User talk:Wavelength/Archive 4

Hello, Wavelength. I clicked on the link you added to Wikipedia:Reference desk, but Safari can't connect me. (Currently, I cannot use any other browser). Just out of curiosity, what is it? A mirror? ---Sluzzelin talk 16:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was introduced in the discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 75#Feed of new sections. The link worked for me within the last 24 hours, but it does not work for me now. I anticipate that it will work soon for both of us.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising my reply.—Wavelength (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Thank you. It works now! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your grammar work on Chetco River; you improved it a lot. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 22:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kepler's disease has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence that this disease exists (see Talk:Kepler's disease)

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. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me.—Wavelength (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen such a precise edit summary for the removal of an unnecessary hyphen. I'm impressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text on talk pages is not a major draw on the memory capacity or bandwidth resources of Wikipedia. Those engaged in discussion are motivated to be concise as most will recognose that this aids the understanding of the point thay wish to make, but may wish to re-iterate their point, especially if they think it has been misunderstood, as this is the nature of discursive argument. This being the case, I can but wonder at the purpose and motivation of your recent postings on such pages. Kevin McE (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, even if you had a point, fragmenting the discussion in that manner pretty much guarantees that the community will not be able to properly address it. Please don't do that again. If you have concerns over the length of various talk pages, raise that point centrally rather than starting a over a dozen different meta-discussions on it, especially with such vague and pseudo-santimonious language. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the following message on 22 discussion pages.

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). [...] Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.

I might have omitted the last statement, but I included it to explain my reason for posting the message. Perhaps efficiency is already at its maximum potential and there is no room for further improvement. I apologize for not adequately anticipating that my message would not be appreciated.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the linked page has been updated twice.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, your postings have only resulted in largely unnecessary discussion and the wasting of even more of your precious kilobytes. _wjemather^bigissue 22:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that paragraph 5 of Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance (permanent link here) includes the following sentence.

Please note that data storage space is not an issue for you as an individual user.

I posted the following message, now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 131#Talk pages by size.

Greg L, I did not present myself as an overlord addressing minions, and I did not exclude myself from possibly being motivated to achieve greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes. I simply offered a suggestion, as any editor can do.—Wavelength (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 22 relevant talk pages listed in the first version of Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size are the following.

1. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration

2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

3. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation

4. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

5. User talk:Veinor

6. User talk:Jimbo Wales

7. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

8. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

9. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

10. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

11. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

12. Talk:Intelligent design

13. Talk:Main Page

14. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration

15. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

16. Talk:Barack Obama

17. Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation

18. Wikipedia talk:No original research

19. Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

20. Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

269. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

285. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been nice if you had clearly grasped that gamma-kappa means both [g] and [ŋk] in modern Greek before posting five replies to your own message on the Language ref desk thread... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#What does "Fragko" mean? (Greek, I'm assuming) (permanent link here), I was aware of both meanings before I posted my first reply to Zagalejo. I posted no reply to myself.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mentioning "Frago" without mentioning "Franko" did not start things off in a very helpful manner, and if you had collected and organized things a little before posting, then maybe you wouldn't have had to post five separate messages to the thread (23:04, 00:24, 00:35, 04:55, 20:40), most of which individually did very little to significantly advance things toward a useful conclusion. Constantine only posted one message to the thread, but his one was more helpful than all your five... AnonMoos (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice if I had been certain of how much time I was going to spend in researching the question. (In that case, my timestamp and signature might have appeared fewer times on the page, and the page history might have recorded fewer revisions.)

I did not have that certainty, so I posted my findings progressively. Each posting might have been a key to other editors providing additional information.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising my message of 17:04.—Wavelength (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I'm sure that you're very earnest and sincere, and I have no interest in beating up on you for its own sake, but that thread kind of concentrates and distills some of your longstanding Language ref-desk less useful ways of doing things (or bad habits) in one small space... AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please list all those "less useful ways of doing things (or bad habits)" (not only ones in "that thread") as you perceive them, in descending order of their importance to you.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising my message of 20:14.—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

See what I did just now when I made a mistake and/or turned up new information: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FLanguage&action=historysubmit&diff=399030032&oldid=399029586

What I didn't do is post a second reply. In the great majority of cases, people are much more interested in whether you can provide useful information, than in you documenting the minutiae of your search process (including dead-end paths). AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw how you sneaked in a revision and did not even update the timestamp, which is no longer reliable. My message of 00:35 served to save other editors the time of checking the same article, and to alert any who might wish to check it anyway. (Did that occur to you?) Both of us can speculate about what interests people in general. Readers can skip over information that does not interest them. (Please see Wikipedia:Inclusionism.) Zagalejo thanked me for my replies.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it is not a race, and it is also not a petty-bureaucratic process which needs to be documented in meticulous detail by filing goldenrod forms in triplicate. By far the most important thing is providing useful information in a conveniently usable form -- everything else is of distinctly secondary importance. Your use of the word "sneaked" betrays a misunderstanding of the basic purpose of the Wikipedia ref. desks -- a misunderstanding which unfortunately sometimes affects the usefulness of your replies there... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things of less importance are still important. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FComputing&action=historysubmit&diff=399617196&oldid=399615774)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "how" at 20:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC), I meant "in what manner" "by what means"; I was not using "how" as a substitute for the conjunction "that", as some people apparently do. I do not wish my words to be misinterpreted as an example in support of that grammatically incorrect usage.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising my message of 16:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC), as indicated.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)][reply]

[I am revising my previous message.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Thread moved from my talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a friendly comment about your use of the substandard irregardless. Correct alternatives include regardless and irrespective. Please see wikt:irregardless. I am adding this talk page to my watchlist, and I will watch here for any reply/replies to this comment.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that friendly comment. I confess that "irregardless" is etymologically an erroneous word but feel unrepentant about using it because it attested from at least 1870s (see previous link) and it is noted in a large number of respectable dictionaries. Wikipedia even has an article about Irregardless. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An expression can be attested and noted without being approved.—Wavelength (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The OED is the accepted authority on the evolution of the English language.". They can't ignore the word irregardless even though they don't like it, but nor did they like television (because of its mixed greek/roman roots). In both cases further academic resistance to vox populi seems futile. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Traveler100 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me.—Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you're interested in the research aspect. Does this extend to statistics and graphing? With another editor, I've done a little work on the WMF data page, and if you're interested in that kind of thing, we could share the results. Tony (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Does "interested" mean "interested in reading" or "interested in editing"? Does "the research aspect" mean "research about Wikipedia" or "research by means of Wikipedia"? I am definitely interested in reading information (including statistics and graphs) about Wikipedia and all the other Wikimedia projects.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed the renaming of a category, and wanted to know if you would consider commenting on the proposed renaming over at that link. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My position on the proposal is neutral.—Wavelength (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog to 18,000 articles and clear the 2008 backlog, and we need your help! Top participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts February 1, but you can sign up today!

Guoguo12--Talk--  20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inviting me.—Wavelength (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lactase persistence vs. lactose intolerance and deficiencies , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Qwfp (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me.—Wavelength (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've reverted your edit to Japanese Language Education in the United States which added an internal link to Jimi's Book of Japanese in the See Also section.. I would also appreciate it if you nominated that article for deletion. It was created by User:Dvoggen8 over 4 years ago and has, but for numerous failed attempts(by the aforementioned user and User:66.56.29.176) to portray the book in a non-neutral light and the successful renaming of the article from Jimi's Book of Japanese to Jimi's Book of Japanese: A Motivating Method to Learn Japanese, remained the stub it started as. I feel it relevant to point out that User:Dvoggen8 also created an article on the author which was deleted(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter X. Takahashi). "Jimi's Book of Japanese: A Motivating Method to Learn Japanese" is one of my more depressing finds on Wikipedia. Very likely created as an advertisement, edited several times over the years to make it more of an advertisement, and renamed to the above...And I never would've heard of it were it not for the link from Japanese Language Education in the United States. I don't know if there's enough for an AfD of it, but I feel pretty secure removing the link to it. I'd appreciate your input, advice, and help. Thank you. Swibbles (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably added a link to the article "Jimi's Book of Japanese" after finding it in Category:Orphaned articles (CAT:O), but I have little knowledge or interest in its status as an article.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wavelength. Thank you for your link to Academic freedom#Evolution debate. I have read it carefully and found it very interesting. I live in Australia and the debate about the place for evolution and creationism in education appears to be less conspicuous than in the USA.

I am aware of a dispute in Australia between a leading educator, Dr Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide, and various advocates of creationism. WP has a summary of this dispute at Ian Plimer#Critic of creationism. Best regards. Dolphin (t) 03:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I provided that link in this contribution to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Thank you for the links to the article about Ian Plimer.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Dolphin (t) 22:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the subject up at WT:AWB/T#Removing hyphens after -ly adverbs. Chris the speller ^yack 23:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this message and for the link.—Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has been archived to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos/Archive 3#Removing hyphens after -ly adverbs.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: This section features the profane use of language which otherwise is not profane. Reader discretion is advised.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What was really the direct and immediate point or necessity of your reply to Schyler under "Hebrew"? It seems fairly clear that you would be unable to give the requested transcription in any of the pronunciations of Hebrew -- and I know a hell of a lot more about Biblical Hebrew than you do, and didn't think such a query necessary -- so your question seems to have been much more of a finicky abstract hypothetical than a practically useful step to directly answering the question... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to read profane language. You might wish to restate your message without using profane language.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- the word is found quite a number of times in the Bible, so I don't know why you've chosen all of a sudden to present yourself as some kind of ultra-Comstock. However, here goes on the requested paraphrase: "I say old bean, do you think that your behavior might be analogized to that of a waiter who says `Wine, certainly sir, do you want the Château Lafite Rothschild or the Château d'Yquem?' when your establishment does not in fact possess any wine at all? Toodle-loo, pip-pip, cheerio, my dear chap! Stop playing that bouzouki!". -- AnonMoos (talk)

In my first reply to you in this discussion, I did not make a request, but I made a suggestion. In my latest message to the Language Reference Desk, I did not make an offer, but I asked a question for the benefit of anyone who might answer.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have left it up to those who are actually capable of substantively answering the question as to whether or not they thought this was an important issue? AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I myself recognize the value of the question which I asked. The image which you have just posted is one which I saw earlier at "Comstock laws".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Look -- I have no desire to beat up on you for the sake of beating up on you, and you seem to be extremely earnest in your desire to be helpful; but unfortunately your way of doing things on the ref. desk manages to significantly grate on my nerves once or twice a year, and you don't really seem to learn anything much from past contretemps. On the ref. desks, if you answer from your personal knowledge and expertise, giving a directly practically useful reply to the question, then you can rarely go wrong. However, if you're unable to give a directly practically useful reply to the original question based on your own knowledge and expertise, then it would be far the best (and most polite) thing to tread a little carefully and take a somewhat subsidiary role in answering the question -- because if you try to take the lead role in answering the question when there are other people who are distinctly better qualified to take the lead role in answering the question, it can be seen as trying to push yourself in where you don't have much to offer. Adding links turned up by a Google search, or links to a relevant Wikipedia article, can definitely be useful in some cases -- but letting your disproportionate obsession with time stamps and bureaucratic documentation overwhelm the amount of information you have to offer, or asking the questioner finicky abstract hypotheticals about subjects you have little knowledge of, etc. etc., can be annoying. AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of your message of 12:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC), what meanings do you intend to convey by the expressions "a somewhat subsidiary role" and "the lead role"?

—Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To provide a linguistic analysis, asking "According to which Hebrew phonology do you want the pronunciation?" creates a Gricean conversational implicature that you would have the ability to provide a transcription in at least one form of Hebrew pronunciation. Falsifying implicatures is not ordinarily any kind of way to be helpful... AnonMoos (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That implicature is subjective on the part of the reader, and, in any case, not important enough for you to make an issue about it. Your implicature about my knowledge of Hebrew can not be proven. In fact, I have studied Hebrew, and I do have knowledge about its pronunciation. Furthermore, I might have found an external page with either a phonetic transcription or an audio recording.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[For clarity, I am inserting "on the part of the reader".—Wavelength (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Implicatures are not necessarily "subjective" at all; they can reflect stable consistent expectations of normal English-speakers across a broad range of conversational contexts. If you engaged in the following type of dialogue, then in most contexts the majority of English speakers would think that you were behaving quite strangely:

WAVELENGTH: "Do you want the peas?"

WAVELENGTH'S TABLE GUEST: "Yes, please."

WAVELENGTH: "Thanks for telling me, I was curious about whether or not you wanted the peas. But you'll have to get them for yourself."

Violating implicatures sometimes serves as a source for off-the-wall humor, but it rarely can be considered helpful.

As for your claimed Biblical Hebrew proficiency, I'm afraid that I don't find this fully credible, since in the "Tetragrammaton" thread on the Humanities ref. desk you seem to have been reduced to Googling bottom-of-the barrel websites to provide support for your position. I don't see how somebody who had significant direct personal knowledge of Biblical Hebrew could really think that http://pronouncingthename.xanga.com/593761504/item/ was any kind of useful support for anything.

Anyway, you might say that I was overreacting -- except that out of all the replies currently in the "Hebrew" thread, yours is by far the least useful in providing directly relevant information or useful guidance, and when I first came across the thread and yours was the only reply then present, I knew that this would turn out to be the case, by my mystical magical powers of clairvoyant prescient ESP precognition -- you can call me "Nostradamus"! ... AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said "That implicature is subjective on the part of the reader", in reference to what you said in your message of 20:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC).

In the discussion about the Tetragrammaton (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 10#Jewish pronunciation of YHWH), I did not find your reasoning to be convincing. English is not restricted by the rules of Hebrew phonology (including Q're Perpetuum). Whether it appears to follow it halfway is irrelevant. Likewise, there is no Biblical injunction (directly or indirectly) against using the most familar form of the divine name. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/15-9.htm) As for the Xanga page to which I linked, the information presented there can be examined impartially, regardless of who or what is hosting the page.

Another Xanga page (http://removinggodsname.xanga.com/505713236/item/) mentions several reasons for the fact that some people have removed the divine name from many Bibles. I invite you to consider (in the privacy of your own mind and heart) whether there is any valid reason among them.

My knowledge of Hebrew is less relevant to this discussion than are my beliefs and attitudes about the evidence. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/11-25.htm)

Economists disagree about how to solve financial crises, but I do not dispute the widespread belief that they have extensive training as economists, insofar as a person can be an expert in a psychosocial field, with its emotional uncertainties. Scientific opinion on climate change is divided among scientists, but I do not dispute the widespread belief that they have extensive training as scientists. Scientists disagree about some of the information presented in the film An Inconvenient Truth, but I do not dispute the widespread belief that they have extensive training as scientists.

I have not mentioned the extent of my knowledge of Hebrew, and there is no need for me to do so. I have sufficient knowledge to see the usefulness of disambiguating the question raised by the original poster in the discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 4#Hebrew.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "bottom-of-the-barrel" according to the factuality and the degree of accordance with current mainstream scholarship of the web-page's contents -- not the name of the webhost. I really don't know what Xanga.com is, and I don't particularly care -- and I would have evaluated the web-page's credibility exactly the same if it had been hosted on an ".edu" site. There can be debate over the appropriateness and suitability of using "Jehovah" in English, but there is no current legitimate scholarly debate over the indisputable fact that Jehovah never existed in the traditional Jewish annotation or recitation of the text of the Hebrew Bible, and therefore originated by a strange error or mistaken blunder on the part of Christians (exactly as I said...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally rollbacked you here, have rolled myself back to restore your comment. a slip of the finger on the trackpad :( DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring my comment. (I am revising the heading of this section by adding the topical information "for rollback".)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization issue has been bugging me. I actually changed it from "Adopt-a-typo" to "adopt-a-typo" in order that the capitalization would be the same. I am open to more discussion on my talk page. By the way thnk you for your proofing and help! I need all the collaberation I can get. I started this program because I am such a bad speller. Majestic Pyre^{My Speech Bubble} 06:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the letter case of the first letter of “adopt” being the same as the letter case of the first letter of “typo”, you might consider changing Wikipedia:adopt-a-typo to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-Typo. (That would make it similar to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User.) If you think of “collaboration" as “laboring together”, and if you know how to spell “labor” correctly, that can help you to remember the correct spelling of “collaboration”. (The word “labor” can have a “u”—“labour”—but “collaboration” can not.)

—Wavelength (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wavelength,

May I ask why you're prefacing your messages on reference desks with New message:, as in this one? These messages stop being new the next time someone edits the page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my putting that phrase before some of my messages on the reference desks and on talk pages is explained at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 23#Browsing.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's necessary. Since no one else does this, it actually makes the message more confusing rather than less confusing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I indented my message in accordance with Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Some editors have considered two consecutive equally indented messages to be visually confusing, so I used that phrase in white on black to make the start of my message easy to distinguish. Links to discussions about indentations are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=indentation&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AReference+desk%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search. Can you tell me a better way to distinguish two consecutive equally indented messages for editors who consider them to be visually confusing?

—Wavelength (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know some people find such messages visually confusing, but such messages are common across the encyclopedia and users learn how to deal with them. I have never before seen anyone adding something like what you are adding, and like I said above I imagine it just confuses people more than it helps.

If you really must offset your message from a previous one somehow, there are plenty of other options. You can indent it one more level than the previous one (even if it's meant to be response to the one two messages before, rather than the one immediately preceding it, you can make this clear by prefacing your message with "@ Username:"). Or you can use a bullet point. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~☞●◗✍◊⊕~☞●◗✍◊⊕ You said that [two consecutive equally indented messages] "are common across the encyclopedia and users learn how to deal with them", but archived discussions about indentations indicate that even editors with years of experience on Wikipedia find them to be problematic.

Your first suggestion contradicts Help:Using talk pages#Indentation, and "@ Username:" does not reflect the quality of the English that I wish to use. I used a phrase, because I consider a phrase to be less confusing than a symbol. The symbol “●” can mean “new moon” or “new message”. I realize that a message with the label “New message” is not the newest message on the page after other messages have been posted, but I really intend it to convey “Beginning of message” with fewer characters.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's clear to editors (it certainly wasn't to me) that "new message" means that. Furthermore, it's certainly not necessary to use a distracting black box to make that point. If you don't like using "@ Username", you can always just say "In response to Username's comment:" . rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I am a casual participant at some of the RD pages, and to me, this tag looks like someone shouting "my posts are much more important than everyone else's". I had no idea of its actual purpose until I came here. I think it's a bad idea because its intention is so easily misunderstood. 86.179.1.163 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

◤(¶1 of 3) Rjanag, there are (at least) two goals involved here: (1) indicating where each message begins, and (2) making the start of each message stand out conspicuously on the page as a whole. Indentation generally achieves the second goal, and I wish to use something at least as conspicuous as indentation to achieve that goal. When I wish to indicate (by the content of my message) the editor I am addressing, I begin my message with the editor's name followed by a comma.

(¶2 of 3) It is possible to fill an entire page section with a discussion as one paragraph, indicating where each message begins, but without making the start of each message stand out conspicuously in the page section as a whole, and without showing the structure of the discussion. That practice is not desirable.

(¶3 of 3) If there is a concern about my messages receiving extra attention, then that attention can be diluted by other editors copying my practice. I want other editors to copy my practice anyway, in the interest of (1) clarifying where each message begins, and (2) promoting correct levels of indentation.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

◤[I am inserting the underlined text.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)][reply]

◤[I am correcting the underlined text.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)][reply]

---

Marking breaks that are otherwise easily overlooked is good, but that New message: thing really is horrible, honest! How about a light grey rule, like above? Or maybe something slightly altered that looks slightly more distinct from the rule underneath headings. (The table thing is to get the indent to work; maybe there's a simpler way, but if not then it could be template-ised.) 86.179.6.201 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(out) The bullet point I saw you add in one of the RD threads recently (I can't remember which one) looked fine to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it “◤” in this message? Was it “●” in this message?

—Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wavelength, I was happy to notice that you added a link to http://www.celebritytypes.com/philosophers to the MBTI page. I tried to add links to the 16 in-depth pages on that same site (e.g. http://www.celebritytypes.com/entp.htm) on each of the 16 type pages (e.g. ENTP) the other day, but the links were removed as 'linkspam'. :( You seem to be an experienced Wikipedian, so I'd like to hear your opinion of the site's appropriateness for Wikipedia compared with e.g. PersonalityPage (a site that is linked to on all 16 type pages)? Possesseva (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that (at least some) editors (at least sometimes) differ in their interpretation of (at least some) policies and guidelines. I am glad when an editor interprets them in a way that supports my editing, and I am disappointed when an editor interprets them in a way that opposes my editing. Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam discourage links that promote commercial advertising.

That website solicits monetary donations (as Wikipedia does) and is supported financially by advertisements from other entities (as are Google and The New York Times). You might wish to visit the talk page of the editor who removed the links you added, and ask why he or she considered the links to be spam. Sometimes people act quickly, and decide later that they acted mistakenly. However, I recommend that you first read those two content guideline pages.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for replying. I see your link has been undone in the meantime. Too bad. :( The editor is the same who removed my links the other day, so I think he's pretty determined to keep it off. I can't figure out why e.g. PersonalityPage is okay, but CelebrityTypes isn't, can you?

—Possesseva (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why User:ThreeOfCups (who is identified as female) removed links to that website from INFP, INTP, INTJ, INFJ, ENTP, ENTJ, and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, that is to say, I do not know why she considered them to be spam, but you are free to ask her at User talk:ThreeOfCups.

[I am revising the indentation of your second message, in accordance with Help:Using talk pages#Indentation.]

—Wavelength (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been involved in editing the Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding article, notifying Wikiprojects, and adding incoming links from other pages, why haven't you weighed in at the AfD yet? Silverseren^C 00:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally hesitate to participate in such discussions, but maybe I will participate in this one after all. Thank you for inviting me.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the heading of this section from AfD? to AfD: Texas lawsuit.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately, the S was used from the start and it's been impervious to attempts to downcase it, despite going against its own advice. Tony (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your message is apparently in response to my latest revision of Wikipedia:Styletips. (I am revising the heading of this section from MoS to MoS: letter case of "S".)

—Wavelength (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy these stroopwafels - you deserve it. ;) Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 00:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page, or if you still would like to reply here, just send them a {{talkback}} and reply here. Thanks.

Thank you for the imaginary stroopwafels. In my imagination, they are made from ingredients derived from organically grown plants and animals on a family farm. There has been no use of any synthetic fertilizer, synthetic pesticide, or synthetic growth hormone, and no environmentally damaging use of fossil fuel or anthropogenic electricity. The animals have free range, and all workers (whether they are humans or not) are treated with dignity in regard to working conditions and income.

There is no air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, or space pollution (pollution of air, water, soil, or space). There is no light pollution, noise pollution, electrical pollution, or vibration pollution (pollution by light, noise, electricity, or vibration). The flour might have been produced in a windmill, but there is no wind turbine syndrome.

There has been no environmental degradation from excessive extraction of geothermal power, solar energy, tidal power, or wind power, by the diversion of large quantities of energy from its natural course. There has been a wholesome use of human energy, and all materials and energy have been provided locally, in a very walkable community.

In my imagination, these stroopwafels contain banana slices instead of syrup, and honey instead of brown sugar. They are eaten in a peaceful setting.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're ready to go, off-wiki people except for two of us. I'd like to create it at WP:WikiProject Linguistics in a hurry. I'm posting there now. Tony (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. At this time, Systemic functional linguistics is redirected to Systemic functional grammar. I have seen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#SFL task force? and User:Tony1/SFL task force.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This follows my recent contribution to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wavelength, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental history topics whether the article List of environmental history topics should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving List of environmental history topics, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I have seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental history topics, and I might comment there later.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled at your reply at "guidelines vs advice". Are you emphasizing my spelling error. Or are you implying i am not using the templates correctly or misunderstand its meaning?Moxy (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, the page name for the example that you gave had advise instead of advice (unless you actually intended to use the verb form), so in my post I decided to help to prevent a spelling mistake in any new page name involved.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok np that's what I thought you were talking about ..its fixed I think..AnD Yes speiing is Not my strong sUitE.LOLMoxy (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated this category for deletion. I think any year/genre structure is overcategorization and should be discussed at the Film Project first. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I am discontinuing the categorization.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Snow by location, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me.—Wavelength (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This memorandum to myself provides a list of all three member articles.

• List of snow events in Florida
• Snow in Brazil
• Snow patches in Scotland

—Wavelength (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS guidance on article titles does not cover section titles. We would not title an article "The priority method" but this does not mean that section titles cannot use "the", "a", or "an". These are all common in professional publications. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Started a discussion at [1]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a revision in which I removed “The” from “The priority method” in a subheading of the article “Computability theory”.

–Wavelength (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your change in this section title. When you make changes like that and notice an HTML-comment about other articles wikilinking to the section you like to change, then please update the linking articles as well. In this particular case there were two redirected articles, so I made the changes for you (here and here). Could you please be more careful next time? TIA and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to that oversight. I do intend to be more careful next time and afterward.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Rabbi#The_word where I explained why I reverted one of your edits. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am all the more surprised now that I saw the discussion referred to above at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Section_titles. You know that there is a difference between titles and headers, and still you continue making the edits? Debresser (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary has a link to MOS:HEAD, which says "The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well". In my judgement, the article was not necessary for clarity.

I participated in that discussion, and I waited for a resolution, but when it appeared that the discussion had been abandoned, I resumed the process of revising headings.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case I think the article was desirable. In general, if a discussion is left undecided that means per definition, that there is no consensus for making changes. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on VA/E/BH requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Archaios (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly started “VA/E/BH” instead of “WP:VA/E/BH”.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Numeronym, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2x4 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that link.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi awesome Wikipedia editing and adding. The Index of radiation articles u created I also was going to make one. Can it have any radiation article added to it as long as it is above semi radiation important, I just added electromagnetic radiation, and Ionizing radiation is that okay they do qualify. Maybe I will link index of radiation articles to others to help get it notable. Plus I just received a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for my List of plasma (physics) articles, List of laser articles and list of infrared articles that I just recently created. If u want it would be awesome for u to use your cognitive killer instinct and not compassionate kind instinct choice on commenting on whether these articles should be kept or deleted friend to the end at wolds end The end no to be continued.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what is meant by "above semi radiation important". Also, you might wish to study Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi above 50% relating to radiation or important enough to add it to radiation list, there are some related radiation articles that might not be all about radiation should those be added.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you make a new section at Talk:Index of radiation articles, call that section “Possible entries”, and list there the articles which you think might be suitable for adding to Index of radiation articles.

Also, I have seen some of your messages on various pages, and I noticed that some of your writing is unclear. If you could write more clearly, that would make reading easier for anyone who reads what you write. My Google search for how to write clearly reported 574,000,000 results.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - since you edited the Berlin page within the last couple months, I'm writing to ask if you'd like to weigh in on a current content dispute that has resulted in a request for comment. The issue, simply, is whether the Berlin article should include an image of the "Buddy Bears" or not. Thanks for your time, Sindinero (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment, I have edited the article twice, my latest revision having been at 00:34, 12 January 2012.

I do not remember having ever heard of Buddy Bears before I read your message to me. My Internet research via Google led me to "United Buddy Bears" and http://www.buddy-baer.com/.

I have decided to refrain from participation in the discussion, but I suggest placing an image on the page "List of sights in Berlin".

—Wavelength (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wavelength. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that comment you added asking that List of lists of lists not be added to itself. I'm curious if this is a personal preference or if it's rooted in the WP:MOS. I don't see anything discouraging self-referential lists in WP:LIST, WP:STAND or WP:SELF. Pburka (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added that comment at 20:10, 19 February 2012, because that entry had previously been removed several times by three different editors, and stability of the article in this respect seemed to be desirable.

• 08:56, 18 February 2012 by User:Jenks24
• 08:16, 14 February 2012 by User:Jenks24
• 18:29, 19 April 2011 by User:Yvesnimmo
• 01:49, 3 March 2011 by User:Yvesnimmo
• 23:30, 2 March 2011 by User:Yvesnimmo
• 16:45, 26 February 2011 by User:Discospinster
• 01:45, 26 February 2011 by User:Discospinster
• 01:44, 26 February 2011 by User:Discospinster

If there is consensus for the list to be stable in listing itself, with a hidden comment requesting continued inclusion, then I can accept that decision. If there is no consensus on this point (either for inclusion or for exclusion), then that entry will likely be added and removed repeatedly in the future.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...for your contribution to the article NXIVM!Chrisrus (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.—Wavelength (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of online reference desks is impressive! wow, nice work. -- œ^™ 04:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—Wavelength (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful list. TY. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are welcome.—Wavelength (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, recently you posted at my talkpage, and I did not get back to you. Sorry about that! I have been preoccupied with dealings at ArbCom (see this case, where the Workshop page is still open). It follows the difficulties at WT:TITLE over the last couple of months. Back to normal soon, I hope.

Best wishes.

– Noetica^Tea? 10:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Occasionally, I look at your contributions, and thus I found that sub-sub-sub-subpage yesterday.

Probably I will refrain from participation there, but I still wait hopefully for improvements to result for WP:MOS and its subpages, and for WT:MOS and the talk pages of those subpages. I very much appreciate your patient persistence toward a better atmosphere for editors.

I noticed that mention was made (at that sub-sub-sub-subpage) of informative edit summaries, and I remember the discussion (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 126#Edits in WP:MOS that lack informative summaries) in which I said to you (at 01:20, 26 September 2011) the following, which is still true today.

I wish to follow your example in reverting inadequately summarized edits, but I would find it easier to do so if I could link in my edit summary to (the shortcut of) a supporting guideline at Help:Edit summary. Please initiate a discussion at Help talk:Edit summary for inclusion of such a guideline. Those pages are now on my watchlist, and I am ready to support your initiative.

I recently posted to your talk page about a list (User talk:Noetica#Moving "List of lists of ancient kings" to "Lists of ancient kings"), but afterward the list was redirected to a category.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you are maintaining Wikipedia:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject. Do you need to enter a particular project on that page before the bot creates and updates the page? I am asking because WikiProject Wales is missing on the page and the list is not created. Agathoclea (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, entries on that page are only for popular pages reports that already exist. The page for requesting a new popular pages report is http://toolserver.org/%7Ealexz/pop/config.php, but new requests "are not currently being accepted". The reports have been programmed by User:Mr.Z-man. I have added "Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Popular pages" to my watchlist, so that I can be notified if and when a request for that report is accepted and processed.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Agathoclea (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "In other editors' words, Wikipedia is turning, has been turned, has turned into, an "American television watchers' encyclopedia"?".

Shouldn't Wikipedia strive to be a better encyclopedia?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big_Bang_Theory_(disambiguation)#Primary_Topic_RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.12.150 (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the heading of this section from In other editors' words, Wikipedia is turning, has been turned, has turned into, an "American television watchers' encyclopedia"? to "American television watchers' encyclopedia", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a systemic bias in regard to which topics have articles, and in regard to perspective in many articles. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Wikipedia can be a better encyclopedia if all Wikipedians strive individually to be better editors, both in expertise and in values. Entertainment is inadequate as a substitute for encouragement. I thank you for the invitation, but I will probably not join the discussion at the talk page to which you linked.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed Jimbo. Copy avaiable if desired. Also sent a copy to User:Phillippe with the Foundation.```Buster Seven Talk 05:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me.—Wavelength (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I'd rather just let others form a community consensus about the issue, and I'll respectfully defer to that. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link to my posting at 16:58, 2 April 2012. In it, I included a news link with information that might benefit Wikipedia.

This is a link to my posting at 16:59, 2 April 2012. In it, I included an educational link with information that might benefit Wikipedia.

This is a link to a posting at 19:02, 2 April 2012 by User:Aspro, asking me about the relevance and purpose of my posting at 16:58, 2 April 2012.

This is a link to your removal, at 19:32, 2 April 2012, of my postings at 16:58 and 16:59, 2 April 2012.

This is the message that I was about to post in reply to Aspro, when I noticed your message on my talk page.

If editors want to be competent writers for Wikipedia, then that link can help them to do so. I posted it here so that Jimbo Wales can refer to it and possibly publicize it, and so that anyone else watching this talk page can refer to it and possibly publicize it.

The relevance and purpose of my posting seemed to me to be obvious to most people reading it, and I was surprised to be asked those questions, and I spent some time in composing answers that seemed to me to be adequate and polite.

Both of my postings were made for the benefit of Wikipedia, and not for commercial advertising and not for commercial promotion.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wavelength,

I don't know if the edits you made here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historical Atlas and here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject critical source examination are apropriate. Talk pages are for discusions about the articles not for advertising products.Daanschr (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit and this edit, I posted the following message.

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.

The second paragraph of Wikipedia:HighBeam (permanent link here) says the following.

As of March 13, 2012 HighBeam has generously agreed to give free, full-access 1-year accounts for Wikipedia editors to use, at the discretion of the community. HighBeam is excited about this and does not expect there to be a shortage of these free, 1-year accounts; however, editors will have to have a 1 year-old account and 1000 edits in order to qualify for one. At the end of 1 year, editors who found the resource useful can simply re-apply.

What I advertised was free access to a valuable resource for the benefit of Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Highbeam has anything to do with the articles you used for this announcements. You can also post your messages on another place on Wikipedia.Daanschr (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove your edits tomorrow. If you dissagree, then we can discuss about it on the two talk pages.Daanschr (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message, but I haven't received any replies yet. Special:Contributions/KappaPhi – KappaPhi appears to be a single-purpose account. I have a hunch that KappaPhi is related to an account called "Marodil", but I don't have any solid evidence to connect them. May the wikipediocracy.com link please be restored until a more reliable user stumbles upon the problem? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored that entry. You might wish to use McAfee SiteAdvisor to find out what it says about the website.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You Good Buddy Maxstygian (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have examined your contributions, I do not know the reason for this barnstar.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Roles of chemical elements, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mercury, Respiration and Batteries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of American non-fiction environmental writers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American non-fiction environmental writers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of American non-fiction environmental writers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.—Wavelength (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating List of American non-fiction environmental writers and for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for the public. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this kudos. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good hyphen-work on the Conversation page. Thx!

Piratejosh85 (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC) and 22:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wavelength. Do you have admin access? I would love to get a private copy of the deleted article you mentioned on Jimbo's Talk page. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 17:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(For convenient reference, this is a link to my message in which I mentioned "Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding" at User talk:Jimbo Wales.)

Unfortunately, I do not have administrator access. I wish that I had saved a copy before it was deleted.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it looks like a really bad example. The user basically said they were going to AfD it until it disappeared. There didn't appear to be consensus. The person with a COI voted themselves repeatedly. Aggressive and persistent lobbying for its removal may have successfully censored content from Wikipedia. If the lawsuit didn't deserve an article, why wasn't the content just moved to the company page? But it's hard to judge without seeing it. Oh well. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been archived to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 105#Paid consulting for a deletion review.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice an editor has removed author links from a book list here. Doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. What do you think? Johnfos (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That revision is similar to this revision of "List of environmental books" at 22:53, 3 May 2008 by the same editor. I prefer to be able to reach the article about the author by clicking once instead of twice. I disagree with that editor about the criterion of readability. Different editors see things differently, so I consulted a guideline. "WP:OVERLINK" (version of 01:54, 24 May 2012) says that links may be repeated in tables.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you added the Bicycology article to a couple of categories, including Cycling organisations in the United Kingdom which only included one other article. I immediately thought of a few articles which seemed to belong in that category so I checked them out and found that most of them were in the category Cycling in the United Kingdom of which Cycling organisations in the United Kingdom is a subcategory, so I removed them from the parent category and added them to the subcategory. I assume that articles should be placed in the most specific appropriate category (or categories if there is more than one to which it obviously belongs) and it looks like there is quite a bit of work that could be done sorting it all out. By the way, in November 2010 L.tak added a notability template to the Bicycology article. Since then I have added some more secondary sources and I believe that it does meet notability criteria. If you agree then could you consider removing the template (I could do it myself but I would prefer someone else to do it since I am the main contributor to the article). Thanks. Ianji (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the notability template at 21:06, 3 June 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ianji (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power, Profit and Protest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasmania's Wilderness Battles... thanks... Johnfos (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, could you look at WP:VPP#The newcomer's manual. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 23:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 96#The newcomer's manual.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me in the right direction about whom to contact for this. Toolserver Version WikiProject Texas Recent Changes is down. A similiar one for Texas A & M is also down. Other project watchlists seem to be working. Whom do I contact about this? Thanks for your help. Maile66 (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact the editor at User talk:Tim1357.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on that editor's talk page on June 14, and nothing happened. Now it's been automatically archived over there. I don't know if this is of interest to you or not, but that editor hasn't been active much since March 2012. Just an FYI, in case the projects are reliant on this editor for anything else. Maile66 (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. You might be able to find help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (shortcut: WP:VPT), but I am not sure about that.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "(",)".

Thank you for your contribution of Ocean acidification and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to Ocean acidification. Please see wp:Tea. 99.181.142.87 (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.—Wavelength (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the heading of this section from (",) to Ocean acidification, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could i direct you to WP:VPM#U:? Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 17:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added CSD to UT:Wavelength. Sorry about that. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 22:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification also.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to All pages with titles beginning with U: (two pages) and All pages with titles beginning with UT: (one page).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is about to be archived to either Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 38#U: or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 39#U: in the near future.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on U:Wavelength, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification. My search for the button was unsuccessful.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to All pages with titles beginning with U: (two pages) and All pages with titles beginning with UT: (one page).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you mentioned me in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Edit summaries, and you seem to be saying that edits should be regarded on their own merit, even if they don't have an edit summary — that knee-jerk reversion of edits solely because they don't have an edit summary is not a good idea. Thanks.

I'm trying to help new editors choose appropriate article titles, ensure that article titles and category titles are reasonably consistent, and suggest that they do adequate research before large-scale renaming of articles. With that in mind, I made edits to Wikipedia:Article_titles and Wikipedia:Categorization/Naming to make this clearer. However User:Dicklyon immediately reverted my edits, essentially because there was no edit summary and no extensive prior discussion on the talk page. After I rephrased the change to Wikipedia:Article_titles, to make it clear that it was logically connecting the first section to the second section, he again reverted it. I explained the two separate points that I was trying to get across in two sections on the talk page and he combined them into one section. He does not see to understand the point about researching categories, as he himself admits, and is continuing to obstruct any editing for clarity. I'd appreciate your comments on the Talk page.

PS: As you point out, I've spent quite a bit of time improving articles. The Responsive Web Design article was deleted soon after somebody created it, and I had it undeleted and have improved it such that it has gone from under 100 daily pageviews in January, when it was created and promptly deleted, to peaks of nearly 1800 daily pageviews now. LittleBen (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At 16:34, 28 June 2012, I posted the following message to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

• See also these contributions to the Manual of Style by User:LittleBenW, and look for an adequately informative edit summary. For comparison, here is a link to that editor's general contributions to Wikipedia.

I found no other mention of your username on that talk page. Higher up on the page, there is the following message from me and originally posted by me at User talk:Noetica at 22:37, 27 June 2012.

• Noetica and watchers, here is a link to the edit, which was performed at 04:20, 27 June 2012.

At 14:56, 28 June 2012, I posted the following message to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

• See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 126#Edits in WP:MOS that lack informative summaries (begun by Noetica at 09:42, 23 September 2011)

and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 101#misleading (deceptive?) edit summaries (begun by Tony1 at 04:02, 17 June 2008).

Please re-read carefully and see that I have not said and I am not now saying what you say I seem to be saying. In fact, I agree with Noetica's prerogative of reverting edits that lack adequately informative edit summaries, and I agree with Dicklyon's prerogative to do likewise. Ideally, edit summaries are not only adequately informative but also adequately concise. (Thinking takes time.) Ideally, section headings, too, are both adequately concise and adequately informative. (Thinking takes time.) An adequately concise and adequately informative section heading facilitates page views, watchlist views, contribution list views, and archive searches. An adequately concise section heading also avoids encroaching on the available space for an edit summary.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC) and 03:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not about section headings at all, one was about logically linking the contents of one section with the next. Quoting my addition to Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title to explain the criteria for Recognizability:

Where there are several possible alternatives, search engines can be used to research which is most frequently used, as discussed in the section below.

The other edit was to explain Consistency:

It seems that most editors do not search existing Category names before naming or renaming Articles — most probably because it's not clear how to do this. I was attempting to emphasize that consistency between Article and Category names is generally a good thing, and link to a description of how to search existing Category names.

LittleBen (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising your indentation, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 9 (Fixing format errors).

—Wavelength (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)][reply]

I am aware that your edits were not about section headings, but I mentioned them here tangentially, because I have previously compared them with edit summaries in regard to adequate conciseness and adequate informativeness.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]