User talk:Dominic/Archive 25

Dinosaur Recording

Very nice recording for the Dinosaur article. You obviously spent a lot of time and work on it. Is there a reason why you deviate from the source text though? Several dinosaur articles need to be recorded and hearing your thoughts would be a plus. Thanks. Genjix (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification re Jaredkunz30 SPI

Hi Dominic. Sorry to bother you but I just wanted to clarify if the accounts listed at the case are socks of each other or not. Some users found your comment a bit ambiguous. Thanks for looking into it--Cailil ^talk 16:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oversighting

My daughter's user page was oversighted because it contained too much personal information by a minor. She is User:Tatiana kitty. She wishes to put up another user page. What is she permitted to place on her user page so she doesn't run the risk of having her account blocked? Thank you, Dominic. She is very upset by what happened and I told her I'd find out more info.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this caused her any distress, but please understand that it was done in the interest of her own safety. Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors was written to answer exactly the question you have. Please let me know if you still have any questions remaining after reading it. Dominic·t 19:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response and for providing the guidance. I have explained to her the reasons for the suppression, and when she returns from school later today, I'll help her put up a new user page. I've advised her not to reveal her surname, age, date or place of birth or even the fact that she's in high school. I also told her not to say she lives in Italy; it's not really necessary. Just her interests and hobbies, and a few user boxes. Is it ok for her to put up photographs of herself? Or babelboxes ? Thanks again for your help Dominic. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

She has just created a new user page, leaving out all personal info. How does it look to you now? She would like to put up a photo of herself. She has my permission to do so; however, I told her to wait until I asked you. Thank you again for your advice and assistance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would advise against it. Perhaps you should direct your daughter to some of the social networking sites (with privacy settings) if she would like to build a more detailed profile of herself. For the purposes of Wikipedia, photographs are not essential, and therefore to be avoided when minors are involved. Wikipedia should be fun, but one should always keep in mind that it may not always be so. Because of its high visibility and open nature, Wikipedia also attracts less than savory characters. And I am not just talking about extreme cases like child predators. When considering whether or not to publish something, you should assume that anything you put on your user page will also end up on external blogs and other sites, used by critics or users with whom you are in a dispute to ridicule or harass you—and these may end up at the top of the Google search results for your name. If I were in your position, it is something I would try to protect her from that sort of situation, and the omission of a photo seems like a small price. Dominic·t 05:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I'll tell her it's best just to keep the cat photo on her user page. Actually seeing as her user name is Tatiana kitty, a cat picture is entirely appropriate for her user page. I also told her to leave out the fact that she's in high school, and also she omitted her DOB and place of residence. Thanks again for your time and good advice, Dominic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock question

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jstanierm is it possible to block the IP for User:Brucejenner so they stop making user names and disrupting Wikipedia? I'm not sure how this stuff works. CTJF83 GoUSA 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked into it, but at the moment, the amount of abuse Bruce generates does not justify the block it would take to stop him. Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of unrelated traffic on the IP ranges he is using. Dominic·t 05:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

...the individual in question has been doing his damage for years and years on end. If I'm worked up, it's for a darn good reason. I'll refrain from the extra comments from this point, but I stand by my assertion that this person is beyond the point of politeness. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That was six edits on five different requests in only a couple of months, so I have no idea which individual you are talking about. What got to me was that this was not a lapse; it seems to occur on most edits you make at SPI. I'm not asking you to be polite to vandals; I am asking you not to make the environment toxic for the rest of us. (And reverting my talk page comments isn't really showing much politeness towards your fellow editors, either. Am I already beyond that point as well?) Dominic·t 06:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

User talk:Zekir Bosniak

Could you please review the unblock request on this page? The user appears to have been caught in a rangeblock, but I don't know if we should give them an IPexempt flag. Thanks! TNXMan 16:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Blacklist alert

Hello Dominic, do you mind if I write in Spanish..? Pusiste hace mucho tiempo (tres anos!) este link "www.cais-soas.com" en black list: aqui y yo quisiera poner "www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/April2006/25-04-three.htm" en it:Bastak. Quizas te acuerdas el porque..? quizas ya no hay razones para eso.. Me parece che al sitio esta bien y no tienes problemas.. que opinas? puedes quitarlo de blacklist? Gracias por tu ayuda, --Betta27 (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Por favor, disculpa mi español aprendido, pero aparece que para nosotros dos no es la lengua materna, así que estamos iguales. :-) Esto enlace se añadío al blacklist debido a violar de copyright, y el fundador del sitio está bloqueado en enwp por las mosmas violaciones. Puedes leer la discusión aquí. El problema fue que el sitio usó imágines y texto que no poseía, y mentirosamente afirmó que las obras fueron bajo la GFDL en su sitio y aquí en Wikipedia. Aunque (creo que) recientemente no hay spam del sitio, en mi opinión, será mejor usar un fuente diferente, y más confiable. Del blacklist, es posible que ya no es necesario, pero, personalmente, creo que no sirve de nada quitarlo. Y en todo caso, ya no soy administrador de meta, si todavia quieres quitarlo. Dominic·t 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the explanation! --Betta27 (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. –xeno^talk 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:85.1.171.250

This user requested a review of your rangeblock. Could you take a look and let me know if there is any action to take? Thanks! TNXMan 15:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:218.186.8.233

Hi Dominic, per your earlier blocking of the above-mentioned IP editor → 218.186.8.233 (talk · contribs) ←, how long did you block him for? Could I suggest a longer block for him (plus disabling of editing own talk page) because of his disruptive behaviour by posting a malicious attack/harassment of a another person twice. Cheers and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it won't be worth the trouble at this point to disable talk page editing, since he probably has moved on to a different IP by now. The ISP here is a very annoying one that is difficult to block because it has so many innocent users sharing the same IPs. The original range block, [1], was already pretty serious, because of the traffic on the range. I have suppressed those edits that were deleted, though. In the future, let me know, or email Special:Emailuser/Oversight to report it, so those can be permanently removed. Dominic·t 11:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Soda

Hey, you still drink soda?Apl2007 (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How many days do you block someone?

How many days do you block someone--Miwoki (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Miwoki

List of Popes (graphical)

I have nominated List of popes (graphical) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Courcelles (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Chudasama

Please comment on User_talk:Chudasama#Progress_with_user. Four years ago you blocked the user indef and protected his page. There was also an allegation of sockpuppetry. A year ago, I unprotected the page and adjusted the block to prevent editing own talk page for project-wide reasons unrelated to the specific account. I am not convinced that this user was a real sockpuppet or associated with the alleged accounts in any way. The user has recently committed technical sockpuppetry to evade a block but to some extent he was in a catch 22 and didn't understand how to get out. That activity is unrelated to your block. When another admin decided that he'd posted enough {{unblock}}'s on his page, he semi-protected the page again, but I've had conversations with the user through the unblock mailing list and think I can work with this user. I am NOT suggesting a complete removal of the block yet and would take any such proposal to an appropriate forum; I just want to adjust the block to allow me to work with the user on-wiki. Since the block in place at present is still really yours, please comment at the user's talk page or e-mail me if necessary. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don’t know weather by putting this message will be again block evasion but could not stop my self after looking various talk page messages for the subject matter of the fact for wiki team Administration. I am now fully satisfied with the progress and specifically for the matter that a senior level team member of wiki admins(Doug &) are sparing their time and efforts so sincerely by collecting and compiling relevant information so precisely for decision making process. My assumption of wiki team of neglecting user of less importance like me has turned wrong here and has touched me to salute wiki team deep from heart. -- posted by User:chudasama --195.229.237.37 (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

James Ballantyne Hannay

Brilliant. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Since you've served significantly longer than I have, maybe you would have some good input at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Discussion_-_next_round_of_elections.2Fappointments_to_Audit_Subcommittee. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

National Atlas Maps

File:National-atlas-missouri.png

 

(edit talk links history) Hi, long time no see. (so doubt you even remember--we mainly cross paths in discussion pages or image spaces) My fault, not yours. Don't have as much wikitime these last few years.

I can use a (brief, I hope!) bit of help (Gotten so I don't know who I know around here or the commons anymore. So many have gone idle and missing! Lost a hard drive with some 'memory aids' that doesn't help, those email addys were timesavers!)

1. Just discovered map series names like this (this one you transwikied to the commons), but can't seem to get the gov source pages site to list out png or jpg files. Not ever standing for admin privileges, can't back check the history here to see the originally uploaded url, assuming that's actually documented (since it antedates our mania for documenting sources).
2. Bottom line is I'm hoping to discover the govs formulaic url tagging so I can substitute 'anystatename' for missouri... (or however it works out) which at the moment, is Kansas. The site keeps feeding me pdf file results, and I despise the pdf reader/editor, which is to say want the big blown up full screen map, not something smaller that I'm already having troubles seeing! <g>+lol
3. The map series is especially well suited to checking relational facts (Like having a big book atlas on the tableside) when cross editing history articles, as I tend to gravitate to, and furthermore, quite a few state related topics, including main articles would benefit from such well designed maps. These show a fair number of major features like medium to large streams, parklands, etc. so help keep relationships strait (or check same) when I write my (hopefully) pithy phrase changes (normally to provide just such better contextual information).
4. In sum, the original uploaded url is what I'm asking for. If you know better tricks, lay it on me! Thanks.

btw I've been wikimissing most of the last several years, so can you also tell me who I petition for admin privileges so I can look in these deleted files myself. I don't recall the process.

Thanks, // FrankB 18:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Kehrli new POV dispute

You were involved in an arbitration a couple years ago. [[2]] A nearly identical behavior and dispute has arisen. [[3]] I was wondering if you could pop in there and try to clearly define the scope and purpose of Wikipedia to Kehrli [[4]] as apparently the outcome of the last dispute and the resulting ban did not make such things clear. To summarize: He/she has chosen a different obscure unit-like scaling procedure and is trying to synthesize a well defined unit based on selective use of a few literature examples in combination with the widely accepted rules of metrology. Very elegant work that might be a good idea, but novel nonetheless, and thus not for Wikipedia. I am not a primary participant in the dispute. He/she has also been going over much of the material that he/she was banned from (for 1 year) and is persisting in the course of action that he/she was banned for now that the ban is expired. I have not been policing these actions and the pages have fallen into subtly novel/POV pages.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Dominic: we all agree that Wikipedia needs to use "standard notation". We just do not agree what standard notation means.

• In my opinion "standard notation" means the consensus notation established by the Physicist IUPAP red book, the Chemists IUPAC green book, the International Standard Organization ISO 31, and the standards of the specialists in metrology (= the scientist that study measurment in general) which you find in the International vocabulary of metrology.
• In the opinion of Nick and Kermit "standard notation" is the jargon that is used by some people (not by all people) in their narrow field of science, mass spectrometry and that will not be understood by the wider public because it is so much "off the road". Unfortunately this jargon contradicts sometimes the consensus notation established by the Physicist IUPAP red book, the Chemists IUPAC green book, the International Standard Organization ISO 31, and the standards of the specialists in metrology (= the scientist that study measurment in general) which you find in the International vocabulary of metrology.

In short: I am defending the terminology that is the international consensus, they are pushing the jargon of a part of the mass spectrometrists, which are roughly 10'000 people worldwide.

Kehrli (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Kehrli is using his interpretation of the tertiary sources IUPAP red book/IUPAC green book/ISO 31 to justify rejecting all of the scientific literature on Kendrick mass (dozens of publications in the past decade). The new unit of mass that Kehrli has defined is original research and inconsistent with multiple verifiable sources. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not rejecting any scientific literature on Kendrick mass analysis. I am just saying that most of it is written in a sloppy jargon that is not understandable by the wider public because it is not in line with the terminology according to the scientific consensus and that in Wikipedia we should use the terminology of those papers that are actually in line with the consensus terminology. Kehrli (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Kkmurray is lying: the unit in my article Kendrick (unit) is defined in this recent publication: [5]. Kehrli (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)