User talk:Utcursch/archive/23
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46
Thanks. I don't know what they'll think but seems as the article was not existant I think it is a good start. With a bit of work it could easily become a great article I think -an important one at that ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia Indian chpater
Hello,
This is Anoopan from Malayalam Wikipedia.I have put the details about Wikimedia Indian chapter in our Village Pump. Regards --Anoopan (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No content in Category:Robin of Sherwood episodes
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Robin of Sherwood episodes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Robin of Sherwood episodes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Robin of Sherwood episodes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hurlstone
I believe that that SPA keeps on reverting to an attack oriented page. Hurlstone is a selective school which means it is one of hte best in NSW. The SPA has turned the article into a highly negative piece massiavely oriented towards recentism. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Baronets
Baronets always keep "Sir" in the title. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names, part 4. Please don't make further moves to remove "Sir" from the article title. Thanks, Choess (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Help on Singh
Dear Utcursch,
I recall you helped in the past on the Singh article. Sikh Historian and myself are trying to keep it as accurate as possible and include all groups but this one chap Harrybabbar keeps coming on and vandalising the article with POVs and unvalid statements.
Please see if you can do something. Thank you.
Gorkhali (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
User:76.29.23.218
A couple of weeks ago, you had offered to block this user if his vandalism persisted. Well the vandalism has persisted and no useful contributions have come from this user. So if you could block him for a while, it would give s rest from having to revert and possibly get the user out of the habit of of vandalism. Thanks for anything you can do Theteachersson (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Questionable conduct issues
Utcursch, I have come across completely by chance, User:172.209.8.246 who had contributed to the James Stewart (actor) talk page but insisted on highlighting the racism of Stewart which was acceptable but reverted as unattributed by another editor, who he then declared was a "pedophile." A quick trace through this anon's history shows equally ill-considered comments and I believe that some admin notice is warranted. I do not know how to proceed but I thought you might (hint, hint...) FWIW, it may be a sock hiding behind an anon's id? Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC).
Dec 17, 2007
Dear Utcursch, Recently I have added 4 translation , news/reviews on above pages in question, please see &check if you are satisfied. If your goodself have any doubt still or stay un convinced. Kindly spare time and read my discussion page. However if you say I can add few more and also raise a temprory website with original scanned newspapers photos in Hindi will reflect. I can give a permanent link in below references, clicking on the URL any one can verify my facts concerned to my wikipedia article. Sincere Regards to you - Alan Sun- --Dralansun (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
User Penser
Please look into a violation of 3R by User:Penser who has reverted Alexander Graham Bell three times in a 24-hour period to his version. The issue of nationality was a "hot" topic on the talk page and a resolution in describing the scientist's nationality was decided upon. The lead paragraph is carefully written to indicate a main birthright as "Scottish" although an American citizenship was obtained. The amount of time spent in Canada is also discussed wherein all three nations have claimed Bell as their native son. FWIW, the user in question has also made some intemperate "attack" statements although I had earlier attempted to explain the issues on his talk page. Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
Recently I have added 7 translation of news/reviews
On Naresh Sonee & Brhmaand Pujan ,All concerned notability / reliable sources could your goodselves witness there. News/reviews on above pages in question, please see &check if you are satisfied. Still If your goodself have any doubt or stay un convinced. Kindly spare time and read my discussion page. However if you still insisit I can add few more news/reviews and also can raise a temperory/permanent website carrying 'original scanned newspapers photos in Hindi' of news/reviews which will reflect there. I can give a permanent link in below references or below translated news, clicking on the URL any one can verify facts concerned to my wikipedia article or news/ review translated there.You will find the tranalation all accurate. I once again sincerly regards and empathy to all of your concerned doubts.Howsoever I want to satisfy/convince all of you , once for all. -truly- Alan Sun- --Dralansun (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Photographs
Hi Utcursch, I am still new with Wikipedia. I managed to copy all the photos I have uploaded so far to Commons. I am not sure how to use -Talk-. The content management tools of Wikipedia look a bit weird to me. rosengurtt |talk —Preceding comment was added at 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 19 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article knol, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Royalbroil 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
Hi Utcursch, thank you for the barnstar. I have pics of most other girls in Miss World, but they don't have a page of their own yet. I am trying to contact some of them, saying that I can create the page, if they send me info that I can use. rosengurtt |talk —Preceding comment was added at 17:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Good job
Hi, I must appreciate your contribs to Wikipedia! Bunty.Gill (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hey there! Thanks very much for your support in my recent RFA, which was successful. I was humbled by the support I received, and will do my best to live up to it by using the tools wisely and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Fortune lists copyrights
Hi Utcursch, I'm disappointed to see that you removed the list part of the Fortune 1000 and Fortune Global 500 lists due to copyright concerns. As I am unable to see the complaint that you reference, I wonder if you could copy and paste the text of the complaint to the relevant talk pages. Please also note that this complaint has been raised before, by wikipedians at least, and there is an existing discussion on the Talk:Fortune 1000 page. -- Austin Murphy (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Utcursch, I'm not at all familiar with the specifics of the current situation, but I would question how the Fortune 1000 list differs in any way from Ethnologue list of most spoken languages and List of languages by number of native speakers (which uses Ethnologue's #'s for its top rankings). All three are lists of information that are not ordered in a "creative" way (as US News and World Reports college rankings would be), but by a single numeric criteria. If an article entitled List of US companies by revenue was created using the Fortune list as its main source, would that be a fundamentally different situation? Joshdboz (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Lataji
Hello Utcursch! I come to you because I really think that we have to make this issue clear once and for all.
- Look, I don't want to question the neutrality of Rediff's article. I'm sure that these jounalists and the site itself are reliable for all intents and purposes, but I believe we have to be fair. Jounalists can claim whatever, and I respect them, but they are still journalists. How can we know where they took their counts from? I think, if jounalists have their concerns we definitely have to provide them on the article altogether, but sticking them as facts is literally silly. The rediff article is, so far, the only article I've seen on the matter, and this concern seems to be quite isolated whatsoever.
- The fact is, even today, Lataji is featured in the media and everywhere as the most recording artist alive, and is always claimed to have sung over 30,000 songs and even more.
- Regarding the Guinness entry removal, there is no evidence that this entry was removed because of some controversy or veracity problems. It's their very business. We can't say "it was removed" because it sounds like it was proved to be comletely false (but there are no official indications to that). I agree with the other user who wrote "
This record is still in the Guiness database, butit has not been printed in Guinness editions since 1991." It's a fact, it hasn't been printed anymore. The reason is unknown. Who knows, maybe it's their policy? Maybe, as said the other user, it's remained in their detabase? It's up to them. If indeed there was a controversy, I think we have to write what particular controversy it was. The case is, when we say "removed", in other words, we state that the Guinness editors were assured that the claim was false, and disproved it. On the other hand, when we say "hasn't been printed", it provides the exact information we get from the sources - hasn't been printed for unknown reasons.
- As for Rediff, Rediff has concerns - great! We'll say that reputable sources have raised concerns, but it doesn't necessarily determine that it's a fact, and doesn't change the fact that she is still considered to be the most recording singer.
- So OK, Rediff says she has only 5,000, but on the other hand, both BCC and The Tribune claim that it's actually 50,000. All these sites are reliable. What I mean, there hasn't been any official announcement of this entry being false or untrue. So it definitely deserves a mention in the lead anyway, IMO.
- Yes, it's necessary to provide all the views. The main fact is that she was featured and is still considered so my main idea is:
- "She was featured in the Guinness" ---->
- "It hasn't been printed since 91" (unknown reason) ---->
- "Reputable sources claim the same and even enlarge the postion (50,000)" ---->
- "Other reputable sources say that it's not right and she's sung only 5,000."
- Please see the article, I rewrote it. In general, I don't really care for how many she's sung, or how many Ashaji has. For me, listening to one Ghazal of Ashaji or another romantic song by Lataji, makes me feel so good, and amazes me of how talented they are. According to me, this talent knows no numbers.
- What do you say about my version?
Please HELP
Dear Utcursch,
Me and the other Sikh wikipedians have real problem with vandalism and we need your help PLEASE. The Template:List of Sikh Gurus is being vandalized by anon (128.86.146.48) who keeps on removing the 11th Guru of Sikhism, the holy Guru Granth Sahib from the table. Please revert his edits when he removes our dear & precious Guru - the Guru Granth Sahib from the table. He has also been vandalizing the other Sikh Guru articles including Guru Nanak. Please help us revert his edits & vandalism. Please can you semi-protect the template so only an established & respected editors can edit it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.86.146.48
--Sikh scholar (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
|
<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk) |
|
|---|
Seasons greetings
And a Happy New Year to you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am removing links to Wikipedia:New user log (which was marked historical via this MfD) on all welcoming templates, however your page is protected. When you return from your wikibreak, kindly remove this link from your welcoming template so as not to confuse new users. Regards.--12 Noon 2¢ 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
hey there!
I randomly came across your talk page. Just saw User:Utcursch/wel. I do a lot of welcoming.... would you mind if I used your template? :) -xC- 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you!-xC- 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm likely the only one using that Verizon IP address you just tagged. Everything in the history is mine anyway...better start signing in, I guess. Nice to see your name pop up. Happy new year! Off ot bed now. Regards, PMDrive1061 via --71.102.80.39 (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the edits
Hi Utcursch, the changes done are completely neutral POV. The Sacred incident mentioned is known to anyone who knows Details about Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, especially to those who belong to the place where this happened - Nanded, Maharashtra. If even some sikh does not know about this, it may be because of ignorance, not because it is untrue. Effort has been made to keep Wikipedia contain truth. It is understandable that you may not know everything about every subject you edit, as you are editing large variety of subjects, in which case it is requested that you do not consider an edit to be incorrect, and have some faith in other's knowledge. Thesikh (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for comment on Category Redirect template
Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability of "Infra Logarithm Function"
You recently removed the prod tag that I added to Infra Logarithm Function, asserting in your edit comment that it is "notable for mathematicians". I agree that the underlying function is notable, but its standard name is hyperpower or tetration. We already have an article on tetration which, I think, describes this function adequately, with its various standard notations. But that is just my opinion, so I have solicited the views of other mathematicians at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Infra Logarithm Function is the same as the Super-logarithm function, which is the standard terminology for it.
- I admire your support of researching iterated exponentials, but the page you are supporting focuses too much on terminology, and very little on content. According to Bromer, Wassel, Rubstov, Romerio, myself, and others, the super- prefix is the standard prefix for tetration, not the ultra- prefix (which is only used once). Wikipedia was not designed for recommending terminology. If you want to learn more about tetration and its related functions, or you would like to suggest what terms to use, then please join the Tetration Forum. AJRobbins (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA
I have been nominated for an RfA. If you haven't done so already, I would appreciate if you could go and comment on this page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alexf. Thanks and happy wiking! -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 12:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Hinduism and Sikhism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Singh
Dear Utcursch,
I see you have one to the Singh article and cleaned it up, but I had removed all the original information I had added since I was sick of the constant abuse by Harrybabbar who is trying to make this a Rajput-Sikh fight. If you see his talk page you'll see he has been dealt with by admins on more than one occassion because of this and will not stop. I was trying to work on the article when I had time to try and bring something worthwhile and balanced, but people have huge egos and are very sensitive when someone suggests that the name may have in fact been borrowed from another influence. I presented references and such and still was given racial overtones, personal attacks and others were dealt the same who did not agree with Harry.
The reason for the Singapore portion is because although this article is about a name/surname, it is also about a word and its origin. Anyways, I was hoping that the information I had gathered and gave to the aricle would be removed and let these vandals have their way, since it really doesn't matter what credentials or knowledge a person holds, the one who screams loudest on Wikipedia and bullies their way always gets their agenda ahead.
I tried to bring a valid point that Singh belongs to so many different ethnic groups of India, Harry believes it exclusively belongs to one group and the name Singh never existed before this (thus the evidence present of Singapore, with the word Singh already in use).
Don't be surprised if Harry and his team start their claims without citing references. I was once part of the University of Toronto South Asian Studies Department and thought I could share some of my knowledge on this topic, however I see that other editors who have left have done so for just reasons [1]. To have to constantly defend logic in the face of illogical rant can take its toll on a person.
This was never a Rajput-Sikh debate (since I have both groups in my family, please see my page). However Harrybabbar has turned this into a nasty racial-caste-relgious communal debate from his side and will push forth his ethnocentric views with complete disregard for other communities in India that also have a right to the name Singh and may in fact have a longer history with that name.
Sincerely Gorkhali (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that working on Wikipedia can be frustrating sometimes. I'll keep a watch on users like Harrybabbar. As about Singapore, I feel it's unnecessary duplication, because the Singapore article already mentions the etymology. It's not a good idea to have multiple topics under one page. utcursch | talk 07:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Utcursch, I understand your removal of Singapore from the article and respect it. I also appreciate your keeping an eye on the article. I really don't want it to become an ethnocentric, politcally, communal article which it has been in the past, which prompted to me to get involved in the first place (and now I am regretting it). I have my credentials in South Asian Studies, so I thought it could do some good here, but sadly there are too many people who feel it is there "religious duty" to defend their POVs and not look at facts and prior research. Thank you for getting involved, it means a lot.
Sincerely.Gorkhali (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Utcursch, I really like what you have done with the Singh article. Thank you again.
Thanks
Hi Utcursch
It is just six months since you welcomed me to Wikipedia. Your welcome was an encouragement and inspiration to me and I have tried to be bold with my editing as you instructed!
Message from 71.250.33.115
Dear Utcursch,
I find myself in an odd perdiciment. i have recived a series of messages from editor people including you telling me that i have vandilized pages i have never been to. my internet connection is shared with everyone else in my school. how does an innocent wikicitizen (is that the right term?) like myself get vindicated so that i can continue use and occasional edits of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.33.115 (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, if you received warning messages on the talk page of a shared IP, you can simply ignore that message. Also, I'll be able to help you, if you can tell me on which page did you receive my warning. I've not dropped any messages on the talk page of your IP 71.250.33.115 (User talk:71.250.33.115). utcursch | talk 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)