User talk:A. di M./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Speed of light - re-adding "exactly"

Hi. Regarding your edit summary here, I thought Dratman made a good point in his edit summary here. Maybe others that you mentioned felt the same way. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me; as far as I'm concerned, the difference between having and not having "exact" there is extremely trivial; I'm not even sure of why I bothered to revert Dratman in the first place. --___A. di M. 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Drama-out advertising

You might appreciate Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Serious_concern. It might be a good place to advertise your cause, if you can come up with a clever enough way to work it in. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:46, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Drama-out sign-up

Hi, A. di M. First of all, I'll repeat this: Great idea, and I look forward to participating again. Second: User:Otis Criblecoblis is me. "Dekkappai" has mildly offensive/erotic connotations in Japanese which is not out of place in my work on Japanese erotic cinema-- or in non-Japanese areas, but could be unnecessarily offensive to Japanese readers in articles on Japanese subjects outside of the erotic. So I use "Otis" for editing in mainstream Japanese areas, just so as not to unnecessarily offend Japanese viewers who are not interested in the other work. That's why I put "Otis" as a sub-name under "Dekkappai". If you feel I should be signed up twice, fine. But I think it's more accurate to show that Otis and Dekk are both me. Anyway, cheers, and I'll see you in January! Dekkappai (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I will be ready ;)--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 23:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

drama-laden drama-out

ADM, why are you supporting this thing on 18 January, and so loudly as in your signature? What is wrong with policy and process discourse? What larger purpose does it serve? Tony (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/FAQ. This is a revival of a similar campaign in last July which turned out to be quite successful. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 14:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello A. di M. Thank you for your thoughtful contributions at Talk:Noun phrase. The way it's going, you and I may soon find ourselves in a dramatic confrontation with Tony (see immediately above). I rather hope so, as he's an old "wikifriend" of mine and the notion of him and me shouting at each other over competing grammatical analyses has considerable comedic appeal. (Perhaps he'd agree. But if he didn't, we could argue over that too.)

As you're a grad student (and in a real subject, what's more), I presume that you have no time or money. But it seems that you do have time, so conceivably you have money too. And if you did have money, I'd heartily recommend an actual dead-tree copy of CGEL.

To complement the great WP drama-out, then (and as I suggested earlier to Tony) how about a great WP linguistic-prescriptivism-piffle-out? I've nothing against works such as Chicago (aside from the junk about "Grammar and Usage"). But if in your shelves you've got some book (Fowler, Gowers, Garner, Strunk 'n' White) that purports to tell native speakers how to avoid solecisms or to write well, into the trash it should go! -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had time recently because I graduated on 22 December and I needed a break, which coincided quite aptly with the Christmas holidays. I'm not sure I'll have that much time from now, but I hope I'll be able to significantly contribute to one or two articles during the Dramaout—possibly ones in which no drama whatsoever is possible. (The last time I did Variational method and a few related ones.)

I don't own any printed English style guide, I don't usually give a damn about what prescriptive grammarians say when writing articles (so I don't need a great WP linguistic-prescriptivism-piffle-out). I usually just ask myself which way a passage is clearer and "sounds better", hoping a native speaker will come along and fix any blatant error; sometimes, when I have doubts about subtle points of grammar where English and Italian significantly differ (e.g. the use of the), I look them up on the reference grammar I used in high school, which is generally reasonable and poppycock-free.

I could afford a copy of CGEL now (because most of my relatives weren't imaginative enough to give me any other presents than money for my degree and Christmas), and indeed I am considering buying one. Or maybe just A Student's Introduction to English Grammar.

I'm going to take a look at what's going on at Talk:Noun phrase now... ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't mind at all if writers defer to Fowler, Gowers, Strunk, White and the rest; I just wish that they wouldn't demand that others do so too. It's their religion but not mine. ¶ Variational method is surely a truly splendid article. Perhaps if I read it fifty times I will start to understand it; in the meantime it is awe-inspiring. ¶ So you're a doc. Well done! I'm one of the few people I know who isn't. The docs are all tall, handsome, witty and alluring; whereas I'm wizened, hairless, foul-smelling and repellent. Oh well. But enough of me. Now you have your doctorate in physics, you need to join a good club. ¶ Five years or so ago, I picked up a very lightly used copy of CGEL via ABE at something like 30% off the price of a new one. Still a lot of money but a pleasing reduction. Very different but also highly recommended: Pullum's Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax. -- Hoary (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I got the equivalent of a BSc, but thanks to the latest brain-dead reform of Italian university, I'm allowed to call myself a dottore (but I won't). Now I'm studying to get the equivalent of a master's degree, and then for PhD (in Italy the former is a requisite for the latter, not an alternative). (Also, I didn't significantly edit the "Description" section of that article.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 15:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're hugely more qualified to call yourself a dottore than Burlesque Tony is qualified to — but no, drama is a no-no on this page. Right then, well done on the BSc (worth three times as much as a BA), and you have five years or more in which to get the real doctorate and also to add length and lustre to your hair. ¶ Is the postal service in Italy as bad as Fleabay sellers like to claim? ("If you're in Italy I will not send by USPS. Add $450 for FedEx!") If so it might affect delivery of your CGEL. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you say Tony was a wikifriend of yours? BTW, in case you wander, this is what triggered me to add the "drama-free zone" notice at the top of this page. My hair is already long enough now — too long, some would say, but I disagree with them. The postal service isn't excellent, but it does usually allow stuff to be shipped from the US spending less than 5% the price of the CGEL; but if I wanted to get it before The End, I'd better have it shipped from somewhere in Europe. On the other hand, even the cheapest copy of the CGEL I can find on either Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk is more expensive than I'm used to spend for a book (except that one over there, for which I gladly paid about €85 without any hesitation or regret), so I think I might settle on A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Huddleston and Pullum, and waiting until my real doctorate before getting the CGEL. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't mean our Tony, I meant this fellow. (Now there's a dramatist for you!) ¶ You should find SIEG good, though of course it is a dry and condensed textbook. If you are not squeamish, then for a taste of the not so dry try this. -- Hoary (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that dramatist... [No comment: drama is a no-no on this page, indeed.] And here my non-nativeness shows up, because I didn't realize that so many of the asterisked sentences in your second link were wrong. (BTW, IIRC, in Italy, considering interjections as a separate part of speech is completely standard, and I don't think anyone would have seriously considered fuck² as a verb in the first place.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 17:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's, ahem, not fuck around here, and let's instead use "damn". This indeed looks like an interjection: "Damn!" (cf "Ow!"). But of course it also is a verb ("The preacher damned him") whereas "ow" doesn't seem capable of any role in any clause (aside from the trivial one of quotability: "He said '[X]'", where [X] could equally well be "ow", "vicissitudes", "teorema di Noether" or "ugugugug-plooploo"). So in "Damn you!", "damn" appears to be a verb; but then thanks to our man at South Hanoi it seems almost like a transitive interjection. ¶ Incidentally, I've just discovered a paper that might interest the grammarian in you. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In Italian the imperative of the verb "damn" is maledici, but the "transitive interjection" is mannaggia, which indeed can (and usually does) take a noun phrase as an "object" but cannot be embedded into a sentence any other way. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The "Vietnamese" paper is now very old and I have no idea what the current thinking is on this matter of syntax. But very informal language is of considerable syntactic interest, as even though we can be quite sure that parents, teachers and others wouldn't have corrected it, native grammaticality judgments are very clear. A good example is the "Mad magazine construction" (so named as its best-known example is "What, me worry?"): "What, Hoary create a featured article?", "What, him be on time?", etc. L1 English speakers' intuitions are clear: accusative subject and non-finite verb. (The huge majority of L1 English speakers, at least: gods know about some of the people who pontificate in the WP MoS talk pages.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Antineutrino Escaldes-Engordany Fermilab Charm quark Glueball Neutralino Canillo Tuesday LHCb Intersecting Storage Rings Sant Julià de Lòria Gargamelle Chargino Meteor Fine structure Lattice QCD Topness Cosmotron Down quark

Cleanup Standard Model English-language vowel changes before historic r Color charge Merge Deuterium Refractive index Neutron activation Add Sources Fundamental interaction Ordino Strange quark Wikify Battle of Manila (1899) Daniela Luján Donald Kenneth McLeod Expand Meson Electromagnetic field Beta decay

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'll work on some of these during the Dramaout. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

SOL

In the Speed of light article, what is the rationale for using American -ize and British metre? Is it that metre is the spelling used in the rest of the world, while -ize versus -ise is strictly Yank versus Brit? By the way, this really is a question, not a challenge disguised as a question.

I was surprised to read above that you are not an adherent of style guides (except our beloved WP:MOS, of course). From what I have seen in your editing of Speed of light and your participation at WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM, you are one of the better English language stylists around. In fact, I was thinking of you when I wrote "even good stylists do it" here. (It was also your use of YYYY-MM-DD access dates in Speed of light that led me to raise that topic; I was unaware of the recent failed proposal concerning YYYY-MM-DD).

You played the biggest role in bringing Speed of light back to a quality that justifies it being an FA candidate. And you started in the worst of circumstances, during the peak of the disputes that led to the arbitration. I feel a bit guilty for staying away from the article after the arbitration, but it appeared that the conflicts were continuing and I'd had enough of them. I have been doing some minor tinkering with the article since you nominated it at FAC. Please don't be bashful if you disagree with anything that I've done.—Finell 04:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I used the -ize spelling because it was the one used by the article by the time I got to it; I didn't notice that hidden comment until much later. Incidentally, it is also the spelling which I prefer; though it is rare-ish in Britain, it is the one used by the OED, among others. OTOH -ise is virtually never used in the US. When some word has two spellings only one of which is accepted everywhere, I prefer to use that one.

Ditto for YYYY-MM-DD: the article already used them, so the ones I added I added in the same format.

It's a shame that the disputes scared away so many editors, but I decided that that was exactly what the troll wanted, and that I wouldn't let him win. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are several uses of "ise" in the article too.

It wasn't the pre-arbitration disputes that got to me. It was what I saw after the arbitration decision—the talk page contentiouness, and edits and reverts in the article without regard to consensus—that disappointed me. I expected that, after the arbitration, the article's editors would systematically review the article section-by-section and draw up a plan for reorganization (where desirable) and improvement. That didn't happen, and I didn't see an environment conducive to that happening. It was more discouragement on my part than anything else. I don't usually avoid disputes, and I was as verbal and active as anyone in the arbitration. But you managed to pull off what I did not think was feasible, so I congratulate you. I was surprised to see your FAC nomination, and then very pleasantly surprised by the improved quality of the article.—Finell 02:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are a "realise", two "realisation", and a "minimise"; I had missed them. Anyway, there's no "minimize" and the only "realized" is used with a different meaning, so at least each word is spelled a single way throughout the article. :-) OTOH there are "summarized", "polarization", "realized", "idealized", "stabilized", "synchronized" and "synchronization". I won't bother fixing that until someone opposes the FAC on that ground (and even when that happens, I'll point out that, as they are both correct in BrE and perfect synonyms, it'd be akin to opposing on the grounds that an article uses both "someone" and "somebody"). But I wouldn't object if someone else did that for me. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 10:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

restrictive vs non-restrictive epithets

I'd never thought of that distinction. I wonder how Halliday describes it. Tony (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

How would you feel about unblocking Brews and David?

I will bring up a motion to do this, if people don't oppose it. Are you ok with this idea?Likebox (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nearly OK with Brews Ohare (to be precise, I'd keep him on probation, just in case he screws up again—which I hope he doesn't). As for Tombe, I don't recall him ever acknowledging that nearly all of his views are extremely WP:FRINGE, or making any unambiguously constructive contributions to a physics article, so I'd keep the ban until its original expiration date. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just so you know, I have decided to petition to have Brews unblocked, but not David (at least not at the same time)--- his case is murkier. If Brews is up for it, the argument will not be over the merits of the ban itself, but on the effects of the ban on the morale of editors, and its possible repercussions for stifling vigorous debate. Thank you for your comment.Likebox (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wisht to comment on the matter, there is a request for amendement regarding this arbitration case.Likebox (talk) 05:03, 8

Talkback

Hello, A. di M.. You have new messages at Coffee's talk page.
Message added 13:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

{{!xt}}

Can you make this available for tables too? In this example, I wanted to make the table as it was, with the template enclosing it, but instead, I had to use <pre></pre> to have the script turn out font and red:

[1]

Can you make it so that tables don't get screwed, but the font and color turns the way the template does? (what else does this template do?)174.3.98.236 (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, the template uses <span>, which is an inline element and as such it can't contain block elements such as tables. (Some browsers are lenient with that, but I think MediaWiki somehow tries to translates that to valid HTML for browsers which aren't.)

I had created {{xt2}}, a version of {{xt}} using <blockquote> instead, but I had forgotten to make {{!xt2}} too. Now I will. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 10:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

EEkk!!! help it's still not working!174.3.98.236 (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried everything and it didn't work. I guess WP has a stylesheet for tables which overrides it, or something. You might resort to add {{!xt}} to each table cell individually... ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 16:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you.174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'm very sorry to see that you are taking (considering?) a long wikibreak. Among many other reasons, you are invaluable to the effort to bring Speed of light back to FA. I was disappointed and surprised by the outcome of the last nomination: criticism was relatively minor, and most of the criticisms were addressed. Also, you are rare in your combination of scientific knowledge and very superior writing ability. Your contributions to MOS pages are also valuable. Your are also a model of civility and reason. Please reconsider, or at least make it a short one.—Finell 01:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat busy these days, but if I can I'll peep in every now and then. If something serious happens at Talk:Speed of light or elsewhere, feel free to email me. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 11:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:!xt2

Template:!xt2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion

I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Tsunami

Hi! Listen to the pronunciation by a Japanese announcer. Oda Mari (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuovo Cimento and Italian Physical Society

Since you're Italian (which should mean you speak Italian better than I do) and have a background in physics, could you check these two articles and compare them with the Italian versions (which may or may not suck)? I created the former, and gave a spit-shine to the other, but I based some of it on Google translations. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(What? The association which gave me 4000 euros a year when I was an undergrad because I was among the forty Italians who had got the most answers right in a physics quiz, and recently gave me and another thirty-odd colleagues of mines 1700 euros each, which they had collected with a fundraising for L'Aquila students after the quake?) They agree. The only things in the Italian articles not in the English ones are that Nuovo Cimento A and Nuovo Cimento B were called Serie A and Serie B from 1965 to 1971, and that the SIF was founded "around" the Nuovo Cimento. (BTW, Google translations are surprisingly good; a decade ago I would have never believed that a machine could ever do that.) ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 17:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think Italian to English is impressive, you should check out the Russian to English translations for something. But yeah being a French speaker (Italian has lots of similarities to French), and a guy with an interest in etymology, I can usually make out what's good and what's shaky in the translations. But it never hurts to check with someone who actually speak it.

Anyway thanks, and feel free to edit the articles to add the missing stuff, or reword things. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion requested on Dialectical behavior therapy Jargon tag

The entire subject is rife with new definitions and acronyms so I'm not sure why the jargon tag is there. The jargon is unavoidable. What's your opinion? Alatari (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I had never heard of dialectical behavior therapy; why are you asking me? ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 22:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You spent a lot of time in discussion on the Jargon style guide. Feel free to suggest anyone who you think would have an opinion. Thanks. Alatari (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I got the gist of most of the lead despite having virtually no background in psychology, so it's acceptable, but some of the obscure details had better be moved from the (very long) lead to somewhere else in the article. So I'd replace the "jargon" tag with {{Lead too long}}. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 11:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Alatari (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Muphry's law

Never heard of that before! Way nice revert to selfyour, if I say so might --Jubilee♫clipman 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Dash

Hi, that "minus sign" looks suspiciously like a hyphen in that bit of text we've been editing. Isn't a minus sign very similar to an en dash in length (but thinner)? Tony (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the hyphen-minus? It's the - on a keyboard, a character which was in the original ASCII (when practically all computer fonts were monospaced) that was supposed to work both as a hyphen and as a minus sign. Now that proportional fonts are common, it has stuck for use as the hyphen, whereas a new character − has been introduced specifically for the minus sign (except in code, where monospaced fonts are still normally used anyway). So maybe in that text just calling it a hyphen would be less confusing. A. di M. (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs List of common misconceptions Journal of High Energy Physics Entrance Wound Weinberg angle Port Washington Narrows Microscopic scale Particle Dark Matter Sveti Rok Tunnel Christoph Bechmann Savill Garden SNAP-10A Secular equilibrium Bottomness Lead-206 Himeji Gardens, Adelaide Center of momentum frame Thorium-234 Black Holes and Time Warps Þórbergur Þórðarson

Cleanup Matriculation in India Temple Lodges Abney Park SCK•CEN Merge Opposition effect Rondel enclosure Introduction to quantum mechanics Add Sources Beamish, County Durham Shawnee Cave Milne Ice Shelf Wikify Ibhar ATA over Ethernet HomePlug Powerline Alliance Expand Standard Model Observing the Moon Introduction to special relativity

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. I would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you have signed up! Consider notifying 3 good editors of this to encourage more participation. Perhaps saying

I am participating in this. Please consider doing the same! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added an ad to it in my signature, which ought to be enough (provided I take part in enough drama before the Dramaout begins...). ― A._di_M.^{3nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 17:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion for a requested move of WP:Ownership of articles

Hello! I have requested a move for WP:Ownership of articles → WP:Page ownership. As you participated in the previous discussion, could you please voice your opinion again regarding this move, as it is my intention to restart the discussion with a clean slate. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Martinvl (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

oh, that's better

Your hyphen edit to MoS. Tony (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Back from vacation

Hi I'm back from vacation. Maybe, we can pick up the GAN review where we left off. (If you have time, of course!). Regards, TimothyRias (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Neater signature?

Hi A. di M.,

Just a thought: have you considered removing the "(formerly Army 1987)" from your sig? I think we all know now <smile>. Tony (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, after all it's also on the top of my user page.

I don't suppose you happen to know anyone who reviews or nominates featured articles on WP.it, who is reliable and critical, and who speaks good English, do you? At The Signpost's "Features and admins" page, we now invite a judge to choose the best of each week. I'd like to get in a few specialists from foreign-language WPs from time to time. Got a WP.de editor in mind, and I'm looking further afield, too. Tony (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a while I haven't participated in it.wiki (beyond occasional minor edits)... A. di M. (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeated links proposal

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

REFPUNC Discussion

Dear A. di M.: You might want to check out this discussion regarding issues concerning WP:PAIC and MOS:REFPUNC. I would welcome your contribution to the discussion here; see also here and here. The newest proposal seems to be to update the MOS and REFPUNC to reflect the 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, which would address the Kim Jong Un issue by placing the reference mark inside the parentheses. A clarifying update to the text of the MOS is also on the table. I welcome your valuable input into this discussion. Best regards. Saebvn (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Italian copyright violation

I know that you speak Italian, so maybe you can help me out. I think I have found a copyvio on the Italian Wikipedia, but I don't know enough Italian to pursue it.

I was trying to understand the history of elliptic integrals and went looking for information on the Italian mathematician Giulio Carlo de' Toschi di Fagnano. One of the pages that turned up in my Google search was his MacTutor biography, [2]. Another one was the Italian Wikipedia page on him, [3]. To me the Italian Wikipedia page looks mostly (but not entirely) to be a translation of the MacTutor biography, which would make it a copyright violation. I don't know what to do about it; they must have a copyvio process, but I don't know what it is and I don't speak enough Italian to figure it out. Can you help? Or do you know anyone who can help? Thanks. Ozob (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reported that to it.wiki's copyvio page, but it doesn't seem to be attended very much as there's an item from April and one from 2007! Maybe I'll rewrite the page from scratch if I have enough time (which is somewhat unlikely, to be honest). A. di M. (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light FAC

I have nominated speed of light for FAC. As a major contributor, please leave your 2cents on the review page.TimothyRias (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Determining notability and the language of reliable sources

It has never been required that there be English language reliable sources to determine whether or not a subject is notable and therefore qualify for coverage on the English Wikipedia. The general notability guideline states that "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language" (emphasis mine). So a German news article about a German celebrity is good enough for coverage on the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I didn't state that in absolute terms, I just said that if something is notable it is likely that people have talked about it in several languages. A. di M. (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't seem like it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Crappy html

It wasn't clear from your observation of the crappy html whether you meant to oppose my suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Blank_lines_around_headings or not. Better clarify if you care. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I was only talking about blank lines between posts in discussions. Blank lines before or after headings are disregarded by the renderer anyway, AFAIK. (Personally, I always leave a blank line before headings, and most times I leave one after, but I can't be bothered to add blank lines to already existing headings.) --A. di M. (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WT:MOS#Lower case first letters

Would you mind taking a look at the other examples I have provided (in WT:MOS#Slightly different capitalization schemes)? I have currently set up a move request at Talk:Pay Money to My Pain#Move because the band is universally known as "Pay money To my Pain" and not "Pay Money to My Pain". This is fairly obvious considering they have a non-Japanese market and it is primarily in use across the internet, including in English language sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean Sep invented the grammatical distinction, only that he invented its relevance for the MOS. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 14:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at RFAR

I don't want to see you get in trouble over something silly, so I'm hoping that a quick note to you here will prevent that. You can't make comments just anywhere on a Request for Arbitration page. I suggest that you go and move your comment to a statement section for yourself before some Clerk get's all high and mighty about the issue. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to bother writing a “statement” myself, so I've just removed that comment altogether. Cheers, ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 00:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution the article Gray Wolf! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Popular guy

Hello, A. di M.. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, it's the debate that would need to be notified, not the decision. Tony (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment was: ‘I like the idea, even though the requirement to “notify” discussions about exceptions at WT:MOS is a bit weird.’ [emphasis added] ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes

Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Between uniform and random

Hi I just read about you doing some stuff with Monte Carlo. I was wondering if you could point me at something I'd heard about but forgotten to note. I saw about some random numbers being used which were not random but distributed themselves much more evenly over the sample space working out very well. Any idea what kind of algorithm might be being referred to to produce numbers that are like that? Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've heard something like that, but I've never used it (with the Metropolis method I don't think it would be much better). I'll take a look at my books and if I find it I'll tell you. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 16:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've found an entry to the type of things I wanted - Low-discrepancy sequence. And seemingly it is a very active area and they work very well indeed. Dmcq (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Learning Italian

Hi, a friend is keen to learn. I've not tried a foreign language since the 70s. Are there good online tutorial systems (gratis or by subscription)? Or do you think an old-fashioned class-based course is the best option? Tony (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the language tutorials on the BBC are good enough for total or near-total beginners (I've tried the ones for Spanish and Irish); the one for Italian is at [4]. For slightly more advanced learners, I've heard people praising a program called Rosetta Stone, but I've never used it myself and I know it's not free of charge. Of course, from the upper-intermediate level onwards, learning based on face-to-face interaction with other people (preferably native speakers) is the best, IMO. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, A. di M. This is a case where passing on your advice means just linking him to it! Tony (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 16:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC on a subpage structure for the Manual of Style

Hi A di M.

As someone who contributed to discussion when the issue was raised a little while ago, you may like to have your say in the current RFC on subpages, at WT:MOS.

Noetica^Tea? 05:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Mile (Scots) Peter Barham Charm quark Inch (Scots) Nucleocosmochronology Reviews of Modern Physics Journal of High Energy Physics Charged particle Duffing map Fåhræus–Lindqvist effect Unitarity (physics) Constant (mathematics) Warm–hot intergalactic medium Higgsless model Range (particle radiation) Slavnov–Taylor identities Neutral particle Death Valley region Deep inelastic scattering

Cleanup Charged particle beam Viète's formula Irish orthography Merge Linear amplifier Mirror photon Endergonic Add Sources Basal metabolic rate Irish language outside Ireland Dark energy Wikify Transfer of training Carbon capture and storage Leonard Bloomfield Book Award Expand Larmor formula Particle in a box Computational particle physics

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A query about your vote at the dash poll

Hi A di M. You may remember some comments at the dash poll (now in its last ten days) concerning the "between" sense of the en dash. I think it is not clear how you and two others want to vote about that. I am curious! But I am also concerned that the poll achieve a clear outcome. I have posted some evidence that bears on your concerns. Search for the words "concise rather than expansive" in that section of the page. Does the CGEL evidence affect your thinking? Here is some of what was said before:

A di M:

"The border between France and Germany is not the same as the border between French and German; it is the same as the French border that's also a German border."

Later, after a query from me:

"Anyway, I agree that a monumental descriptive grammar based on a decade of research by a dozen linguists should be given more weight than the personal tastes of the authors of this or that style guide."

Headbomb:

"Agree with the first, disagree with the second. A French–German is a border between entities of "French" and of "German" which makes no damned sense. It's the France–Germany border, or the French-German border, but it is not the French–German border."

Oknazevad:

"I'm just going to echo with Headbomb. He says exactly what I'm thinking."

I should note that the enormously respected and descriptive CGEL does not appear to discriminate in its own practice between {adj~adj noun} and {noun~noun noun}. Where the sense is "between", it uses an en dash.

I am posting this message at the talkpages of all three of you. Thanks for your attention to this.

Noetica^Tea? 05:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had already commented about that... Anyway, IIRC the CGEL says that a dash is “also possible” in those situations, not that it is the only possibility, so I think the MOS should allow but not demand it. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 10:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not commented on the extended quotation of CGEL text that I provided (or on my description of its own practice), only on something earlier. In fact the GCEL chapter on punctuation says that in some practice the "long hyphen" is not used in the relevant capacity (that is, replacement for the ordinary "hard" hyphen); but I had thought that Wikipedia was not such a context, and that WP:MOS reflected that fact rather well. Given that the guidelines currently endorse several uses of the "long hyphen", I had thought that consistency is well served by its presence in all of its standard roles. Perhaps CMOS is itself inconsistent here: it calls for en dash in many cases that fit the "between" interpretation ("east–west", for example), but does not make a general rule of it. Other American guides fill in that gap. General, consistent principles are simpler, and make for better house styles than patchworks do, it seems to me. If we merely reported all practices that have a respectable following, we would settle little for the articles. Disputes would be rampant, and replicated beyond any reasonable measure.

Anyway, that's how I view it. I am curious that you made certain statements early on, but do not appear to modify them when evidence from one of your own favourite resources is presented. This is no criticism, just an observation. I am mainly after clarity, and I am not sure we have it from you yet. You may disagree, and I must respect that! In the end, Casliber has asked for bold agrees and disagrees; I too think that's what we need. I am sure that you are among those who are amenable to evidence and argument. Please consider this, and please do consider clarifying your opinion and your vote so that it can be fully understood in this most sensitive area. Just a suggestion.

Noetica^Tea? 10:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Done.[5] ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 20:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully by "long" you mean "really not that long"

If wikistress' getting to you, just focus on the non-frustrating things. WP:JOURNALS could use the people, and there's very little bickering there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm back now... I just needed a ‘brain holiday’, so to speak. I'll check that project out, now. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

TFA 30 August ...

Not yet urgent, but I think [Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/August_30,_2011|blurb]] and article need work. You might have time in the next week to look at what I did quickly, which can't be finished without scrutinising the article, I think. Tony (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Why me? I don't think I've even ever heard of Hemming's Cartulary before. Am I missing something? Also, I'm travelling around quite a bit these days, so I don't have much time for WP. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 21:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

help

Hi,

Can you take a look at what's wrong with Omar Khayyám? The lang-fa template treats the date as Persian. Evidently it isn't just my browser. — kwami (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the closing curly braces somehow sense that they are in a right-to-left environment and flip themselves into left braces. I've fixed this using a right-to-left mark before the Persian text and a left-to-right mark after it, but I can't guarantee that this works correctly with older browsers/fonts. (Anyway, I had edited similar articles before and I can't recall anything like that ever happening.)

Quantum physics is not weird

Thanks! I really recommend Yudkowsky's series of articles on quantum physics which are all founded on this premise. ciphergoth (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've been reading that blog all the last few days. It's quite thought-provoking, though it make me think that sometimes overthinking is a Bad Thing.
― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 15:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia: what on earth is going on?

Hi A.

What's happening at Italian Wikipedia? We get only this global message there, at least when I checked a couple of minutes ago. Is society crumbling entirely, in your neck of the woods? In case it vanishes (I mean, either society or the text in question ☺), here are the first paragraphs:

Cara lettrice, caro lettore,

in queste ore Wikipedia in lingua italiana rischia di non poter più continuare a fornire quel servizio che nel corso degli anni ti è stato utile e che adesso, come al solito, stavi cercando. La pagina che volevi leggere esiste ed è solo nascosta, ma c'è il rischio che fra poco si sia costretti a cancellarla davvero.

Negli ultimi 10 anni, Wikipedia è entrata a far parte delle abitudini di milioni di utenti del web in cerca di un sapere neutrale, gratuito e soprattutto libero. Una nuova e immensa enciclopedia multilingue, che può essere consultata in qualunque momento senza spendere nulla.

Oggi, purtroppo, i pilastri di questo progetto - neutralità, libertà e verificabilità dei suoi contenuti - rischiano di essere definitivamente compromessi dal comma 29 del cosiddetto DDL intercettazioni.

Tale proposta di riforma legislativa, che il Parlamento italiano sta discutendo in questi giorni, prevede, tra le altre cose, anche l'obbligo per tutti i siti web di pubblicare, entro 48 ore dalla richiesta e senza alcun commento, una rettifica su qualsiasi contenuto che il richiedente giudichi lesivo della propria immagine.

Purtroppo, la valutazione della "lesività" di detti contenuti non viene rimessa a un Giudice terzo e imparziale, ma unicamente all'opinione del soggetto presunto leso.

Quindi, in base al comma 29, chiunque si sentirà offeso da un contenuto presente su un blog, su una testata giornalistica on-line e, molto probabilmente, anche qui su Wikipedia, potrà arrogarsi il diritto - indipendentemente dalla veridicità delle informazioni ritenute offensive - di chiederne non solo la rimozione, ma anche la sostituzione con una sua "rettifica" volta a contraddire e smentire detti contenuti, anche a dispetto delle fonti presenti.

...

!

Noetica^Tea? 11:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an English translation. I'm too ashamed of my country to comment any further. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, a few days ago the Italian equivalent of Uncyclopedia went on a similar strike after singer Vasco Rossi had sued them and a few of their admins had been interrogated by the police. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Chilling news! Apply for political asylum in Australia, immediately. Noetica^Tea? 12:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit far away, but I'm considering applying for a PhD abroad (maybe in Northern Europe) as soon as I'm done with my MSc. (As for the absurd-requirements-for-websites thing, I think/hope that's a storm in a teapot, as they've been proposing similar laws for, like, a decade and none of them has ever passed... yet.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 13:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)