User talk:Urhixidur/Archive/2010

Articles for deletion nomination of Masakatsu Aoki

I have nominated Masakatsu Aoki, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masakatsu Aoki. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. PDCook (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read your objections on the article's talk page. Please bring these issues up at the deletion discussion and provide any references you have that support this person's notability. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masakatsu Aoki. Urhixidur (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Urhixidur/Archive/2010! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Service award update

Hello, Urhixidur! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the revised system ended up promoting me one notch. Urhixidur (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Urhixidur! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. David J. Asher - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Hiroshi Araki - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Adam Block - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Alfredo Caronia - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Zhang Jiaxiang - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox minor planet

Template:Infobox minor planet 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RUle-baSed Sequence Evaluation Language

Just out of curiosity, are you going to create the RUle-baSed Sequence Evaluation Language article? Disambiguation pages aren't supposed to have red links, but I assume you put it there as a marker for a new article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't intend to write the article yet. Unlink it if you want to de-redden, but do leave it in. The term shows up repeatedly in the computer security context. Urhixidur (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hi. This message is in reference to these two edits. [1] & [2]

Please stop adding entries to disambiguation pages that do not have articles. Entries on disambiguation pages nearly always have an article. The only time they're allowed to not have an article is if there is more than one other page in Wikipedia that points to that page other than the disambiguation page itself.

Also, disambiguation pages never have embedded external links; they are not directories in that sense. This edit is fairly egregious in terms of spam. Disambiguation pages are not to be used like that.

These types of pages exist to help readers find information in the encyclopedia that exists. The dab pages, as they're called, are not there to simply list items that may share an ambiguous acronym.

There can be some confusion as to how the disambiguation pages are constructed, but you can peruse the directions at MOS:DAB. Dawnseeker2000 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with MOS:DAB as it currently stands is that although it concludes with the words "Usefulness to the reader [of disambiguation pages] is their principal goal", the guidance prevents this usefulness in several cases. "Every entry must have a [Wikipedia or Wiktionary] link", but "Never include external links [or references]". Here is the scenario, then (case 1 you mentioned above): a user has a reference to "SRS" in a paper or presentation on attack-resistant software systems. Clearly the existing entries in the SRS page don't deal with this, but some Googling reveals DARPA's Self-Regenerative Systems project was the intended meaning of the initialism. The user then adds the entry to the dab page with a helpful reference (external link to a DARPA page), in the hopes that some devoted soul will later add this content to Wikipedia. Surely the solution to the perceived guideline violation is not to suppress blindly the addition? How is Wikipedia to grow if such is the editorial stance?

Could it be that "redirecting may be appropriate" in this situation? In this specific case, to Fault-tolerant system? Urhixidur (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You must follow disambiguation page guidelines regardless of your perceived problem with dab pages. That's the bottom line. With regard to the growth of Wikipedia; it's growing rapidly. If you see a need to add items to dab pages please write the article first.

The idea here is that if there is something missing on Wikipedia you are (highly) encouraged to start an article. People are doing this in a very rapid fashion. Once the article is created it can be added to an appropriate dab page if needed. This is the established process. Dawnseeker2000 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Giovanni de Sanctis

The article Giovanni de Sanctis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources found about this astronomer. Unsourced for 3 years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of B-Day

I have nominated B-Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Church of emacs (Talk) 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hiroshi Araki

The article Hiroshi Araki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem to be notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gigs (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Hiroshi Araki

I have nominated Hiroshi Araki, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroshi Araki. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gigs (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're invited!

Hello, Urhixidur,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ^{☎ call me!}

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ISVis

A tag has been placed on ISVis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Chris (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Time elapsed between tagging and deletion: 24 minutes. Wow. Urhixidur (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

New gadget

Dear, my tip seems to have been buried in the mass: could you please check if I've used the more appropriate page? JackPotte (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Meaning what? Whether it belongs under gadgets or not? I don't quite understand.

As for the gadget itself, it does not translate the interwiki links (which would be pointless anyway): it just translates the interwiki language names. The description should be relabelled accordingly. I would also suggest having the gadget offer the option of displaying interwiki language names as in the following example: "Français (French)". I suspect a lot of wikinauts would prefer that to losing the languages' autonyms. Urhixidur (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwix

Hello, sorry but I'm still needing your help over here. JackPotte (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tu veux que je fasse quoi, au juste ? Urhixidur (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Après quatre heures de lecture quelqu'un m'a enfin révélé comment créer la RFC qu'on m'avait invité à faire, je verrai ça à tête reposée... JackPotte (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IEC prefixes in x86 article

I reverted your alterations that added the IEC prefixes. Please see Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits.

The IEC prefixes kibi-, mebi-, gibi-, etc. (symbols Ki, Mi, Gi, etc.) are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers (see Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008)), so are generally not to be used except under the following circumstances:

• when the article is on a topic where the majority of cited sources use the IEC prefixes,
• when directly quoting a source that uses the IEC prefixes,
• in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes.

HumphreyW (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It is sad that such a misguided policy still stands. I won't reopen this stale debate, and thus added an explanatory/warning note in the article's preamble instead. Urhixidur (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons

Hello Urhixidur. The above list has been identified at WP:FLC as being "at risk" of delisting. This basically means that it's still in a reasonably good shape, but that it needs updating in line with current featured list standards. I'm letting you know this as you are a major contributor to the list. If the list is not improved, then it will be nominated at WP:FLRC. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in the page's Talk about any such "problems". Could you be more specific? Urhixidur (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it either, Urhixidur. And neither does RandomCritic by the look of Rambling Man's talk page. If he could provide us with a link to the actual discussion, that would be a help. Serendi^podous 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Here we go: User talk:RandomCritic#Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons. They all seem like pretty minor issues, and it would have been better if he had posted them on the article's talk page, as you said. Serendi^podous 23:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's about you getting used to the updated FL criteria. Funnily enough, the "at risk" category was designed to "reduce" antagonism, rather than increase it by simply nominating the list for delisting at WP:FLRC, but perhaps I'll need to rethink that. But anyway, I've made a very quick list at RandomCritic's talkpage, as you identified. This is just "at a glance" problems. Urhixidur, thanks for your efforts so far, I just wanted to let you know I undid your edits to superscript th or st, e.g. 20^th Century, as this goes directly against the manual of style, in particular this section. Cheers. For reference, I'll also add the comments to the talkpage, along with anything else that crops up. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your ongoing efforts to improve the list. There are several comments at the FLRC which will need to be addressed before the list can remain featured. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Lorem ipsum

Template:Lorem ipsum has been nominated for merging with Template:Lorem Ipsum. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)