This is an archive of past discussions with User:It Is Me Here. 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.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hi IIMH- Just an FYI-- have you looked at your user page in Firefox? Your All my accounts section is walking all over your Babel box. -Erictalk20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I found this this graphic that you have uploaded, used a bit everywhere apparently to prove things as different as racial differences and patriarchy. Could you please provide any feedback? As far as I understood it is just an example of a series of "bell curve" about normal distribution but each curve doesn'trefer to anything specific. Am I correct? If not, can you please provide a bit of simple feedback? thanks --Dia^ (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...interesting. If I did have something to do with this image, I don't remember it I'm afraid. I certainly did not create it - the only possibility is that I copied it to the Commons from Wikipedia because there was a template asking someone to do so. So, like I say, I cannot offer any advice as to the nature or content of the image, sorry. It Is Me Here (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, I always try to be helpful. The general notability guideline says that an article is notable if it has been covered by reliable sources independent of the subject. A reference from your own website is helpful to validate information, but it can't assert notability. Notability can only be asserted by a site or magazine that operates totally independently, like gamespy or ign. It also has to be reliable, so it can't just be someone else's blog. See the policy on reliable sources and the policy against self-published sources. This is a tough standard for a lot of topics to meet, and a lot of non-notable articles exist for a long time without anybody noticing. Usually you need at least two references.
Actually, this site looks like it would meet the requirements. It mentions Europa Barborum, and even though I can't read Dutch it looks like it's a reliable source by wikipedia standards. If you can find one more, you might be okay. Two more and nobody can touch you. Scratch that. I think "member recensies" roughly translates to "user reviews", and so this would violate the policy on using self-published sources. This article will be tough. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Simple English
I have temporarily unblocked the range you are editing from so that you may create the account. Because of mass sockpuppets, it will have to be re-softblocked afterwards. Creol (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The block is set to "Block anonymous only" and "No account creation". You should be able to edit normally as long as you are logged in. Creol (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The .svg image in the table on the right of the article comes from here, a template created for the article. User:Leolaursen edited this template on 14 July to make the picture a .svg. See this difference for how they did it. To find a template like this, look on the main article page and you will see something like this at at the top: {{EXAPMLE infobox}}. The just type in Template:EXAMPLE infobox to the search box to see the template.
Does this help? - tholly--Turnip--18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I noticed and edited such templates for other similar articles, but didn't see the template for that one - oh well, thanks! It Is Me Here (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Crystal Clear app clock.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Your rollback request
Hello It Is Me Here, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Just remember that rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism, and that misuse of the tool (either by using them to revert good-faith edits or to revet-war) can lead to its removal. For practice, you may be interested in seeing Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! I didn't find anything wrong in the edits I reviewed, so it didn't take me long. :) Be careful, and good luck. Acalamari19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If you put your refs in with ALREADY BROKEN <ref> tags... like <xref> habitually FIRST, you can preview, and catch the errors as you make them. When one is proofed, remove the 'x' AND just keep on trucking. (I make lots of typos too... big fingers! Same trick works inside template coding in <Xincludeonly> && <Xnoinclude> block coding... just fix up before saving permanently) Cheers! // FrankB19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In what seems to be something of a Catch-22, the only people who might be able to understand some of these articles would be people who know all about the subject matter anyway and so wouldn't need to read them.
I have seen and edited far more Wikipedia mathematics articles than all but a very small number of people—maybe five or six. I've seen this compmlaint expressed repeatedly, but I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone attempt to cite examples. You mentioned Lorentz transformation and special relativity. I'm not sure if you intended those to be examples of the "catch-22" you describe. (If you did, they certainly fail.) Some articles aren't very good, of course, and I've seen some really weird stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if there really are math articles that can only be understood by those who already know everything in them, so maybe someone really can cite one. And there are many articles that lack suitable initial context setting in their early versions, but that's not the same thing.
I've seen many many cases of math articles where I did NOT know their material before I read them, and learned it from reading them. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
To be honest with you, I'm not sure why my examples should "fail", but nevertheless, when I came across this article I was lost after the introduction as the article just launches into some formula, apparently expecting that its reader will understand the mathematics behind it (which is not necessarily going to be the case). Thus, all I want is that there be links to areas of the various Mediawiki sites where people can go in order to understand some of these formulae. Just like words and phrases can be wikilinked so that people can learn (more) about a certain topic, so should equations be, in effect, wikilinked, albeit using external means. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your claim was that they would be understood ONLY by those who already know the material. That is clearly NOT true of the article titled Lucas–Lehmer primality test; it looks like something a good high-school student would understand. If I write something that can be understood by a broad audience of professional mathematicians who are NOT alread familiar with what I'm writing about, often I'd consider it a success, and CERTAINLY I would be innocent of the charge of writing something that would be understood only by those who already know the material. It may be true in SOME cases that it can be re-written to make it clear to most 6th-graders, but it is still not the case that it would be understood ONLY by those who already know the material.
Look, you need to be clear about something. Is your complaint
(1) That articles are not comprehensible to a broad audience of non-mathematicians; or
(2) That articles are written only so that those who already know the material can understand them. ?
Which is it? Now perhaps it could be both. But you should not keep changing it back and forth like this. You say "Articles are written so that ONLY those who already know it all can understand them." Then when asked for an example, you point to one and change your complaint: "This is not written so that lay readers can understand it." Possibly true, but it's a DIFFERENT thing from what you said initially and it does not support your initial complaint. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, I see what you mean - my complaint is the first one: that articles are not comprehensible to a broad audience of non-mathematicians. However, from now on could you please discuss this topic at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Easy_as_pi.3F? Because it is hard for me to track two discussions at once, and moreover your input is important to the general debate going on there and so it would be more useful if everyone who is currently participating in it could read what you have to say. It Is Me Here (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I understand, but please keep discussion of this topic over at WP:VPR - I regularly read people's replies to my ideas over there and it is sufficient to post this once for me to read it. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Letter SVGs
Good work on converting PNGs to SVGs on the letter articles, such as N. Please be careful not to blow up the page if the "native" size of the SVG is much larger than the PNG it is replacing, though; I've found specifying an output size of 64x64px in the image link works well. Thanks! Anomie⚔16:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Gah, I've tried editing those pages some more, and have just run into problems. The SVGs I created in Inkscape and added to A are now bizarrely too zoomed-in, as it were, and no size parameters seem to register for the image at Latin alpha - help! It Is Me Here (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see; actually, it's using completely the wrong font. Wikipedia doesn't have many fonts installed for SVG rendering, if you need a font not listed at m:SVG fonts you'll have to use the "Object to Path" command under the "Path" menu. Also, you might want to consider whether {{PD-text}} could apply to the letter images; I suppose it mostly depends on whether the font used is considered a "common font". Anomie⚔01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In what seems to be something of a Catch-22, the only people who might be able to understand some of these articles would be people who know all about the subject matter anyway and so wouldn't need to read them.
I have seen and edited far more Wikipedia mathematics articles than all but a very small number of people—maybe five or six. I've seen this compmlaint expressed repeatedly, but I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone attempt to cite examples. You mentioned Lorentz transformation and special relativity. I'm not sure if you intended those to be examples of the "catch-22" you describe. (If you did, they certainly fail.) Some articles aren't very good, of course, and I've seen some really weird stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if there really are math articles that can only be understood by those who already know everything in them, so maybe someone really can cite one. And there are many articles that lack suitable initial context setting in their early versions, but that's not the same thing.
I've seen many many cases of math articles where I did NOT know their material before I read them, and learned it from reading them. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
To be honest with you, I'm not sure why my examples should "fail", but nevertheless, when I came across this article I was lost after the introduction as the article just launches into some formula, apparently expecting that its reader will understand the mathematics behind it (which is not necessarily going to be the case). Thus, all I want is that there be links to areas of the various Mediawiki sites where people can go in order to understand some of these formulae. Just like words and phrases can be wikilinked so that people can learn (more) about a certain topic, so should equations be, in effect, wikilinked, albeit using external means. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your claim was that they would be understood ONLY by those who already know the material. That is clearly NOT true of the article titled Lucas–Lehmer primality test; it looks like something a good high-school student would understand. If I write something that can be understood by a broad audience of professional mathematicians who are NOT alread familiar with what I'm writing about, often I'd consider it a success, and CERTAINLY I would be innocent of the charge of writing something that would be understood only by those who already know the material. It may be true in SOME cases that it can be re-written to make it clear to most 6th-graders, but it is still not the case that it would be understood ONLY by those who already know the material.
Look, you need to be clear about something. Is your complaint
(1) That articles are not comprehensible to a broad audience of non-mathematicians; or
(2) That articles are written only so that those who already know the material can understand them. ?
Which is it? Now perhaps it could be both. But you should not keep changing it back and forth like this. You say "Articles are written so that ONLY those who already know it all can understand them." Then when asked for an example, you point to one and change your complaint: "This is not written so that lay readers can understand it." Possibly true, but it's a DIFFERENT thing from what you said initially and it does not support your initial complaint. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, I see what you mean - my complaint is the first one: that articles are not comprehensible to a broad audience of non-mathematicians. However, from now on could you please discuss this topic at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Easy_as_pi.3F? Because it is hard for me to track two discussions at once, and moreover your input is important to the general debate going on there and so it would be more useful if everyone who is currently participating in it could read what you have to say. It Is Me Here (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I understand, but please keep discussion of this topic over at WP:VPR - I regularly read people's replies to my ideas over there and it is sufficient to post this once for me to read it. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Letter SVGs
Good work on converting PNGs to SVGs on the letter articles, such as N. Please be careful not to blow up the page if the "native" size of the SVG is much larger than the PNG it is replacing, though; I've found specifying an output size of 64x64px in the image link works well. Thanks! Anomie⚔16:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Gah, I've tried editing those pages some more, and have just run into problems. The SVGs I created in Inkscape and added to A are now bizarrely too zoomed-in, as it were, and no size parameters seem to register for the image at Latin alpha - help! It Is Me Here (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see; actually, it's using completely the wrong font. Wikipedia doesn't have many fonts installed for SVG rendering, if you need a font not listed at m:SVG fonts you'll have to use the "Object to Path" command under the "Path" menu. Also, you might want to consider whether {{PD-text}} could apply to the letter images; I suppose it mostly depends on whether the font used is considered a "common font". Anomie⚔01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Your RfA
Respectfully request that you withdraw. People with less than 2500 edits or so simply do not pass RfAs. Let me know if you're interested. If you gain more experience in different areas, you can always come back to RfA later. Enigmamessage15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
...If I'm interested in withdrawing, do you mean? Anyway, it does certainly look like I'm not going to pass this time round, but I would rather keep it open a while longer to get more feedback; I might withdraw in a few days. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thirded what Enigma says... if you want to keep it open a little while longer, that's your perjogative, but it is reaching the point where it could be snowed... generally, we'll let doomed RfAs run if they are getting double digit supports, but to close those that don't. I would suggest withdrawing if it gets to 25 opposes and fewer than 10 supports---otherwise it might bite you in the future when you run again. At this point you won't get much new feedback.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon19:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm very interested to see your answer to question 4. Should you choose to answer it, of course. It is optional, which means you don't have to answer it if you don't want to! But it will certainly look better if you did, even if its only a short answer. Happy editing :-) John Sloan (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
WOW! Your answer certainly isn't short! Thanks for answering the question, going to go and read it now... :-) John Sloan (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Totally understandable. In response to your answer to Q4, i'd think an extended block would be the next action to take on IP, should he vandalise again after his current block. A ban would shorly be the very last option. John Sloan (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL, that would be surely! Thats what happens when you try to watch Big Brother at the same time as editing :D John Sloan (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That was by far the most in-depth dissection of my optional question thus far. I'm not going to participate in your RFA because of the way in which it came to my attention, but I was curious, is there anything that you can suggest as to make the scenario easier to follow? –xeno (talk)22:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. The way in which it came to your attention? That does not sound good - what happened? Also, I think the main issue is with the messages on α's and β's talk pages; are they messages put there by others (which is what I gathered after a while, and if so, you should include the messages' authors, like γ and ε, which would be available to you in real life), or permanent messages put there to ward off vandals and unconnected to IP, or what? It Is Me Here (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Even though I've opposed your RfA and argued against several votes, I really do not dislike you as an editor. You're clearly on the right road and I'd bet a lot of money on you passing next time round in a few months. I hope you understand my concerns with my oppose, although I know that it could come across kinda nit-picky. I'm developing set RfA criteria for future use to prevent this happening again. Best of luck, you seem to be obtaining a fair amount of support now, and if you have any queries about using Wikipedia whilst your RfA is still running or after it ends, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards —CyclonenimT@lk?17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks, I'll bear that in mind. If the RfA criteria are going to be in a user subpage of yours, post a link here when they're done. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop to implement SVG in chess-related images for now, as long as we do not know why it breaks up some functionalities
Please tell me if you changed something in another chess-related template or image; if so, please roll it back.
Please do not implement such changes without notice and prior approval from WikiProject Chess. These templates are used in more than 2,000 articles and are more complex than they look.
I see. I think I might know what the problem is. When I first saw the templates, I saw that they had something like {{{34}}} on top and below them - I thought those were mistakes as they showed up on the actual template page and not just in the code, so I removed them as well as SVGifying. Try replacing the PNGs with SVGs but keeping the apparently superfluous numbers in brace brackets in place. I rolled back my edits to the other templates (basically, everything at Template:Chess diagram/doc) too. It Is Me Here (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for applying for NPWatcher!
You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.
