly be in the article. My view is that in some styles of music, particularly swing era music and shuffle rhythm dance music, the triplet time values are as close an approximation as any other time values in written music. This is also consistent with Grove.

I don't find the swingcraze.com article entirely convincing, but there's still room for debate. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Articles can describe significant POVs, but we don't promote one over the other. I know it doesn't always work, but it's the ideal.

I still think we should have a simple explanation somewhere. I don't think it needs to be dumbed down at all.

At least we've got rid of that esoteric redirect, for the moment at least... Andrewa 04:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's silly that Satin Doll is a redlink when so many of the latest airhead pop songs have their own articles. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. My next article will probably be Studies in Swing which I think is even more important, especially in view of comments regarding use of the word swing. Andrewa 04:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior Solar System Needs You

Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 32005. This is going to be tough!

You expressed interest in WikiJunior. Would you be willing now to join the push to get Wikijunior Solar System completed?

--SV Resolution(Talk) 16:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Database corruption

Hi Andrew. I've left you a message at Wikicities. Angela. 09:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Images licences

Hello !

I'd like to ask you whether you would consider double-licensing you images under the Cc-by-sa licence, which is roughly equivalent to the GFDL, but more convinient for images (see details). Thank you and cheers ! Rama 13:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

delete history

Hi! Can you delete my history for me? Kyla is redirected to Jessica Liao. And I only want Kyla's userpage history deleted. (Kyla 16:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

nevermind...someone already deleted for me. (Kyla 16:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

Rancho Seco vs. SONGS

You're right, I did confuse them - both were shut down. If you haven't changed it, I will. Simesa 07:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ejaculation

Ejaculation (grammar) has "both in English" seemingly modifying nothing. You are the only editor of the page so I wanted to ask you what that meant. Am I just being dense? Qaz ^(talk) 01:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Upon reading it again, I see that you meant both in English to apply to the examples you gave. However this is an English encyclopedia so that I would think would be assumed. Also, the way it was worded was confusing so I removed it. I hope you do not take offense. I like the intro you wrote though. I can/will put up some examples if you choose not to but I thought I would give you first crack at it. Qaz ^(talk) 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Quasiturbine

I'm grateful to see another editor editing Quasiturbine. Last year I spent a good bit of time trying to reduce the press-release tone and to remove unsupported speculations. However I'm not an engineer and some of the basic issues have been beyond my ability to properly judge. I gather you have more experience with engines and engineering that I do. Thanks very much for contributing your time and expertise to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

How to I contact you?

Andrew,

How do I contact you?

I am new to Wiki, live in Sydney and need a 'mentor' of sorts regarding wiki.

Andrew F.

andrewf8@yahoo.com

0411700439

User:Andrewa/Wikipedia approval mechanism

hello. regarding User:Andrewa/Wikipedia approval mechanism, what do you think of Wikipedia:Requests for publication? -- Zondor 14:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC concerning Roylee

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee. Your name is mentioned there, and your input would be appreciated. — mark ✎ 11:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and for your sterling work. I have endorsed your summary. Andrewa 14:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:BoycottWikipedia.jpg

Please vote to keep my image on Wikipedia. You may voice your opinion on whether or not to have the image deleted at [Dec 10th images]. I also wanted to let you know that it looks like my WBC personal subpage will remain on Wikipedia.--JuanMuslim ^1m 23:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Andrewa/archive8! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Move of Montreal Expos article

Hi Andrew!

If I recall this one it appeared to be a cut n' paste move to the accented version, so I moved over the unaccented version and performed a full history merge.

Let me know if I did it incorrectly or any other concerns you have.

WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 10:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on WP:RM

Thanks a lot for your help on WP:RM!

I've signed up with the Wikipedia:Cleaning department#Wikipedia:Requested moves. If a few more of us monitor the page, hopefully we won't get such a backlog again, or at least (being pedantic) we'll reduce the probability. The challenges, both the people and technical ones, appeal to me, as does the cadre already here, and I've been underusing my admin priviledge recently. So this might work well. But I'm on a fairly steep learning curve and my work rate is going to be slow and perhaps over-cautious for a while - bear with me!

If you have a vast amount of free time you could look over my descision at Talk:Arabic numerals if you'd like.

I've been watching that one. I'll have another look.

Thanks again!

WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 09:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and don't worry about the Montreal Expos thing - I'll follow up with that on the mailing lists and such... take care! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 10:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please keep me informed of any resolution (especially if it's in the chat forums which AFAIK aren't archived to the web) as I'd like to see how this turns out, for future reference. Andrewa 21:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Australia

Hi, a few days ago I updated Australia_(disambiguation) to acknowledge Australia is also the name of one of the continents, and not only the abbreviated name for our Commonwealth of Australia nation which occupies the mainland and the smaller island of Tasmania and the Torres Strait Islands, but not the larger island of Papua nor the Moluccas islands. Sadly somebody has attempted to re-insert the myth that the Commonwealth occupies the entire continent by reverting Australia_(disambiguation) and then going around Wikipedia to remove any mention of the distinction between the nation & geographic continent of Australia. I would appreciate if you could read Australia_(disambiguation) and give your input.211.30.84.166 11:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much for that, in hind sight I may have offended his sensibilities by a careless edit on another article. Tar again & all the best :-)

Minor planets

A heads up: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Minor planets --Philip Baird Shearer 01:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Pipe organ voicing?

Hi, Andrew. After stumbling on your involvement in the Pipe Organ Refactor Project... Is there anything on the voicing of pipe organis within Wikipedia? Especially, (1) the problem of balancing the 'voices', and (2) the issue of integrating new voices (or ranks) into existing instruments? I have a particular need to feed such information to an experienced organist who has been asked to advise a church congregation on how to instruct an organ builder / 'voicer' to do the balancing and integration of several new voices into an existing organ. Any other links and advice? Thanks and best wishes, Peter Ellis 01:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Swung note

I gave up long ago trying to understand Hyacinth's thinking. Anyway, although I agree with you, my philosophy of Wikipedia is that it's better to write new articles and improve old ones than waste time in edit wars, so I can't be bothered to deal with Swing rhythm/swung note. I don't see what your beef is with Common time, however; it's described in context on the Time signature page. There's no reason to redirect anything to Music terminology if we can avoid it, since that article is so general. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lilypond

Hi I have answered to your question at my userpage in de.wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Arnomane#Lilypond. Arnomane 20:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

merge proposal on Piston valve

I notice you added a comment to Talk:Piston valve that actually has some bearing on the current merge proposal, so you may want to comment further. — Graibeard 05:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

DFR & PFR

Hi, I've ammended the DFR diagram and the relevant parts of the FBR article as suggested with regard to the coolant. I was also planning on making a schematic of the PFR, which seems to be an order of magnitude more complex, so I've posed some questions on Talk:Fast breeder reactor, I would appreciate any input. Emoscopes 11:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I did a schematic of the LMFBR designs as you suggested, its here Image:LMFBR schematics.png. I haven't added it to any pages yet, and will make any alterations you think would make it better before I did. Again, your thoughts would be appreciated. Emoscopes 09:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all, I'll get to work on your suggestions tomorrow. I noticed the different coolant levels in the baffled area also when I was researching the PFR and a typo also. What exactly is the difference between the positions of the shielding in the pool and loop designs? Emoscopes 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rick Warren

Do you have a source that says that Rick and his wife donate 90% of their salaries? JDoorjam Talk 12:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Warren says it himself on one of the 40 Days of Purpose videos.

Surely we don't need a reference for every factoid! Andrewa 12:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not every "factoid" needs a reference, but I'd like a reference for that one. Most statistics, in general, should have a reference, IMO. JDoorjam Talk 12:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Try Google. I don't think you'll have any trouble finding a source. Let me know if you do. Andrewa 12:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you've put the citation needed back. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=90%25+Rick+Kay+Warren&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3Dlang_en gives as its first hit As philanthropists, Rick and Kay Warren give away 90 percent of their income through three foundations... link at http://www.purposedrivenlife.com/rickwarren.aspx so I'll put this in.

I still think it's pretty silly. If we had the same standards for geography and chemistry, the articles on towns and elements would look ridiculous... as the reference list in this article is beginning to. Andrewa 13:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Andrewa 13:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, you beat me to it. I found a ref for it too, but yours is better (primary source). And you're right, the standards for controversial figures are different than the standards for rocks, hamlets, and shades of purple. I think it's better that we build this article totally rock-solid from the ground up so that the anti-Rick Warren crowd has no real good way to shoe-horn a POV into the article, or to take out good content that's poorly cited. Anyway, thanks again, JDoorjam Talk 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like it. IMO the article is the worse for these excessive links, which will not be maintained and are completely unnecessary. The 90% figure was never in any reasonable doubt. We just have to agree to disagree on this I guess. Andrewa 13:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Expos

• Your throughts on a requested move (Talk:Montréal Expos -- Montréal Expos → Montreal Expos) would be much appreciated. Skeezix1000 15:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving

Or since I'm an admin, shouldn't I just go over a move with another admin? WikiFanatic 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh...

Why did you blank most of my talk page? WikiFanatic 01:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not deliberate, I assure you. The server was having some problems at the time, I would guess it was a database glitch. Andrewa 05:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem. WikiFanatic 07:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Rugby Union Six Nations Championship

Thanks for the help and the support. Even after editing wiki for about 18 months there are millions of things I don't understand yet.GordyB 10:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Liquid fuels

Please don't use the word "nowadays" in your edits; it's slang, and at the very least unencyclopedic.--naryathegreat | (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Wiktionary doesn't say it's slang, nor do I think it's in the very least unencyclopedic. But I do like your edit removing it from the article, it's an improvement. Andrewa 11:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Steven Levitt AfD Discussion

Your presence is requested at the Steven Levitt deletion discussion. Wikipedia needs to be streamlined, and we can't possibly document every godless crackpot who comes up with some inane "theory". By creating articles on people who are out of touch with American values, we only give them a platform to preach their otherwise non-notable message from. Thanks for your time. :)

Peace in Christ

Please sign your posts on talk pages, Steven Taylor.

The keep result seems appropriate to me. I'm not sure I agree with the speedy close, but I can see why it was done. We have had too many battles in AfD recently in which most of what was said was quite irrelevant to the issue, and was contributed (if that is the word) by people who seemed to have no interest in Wikipedia other than promoting their own point of view. This would quite likely have become another.

Much of what you raise above is completely out of touch with the community values of Wikipedia. Whether Levitt is godless is irrelevant to whether or not he is encyclopedic. Similarly, American values are not a criterion for evaluating the notability of anyone's message here.

It concerns me greatly that Christian activists such as yourself are posting messages like this. Please respect Wikipedia's values. They are not anti-Christian. In attacking them, you are only bringing the Gospel into disrepute, and even ridicule. Andrewa 19:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

John Schaller

Hey, I'm sure you didn't realize this, but John Schaller was deleted in an AFD in early February. I've also removed the link in the Schaller article so that the article isn't created again. -- Andy Saunders 20:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Agree it's a CSD, see Talk:John Schaller. Andrewa 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi,

We started a proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.

Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.

Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.

If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...

Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you informed?

Greetings, sorry to disturb your talk page but I couldn't help but notice your addition to User:Rgulerdem's talk page. I'm just curious.... are you aware of what his Religious background is per chance? Thanks! Netscott 15:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are watching each and every steps about me huh? -- Resid

G'day, Resid. No, I'm not.

It's by far best to sign on and then you can properly sign your posts on talk pages, rather than needing to sign posts such as this manually.

But I'm not watching you, or stalking if that's what you mean. I have no time to do that. Andrewa 20:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Andrewa, thanks for the note. I was trying to set up my email, but I regret to do that: My account ruined. Now I cannot see the usual configuration of Wiki but something else when I loged in. I do not know if you know anything about how to fix it.

As Netscott rushed to inform you about (its his job here in Wiki to create an unfriendly atmosphere around me) my religious preferences, I am not a Christian activist. I am a regular person believe in the dialogue among the religions in at least moral issues and any others as possible. I emailed those people including you because I thought they may want to know about it, if they are not aware of the issue. Moreover I put a note on the VIllage pump to get more input from the community.

I believe there is a strong danger in Wiki in terms of lower editorial standards and lack of ethics. The philosophy behind Wiki should not be ruined by this. I am trying to propose a policy so that it can be avoided. I would very much like to get possitive and constructive suggestions to improve the proposal. Your contribution so far is very valuabe in my opinion. If we can together go over the policy, discuss the issues in it, add more as necessary and eventually put it into an acceptible form, that would be great.

Thanks for your friendly spirit and suggestions. By the way, any name suggestions for arguments page? -- Resid

My most important suggestion would be to lurk a bit more before plunging into any sort of activism. This is elementary nettiquette.

On Wikipedia, that means more than just reading before you write. It means becoming a contributor before you propose major changes to the infrastructure, which is what a policy proposal is. Andrewa 20:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right in general. I do not want to talk about myself but I am pretty well-experienced on the net and in the real life. So, I thought I can contribute to Wiki using my experience. It might not be the best idea of course. I think it is fair to say that, whether one lurks or not, once it comes to making similar suggestions here, s/he will get the same reaction. There are some people here do not tolerate any ethical considerations. You probably well aware but if you like you can check the policy pages like Wikipedia:Censorship, or articles like Lolicon, etc. Well experienced Wikipedian even having hard time when talking to those people. Resid Gulerdem 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You know I'm not a big fan of those who speak in falsities...I'm not here to create an unfriendly atmosphere. I got to know Resid early in his Wikipedia editing and took issue with his tactics and decided to do something about it. Fortunately Andrewa you've made a very valid point here that lurking is a good idea. Unfortunately User:Rgulerdem didn't seem to get this message like he should have early on. My council to you Andrewa is to better inform yourself about who Resid is so that you know with whom you'll be helping to develop WikiPedia Policy or Guidelines. If I were a Christian and my faith was deeply a part of my convictions, I'd be inclined to want to know what are the religious convictions (or lack thereof) of those I'd be working with. I am not religious however and I'm respectful of all religions in the general sense (specifics are another question). Netscott 22:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't say much. I just saw this which tells a lot about you, your intentions and personality to me. Resid Gulerdem 01:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and concern. I can see where you're coming from. I didn't intend to claim or assume that Resid is a Christian. It was more that IMO some of the hostility he was encountering was carried over from the the Jason Gastrich disaster and I thought he should know about that. I also assumed he would not want people to reject Christianity (or anything else) for the wrong reasons. I think that's a reasonable assumption from his user page.

So far as being religious is concerned, if you don't want to call yourself religious I respect that. There is much evil done in the name of religion! There was a period of almost two years in which I quite intentionally did not publicly call myself a Christian, because I was in a society in which that word had associations that I found particularly offensive and which didn't describe my beliefs at all. But as I grew older and perhaps wiser I decided that I wasn't willing to surrender the word Christian so readily to those who have it wrong.

So these days, I use words such as religion, dogma and even Christian in a far more assertive way. For example, in my old creation science page I asserted: We all need dogma. We all have faith in something. I still stand by that. These are very useful terms. Andrewa 00:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to and probably will try to contribute Wiki in many ways. But on the other hand I think it should worth it. What I exactly mean is this: I do not want to spend my time to contribute an online ensyklopedia that the ethics and editorial standards are not wellcomed. I won't strengthen a structure with my knowledge that a high school student or a college student or a graduate student or anybody else will come to get some information but will be exposed to some nasty pornography as s/he is trying to learn here. Those are very important points for me. This is maybe another reason for getting into some structural suggestions earlier than later. I am respectful to Christianity a great deal and do not mind if you think (or implied) that I am a Christian. I am trying to be a good Muslim -although I am not at that point yet- as Netscott is trying to show you badly for some 'good' reasons and with 'good' intentions. Resid Gulerdem 01:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility is to contribute to the Wikipedia in your native language, if it is not English. I am guessing it might be Turkish, which would be a good project in which to become involved as it's already over 10,000 articles.

Or, with your interest in Islam, I expect you read and write Arabic. That's another Wikipedia with 10,000+ articles, and would mean your contributions were benefitting the entire Islamic world, rather than being mainly of use in Turkey.

There is nothing stopping you from being a contributor to all three (including English), and I'd encourage it. It would be particularly constructive for you to contribute your policy ideas to the other Wikipedias. The policies and procedures of the various Wikipedias tend to be similar, and the ideals are the same, but they are not identical nor are intended to be so, and the matter of censorship and decency is one area in which it is important that they are free to differ. These things are culturally sensitive. What is acceptable and even polite in French for example (the other language in which I am most competent) may be vulgar and offensive when translated into English.

But of course, it's essential to become a contributor there with a good record of edits before trying to make major policy changes in any Wikipedia. Otherwise, the likely result is that your ideas won't get a fair hearing. Andrewa 03:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are all important points. I hope I will be able to make further contributions in English Wiki. By the way I am already active at Turkish Wiki and started three portals there and wrote quite a few articles. I am planning to translate them into English as time allows. -- Resid

Compass and straightedge

Please comment. John Reid 14:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

OOOOh.... That's a good one! I very good issue IMO with some subtle policy implications. I'll have a good think about it... Thanks for the heads-up. Andrewa 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Stand up for your Faith

Your assistance is appreciated here in helping to end the oppression of Christians and their faith on Wikipedia.

Please sign your posts on talk pages, User:Jayson Marx. Perhaps also you might like to read my page on the Jason Gastrich disaster. Andrewa 01:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi Andrewa, the discussion on the Wikipedia:Wikiethics page is continuing at the personal confict level. If you believe the important of the proposal I would appreciate for your contributions and appearance on the discussion page. Please note that this proposal cannot be completed or become successful without your contributions. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 03:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

Accuracy Template Use w/o post on Talk:Davy Crockett

Hi! You and I are thinking alike. It took a while to find.

This should cure some of such: Talk:Davy Crockett#Removing Ancient ACCURACY template

Best regards, FrankB 18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

brown bear and tiger

Hi Andrew,

On November 2004, you edited the bown bear page on wiki, and put up a discussion on tiger vs brown bear on the talk page. I have answered your question, based on my knowledge of both species, not my opinion. It's been 2 years now, but if you are still interested in the topic, just go back and have a read. Thanks!

Please sign your posts on talk pages. But thanks for the heads-up. Andrewa 04:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

General Beer Lambert Law

I’ve nominated the General Beer Lambert Law article for deletion. This is a notification in case you wish to comment or vote on the issue, because you commented on the article’s talk page. —xyzzy_n 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! There is no doubt in my mind that this article will be deleted. As you say in the nomination, the author has been given every chance to provide sources. His response, unfortunately, has been to argue with those trying to help him. We have done all we can IMO. Andrewa 03:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Weissenborn teardrop.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Weissenborn teardrop.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Page for your review, please

Andrew, I seem to have lost your email address. Can you please look at Kippax Uniting Church, and review and comment at your discretion. Thank you, Peter Ellis 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Curious about your border collie--is he/she a blue (meaning dark grey)? Cutie pie.