User talk:Oiyarbepsy/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Happy New Year Oiyarbepsy!

(Malformatted message erased)
(User talk:Oiyarbepsy/Happy New Year Oiyarbepsy!)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victorian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
(User talk:Oiyarbepsy/Disambiguation link notification for January 1)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whorl. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
(User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/Disambiguation link notification for January 8)

Thank you for the notification, but ...

Hi Oiyarbepsy,

Thank you for alerting me that Microphyll (disambiguation) is about to be deleted, but I am at a loss for a way to include this information in wikipedia. It would certainly be a good thing to prevent readers from getting the impression that a microphyll forest consists of Lycopodiophyta, but I cannot imagine a page title that could be used for the forest-classification system that includes microphyll, mesophyll, macrophyll, etc. To call it "Raunkiaer's leaf-size classification" would not be appropriate because subsequent ecologists have considerably developed the system, and it was not a big deal for Raunkiaer, he just considered it one of many ways that one could statistically analyze plant communities. As far as I know, forest ecologists don'g give a name to the system. If the component parts such as "microphyll (forest classification)" were to be set up as separate pages, I'm sure they would be deleted for the crime of being too small. That's par for the course with wikipedia; I've seen the intense bureaucracy about page titles defeat efforts by a number of clearly knowledgeable contributors to expand the content, and that is one of the reasons that I have withdrawn. Wikipedia is appropriate for describing social phenomena and anything that has an obvious simple title, but not for statistical methods or scientific approaches. Sorry. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Nadiatalent:I moved the affected content to Microphyll, under the section Ecology. Feel free to edit and improve there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll try. It is a very weird place to put it, what we in biology call an artificial classification; it's rather like making David Bowie and Alan Rickman share a page because they were both entertainers and died in the same week. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Nadiatalent: @Oiyarbepsy: How about a new "Size" section within Leaf#Terminology, if these are a set of terms for sizes of leaf? Then a hatnote on Microphyll on the lines of {{about||the leaf size classification|Leaf#Terminology}}? PamD 15:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)@Nadiatalent:re-pinging as spelled wrong last time.PamD 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @PamD:. I'd say that one of the meanings has to do with vegetation science, which is about plant communities rather than leaves. Wikipedia is severely deficient in vegetation science (and rather deficient in forest ecology). I've done what I can at Microphyll and will now leave it for posterity to deal with, gently or otherwise. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nadiatalent: @Oiyarbepsy: Well, I've gone ahead and added Leaf#Size and will now make some redirects/dab page entries to it. An interesting little project! PamD 17:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nadiatalent: @Oiyarbepsy: But having seen Nadia's sterling work on the Microphyll article I think we need to split that out into a new Leaf size, which can include my comparative table and her solid content about Raunkiaer. I hope that's OK? Will leave it for now because I have Real Life stuff to do, unless either of you would like to do the splitting? I've created various redirects to Leaf#Size which would be better retargetted to this new article, which I think will be an asset to the encyclopedia! I'm not quite sure where the "vegetation science" aspect comes in - describing an area as "microphyll" because all the flora have leaves of that size, I suppose. Hmm. I'm not an ecologist, more a disambiguation enthusiast and tidier up of loose ends. PamD 17:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nadiatalent: @Oiyarbepsy: ... and I've now created Leaf size, linked from Leaf#Size, incoming redirects from all the terms except Microphyll (though Mesophyll is complicated). I'll shift the content out of Microphyll when I've got time, unless someone else would like to do so. But now I need to cook, eat, and go out line-dancing. In 60 minuutes. PamD 17:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/Thank you for the notification, but ...)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results

Originally posted at meta:User talk:Oiyarbepsy

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/Future IdeaLab Campaigns results)

ANI Revision

(User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/ANI Revision)
I just wanted you to know I rolled back your changes on the ANI page. The reason Zzuuzz removed the IP edits was that this was an IP used by a banned editor that has been trolling a number of noticeboards for quite some time. The IP has been blocked for that reason as well (see the IP's contrib page). RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:RickinBaltimore, I completely stand by my edit, and especially my edit summary. If User:Zzuuzz is gonna remove people's comments with only a generic edit summary, they shouldn't be surprised to see them restored. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for your vigilance, and to Rick for providing the explanation. One should usually look at the contributions of editors being reverted, before reverting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• That could take a long time. It's way shorter for the person who knows this background to post a one sentence explanation than for editors to research it again every single time. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

re "Give me a break"

I had something to say re your close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912#Misuse of commas. You might want to consider taking a bit more time to explain yourself in future... Herostratus (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• It means that the whole discussion is ridiculous, there is no action to take, and quit wasting everyone's time. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is the whole conversation ridiculous? The complaint was of an IP who "reverts multiple editors who correct their mistakes... they are refusing to engage in the consensual process necessary to keep us operating...". It's now ridiculous to complain of such things? You didn't say "I looked into it and the complaint has no merit" or anything like that. You just dismissed the complaint as being not even worth considering, I guess (I have to guess, since you didn't explain yourself and still haven't).

Since you say you're pretty busy, rather than wasting anymore time on a back-and-forth about this, we can end this conversation here, at this: You're not an admin, nor are you a non-admin who is especially thoughtful, or able to explain themselves very well, it doesn't seem. So you should probably consider whether you should be closing threads at ANI. I would say not (there's nothing wrong with that, I'm sure you're good at many other things, and nobody is good at everything). And if you do want to close threads at ANI, you need to go through RfA, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/re "Give me a break")

NFCR discussions

Hi Oiyarbepsy. I've noticed that you've been going through and cleaning up some of the WP:NFCR discussions that are still unresolved. Just for reference, you can use Template:Non-free reviewed or one of its variations when you close a discussion. Just change "non-free review" to "non-free reviewed" in the {{non-free review}} template, add and fill in the relevant |pages=, |user= and |date= parameters, and everything should be good to go. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Marchjuly:Thanks, I'll place them now. Or, not yet. Does this go on the description page or on the file talk page? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've only seen them used on the description page, sometimes at the top right below the image and sometimes under the copyright license. I really think you only need to add one when you close a discussion, but I guess you could add {{Non-free reviewed no consensus}} if you move something to FFD. Also, just for reference, anything which has a non-free use rationale that you remove from an article like you did at WSVN can simply be re-added to the article to stop it from being deleted per WP:F5. An admin would simply delete the image outright when they closed the discussion, but us non-admins cannot delete such files so they short of hang around in limbo until an admin either deletes them or somebody adds them to an article. Anyone who de-orphans a non-free image can remove the {{di-orphaned fair use}} template, so you might want to try {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or FFD when you want to discuss NFCC#8 stuff. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Marchjuly:Well, you's right. Just got the revert about Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 72#File:New York Cosmos originalcrest.png. It might have to find it's way to Files for Discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You could tag it with "di-disputed fair use rationale", but that will probably be quickly contested. So, probably the best thing to do is to take it to FFD for a full discussion. If that's what you want to do, then I suggest amending your close to the NFCR discussion to add the new comments made after the fact and just do as you did with the other discussions you moved to FFD. For reference, it used to be SOP that NFCR discussions about single-use non-free files were advised to be brought to FFD instead (such as Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 68#File:Ahmed Mohamed Clock by Irving PD.jpg and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:Zimbru Chișinău - Tottenham Hotspur.jpg for a few examples) because removing them makes them orphans, which is essentially a de-facto delete discussion. This is not really an issue if an admin decides to close and remove, but it sometimes can problematic be when a non-admin does the close because of WP:BADNAC. FWIW, I think that your close was appropriate and made in good faith, but NFCC issues (especially #8 stuff) often require admin involvement to make their closes stick. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/NFCR discussions

Cover image in {infobox book}

On the first page of my Watchlist you are the one editor who shows up as working on images. Moments ago I added {{infobox book}} to The Magic Finger and "completed it" including the previous code for standalone cover image. It doesn't look right. --P64 (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:P64, It's fixed. With the infobox templates, you don't use the whole |image=[[File:blah.jpg|thumb... thing, but instead only put in |image=blah.jpg (omitting the File: at the beginning). The infobox templates then format themselves. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks. And the caption field is for the caption. --P64 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/Cover image in infobox book

Ran across a couple of articles I thought you might find interesting.

Hello there, again. Since I do not want to actively engage in 9/11 related pages anymore, I did want to pass along a couple of scholarly articles I ran across to you. They both deal with the Psychological and Psychosocial characteristics people who engage in 9/11 conspiracies, though one focuses more exclusively on 9/11 than the other.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847577

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0162-895X.00160/abstract

If nothing else, you might find it interesting. Supaflyrobby (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160214