User talk:Andrewa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

G'day! This is Andrew Alder's user talk page, you knew that. Welcome! If you have a suggestion for an article you think I might particularly help with, please add it here, above the first horizontal line. Give as much or as little detail as seems good to you, but do give a link to it! Any other comments wherever you feel they belong, but the bottom of the page is conventional for new topics.

Please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone is saying is no reason to remove it. Is it now?

On the other hand, if the edits you are removing are by banned users (or their socks), then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, it's administrative drudgery, and I thank you for taking it on. But if there's doubt, or if the proposed ban is not yet in force, better to leave me to clean up my own page. A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor would still be appreciated! TIA Andrewa

[edit] Archives of this page

Wow. This page has now again grown to 30k, and there are some things there that I want to remember but a great lot that I don't expect to grow any more so despite earlier comments I'm now going to simply archive a great slab of it. If you want to continue any of those discussions, do so on this page please and link to the item in the archive. Andrewa 21:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And wow again... now to 40k. See user talk:andrewa/archive2. Andrewa 01:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And again... see user talk:andrewa/archive3, user talk:andrewa/archive5. Andrewa 05:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

User talk:andrewa/archive4 is dedicated to Return of the Time Cube. Andrewa 18:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC) This continues in User talk:andrewa/archive6 along with other issues. Andrewa 19:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And now:

• User talk:andrewa/archive7. Andrewa 18:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• User talk:andrewa/archive8. Andrewa 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki FAQs

Hi Andrew. I was thrilled to see your contributions on FAQ Farm (aka Wiki FAQs) the other day. Not all our FAQ Farmers are thoughtful and well-spoken, unfortunately, so I'm always happy to see Wikipedian-quality participants. Let me know anytime you have suggestions, criticisms, or questions about the site. I'm constantly working on making the site better.

Chris Whitten, FAQ Farm Webmaster.

[edit] Wikiversity

I saw your name on the Wikiversity participant's list, you may be very experienced in mathematics already, but I'm trying out instructing a Calculus course if you're interested, go to Wikiveristy, check out the mathematics department, pure mathematics, and in the course list is included Calculus. Fephisto 22:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/School_of_Mathematics:Calculus. Looks interesting. Andrewa 13:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity, a project dedicated to improving articles related to Christianity. At this stage, we are discussing prospects for the project, and your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

--WillMak050389 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was trying to invite all the Christian Wikipedians to WikiProject Christianity because it said to spread the word. This is considered spamming though, so it was removed from your page. If you care to join, the link above should work and you can help Wikipedia expand the Christian articles. See the page for complete details. Thank you for inquiring. --WillMak050389 03:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks for the invitation.

Of course this wasn't ever spam, and its deletion was censorship. But hey, remember we're the good guys! We must be prepared to put up with injustices like this.

And of course the Jason Gastrich disaster didn't help. Andrewa 00:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank you so very much for your comments on my talk page about my "internal spamming". Though I realize (yeah, I'm American) I maybe should have not invited every Christian on Wikipedia and limited my invitations to those who have taken a large interest in Christian-related articles, I believe that the attack by others was too harsh. We Wikipedians that hold tight to our beliefs need to stick together and have the will power to ignore those that choose to attack us. I hope to be talking to you again, and thank you for your comments.
I also would like to award you this well-deserved accolade. (I'm giving it to you here because I didn't know where you keep your awards.) --WillMak050389 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For being there and having the power to stand up with me against those who are opposed to our beliefs. --WillMak050389 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll have to think about that. It's the first award I've ever received. Thank you, it's appreciated. Andrewa 02:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solar updraft tower

I noticed that you have made a number of constructive contributions to Solar chimney in the past. That article has been cut/pasted/reassembled/morphed/transmogrified into Solar updraft tower. I have been trying to put in an unbiased assesment of its strengths and weaknesses. The problem I am facing now is that the article has been totally revamped by an editor from Australia, most likely somebody who is on the payroll of EnviroMission, and who has pretty much edited out anything that is even remotely critical of EnviroMission's POV. It now pretty much reads like a brochure of EnviroMission. For comparison you may want to have a look at my Revison as of 23:11, 7 July 2006 to see what is going on. Going back in the history of that article reveals that this kind of stuff has been going on before, and that you were one of the people who tried to counter it.
I intend to revert it to a more unbiased POV once the guy is gone, but I would be very appreciative of any support I can get for that endeavour. Specifically I noticed that some time in the remote past you put in the following paragraph:

This principle has been proposed for power generation, using a large greenhouse at the base rather than relying on heating of the chimney itself. The main problem with this approach is the relatively small difference in temperature between the highest and lowest temperatures in the system. Carnot's theorem greatly restricts the efficiency of conversion in these circumstances.

This paragraph is one of things that went by the wayside recently. I actually engaged the guy in a dicussion of that issue; see Talk:Solar updraft tower#Carnot engine. Anyway, I hope that you are interested to put the page on your watch list, and monitor what is going on. JdH 19:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to make Solar tower a disambiguation page

We are having a bit of a discussion about a possible name change of the Solar tower, see Proposal to make Solar tower a disambiguation page. Your input would be appreciated. JdH 17:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have mail

at missiontechwiki (once I've written it).

[edit] Image:Spkrdinplug.jpg listed for deletion

Support this deletion. Thanks for the better image, and the heads-up on it. Andrewa 14:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I reverted your talk page

Just leaving you a note to explain why I reverted your talk page: the text I removed was a spurious/vexatious request from User:HotHotSoup, the latest sockpuppet of User:PoolGuy, spamming the talk pages of admins (and a few non-admins), and apparently working alphabetically. Contributions of a banned user may be reverted by anyone, but if you would still like the message to be included here, feel free to revert back. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No problems, and thanks for the heads-up. I have no objection to your reverting edits by banned users. Thanks also for the effort you are putting into this. Andrewa 13:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creed

I have linked to your creed from my userpage; well done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict identification and resolution on Wikipedia as an administrator we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=201962477432 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

I have restored this edit quite deliberately. There seems nothing in Wikipedia policy to justify its removal. Perhaps there should be, but there isn't. Andrewa 07:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pale

Hi, thanks for doing the Pale move. Is there a reason why you didn't also move Talk:Pale to Talk:The Pale??--Srleffler 03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It didn't seem necessary to me, or even a good idea. The various talk pages all have significant page histories. I didn't move Talk:Pale (jurisdiction) either.

The significance of the history of a talk page is completely different to that of an article. With articles, we're primarily interested in complying with the GFDL. With a talk page, we don't normally need the history for GFDL compliance, as the contents are already signed. What the history still gives us is an assurance that the signatures and timestamps are accurate.

Similarly, the contents of talk pages don't have the same significance as those of articles. The important thing with an article is the coherent final product. With a talk page it's more being able to follow the strings of discussion.

I felt that it was more confusing to move the pages than to leave them as are. If you find the current setup confusing, my suggestion is just to add explanatory comments to the relevant talk pages. Of course, that isn't an option with an article. There's also less problem with putting pointers to relevant section of the other page, or even cut and paste moves. But looking at the existing contents of the tslk pages, I didn't feel these were necessary anyway. The aim should be, make what has happened obvious to future readers, so they don't need to reinvent the wheel. If a move would help with this, then it's worth the trouble.

Do you think the talk pages should be moved? Why? Andrewa 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It seemed less confusing to me to keep the talk pages with the articles they related to. Having the talk page from what is now The Pale remain with the article at Pale (which was formerly (Pale (jurisdiction)) just seems confusing. Instead, I archived the former talk page from The Pale at Talk:The Pale/Archive 1 and made appropriate links, so both articles end up with a mostly-fresh talk page, rather than a talk page full of discussion about a different article.--Srleffler 06:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Thanks for the heads-up, but I don't recall editing that page, nor do I see myself in the history -- are you sure I'm the person you meant to notify? Regards — Dan | talk 07:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right. Well, I still don't remember it, and I have no particular opinion on the issue, so long as the related articles end up consistent (either all capitalized or all not). Again, thanks anyway for the notification. — Dan | talk 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, how odd -- apparently someone moved it and I moved it back. It seems (judging by conversation on the talk page) I was mistaken about it being properly capitalized as a title. No matter; I'm sure it will end up in the right place this time. — Dan | talk 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power as a renewable energy source

Have you been following Talk:Renewable energy? I don't have time to keep up this fight against the people who want to remove all mention of it from the article. See my post on the Village pump. — Omegatron 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, this particular debate will continue in Wikipedia for some time! Thanks for your input.

Sigh. I wish it didn't...

I haven't been monitoring these particular articles lately,

I know. I've been accused of leading a one-man crusade to maintain the consensus from last year, since everyone else left.

and suggest that if you do (and I hope you will), you take Wikibreaks from them from time to time, and contribute less controversial stuff. This will help your own perspective and motivation.

I did, along with others. The section is now being deleted by every well-meaning newcomer who swings by, not understanding that it's not our place to define terms and make decisions; just to report on the debate.

Can you comment on Talk:Renewable_energy#Nuclear_energy_debate? — Omegatron 13:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Andrewa 15:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I should probably take your advice and just drop it. But I know it will be removed as soon as someone isn't looking, and it really belongs in the article, as several people agreed a while ago. But they all stopped paying attention to it, so maybe I should give up, too.  :-/ — Omegatron 16:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

nnnn nnnn Hang in there. Andrewa 16:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] requested move

Hi there, thanks for intervening in the University of Wisconsin discussion. It seems that the debate has come to an end. Could you please move the article to its unambiguous name University of Wisconsin-Madison? From the long discussion, I can see that creating a disambig page for University of Wisconsin is acceptable to most editors there. Thanks. Miaers 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:University of Wisconsin#Proposed move - Resolution. No objections yet. Assuming there are none within 24 hours of my posting that proposal, it will be done. Andrewa 05:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, this is to remind you that there has been no objections about the proposal and it is now ready for you to make relevant changes. Miaers 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The move of University of Wisconsin-Madison has broken the links on a whole bunch of templates. I see that you included %20 for space and such - is it possible to fix the page to properly be the page University_of_Wisconsin-Madison? • master_son^{Lets talk} 12:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you be specific as to what templates are now broken?

I think you may be mistaken about the %20. Possibly, the problem is the dash. Andrewa 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• {{University of Wisconsin}}
• {{Big Ten Conference}}
• {{Western Collegiate Hockey Association}}
• {{Committee on Institutional Cooperation}}
• {{Worldwide Universities Network}}
• {{Association of American Universities}}

(i tried to fix one, but the others don't follow yet.)

Actually if you visit any of the pages on {{University of Wisconsin}}, you will find that the sattelite universities use a hyphen. You used an "em dash" which is an odd character in urls. and it is also not consistent with the sattelite universities.

Just rename the page as University of Wisconsin-Madison to fix it.--• master_son^{Lets talk} 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately just rename would lose significant history. But I think it's fixed now. Andrewa 01:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The templates now work good. The templates were pointed to the disambig as were some 1200 other articles in Wikipedia. Luckily I have AWB rights, so I went through all but 900 and change of them and corrected the links so that the assumption is made. It might be a good idea to put a disambiguation tag on the page (but just a suggestion...)

Please sign your posts on talk pages.

I'm a bit skeptical that the change you've made is correct in 900 cases. Better if in any doubt to have them point to the disambiguation page... which is already tagged as such.

If you mean we should have a disambiguation tag on the unambiguously named University of Wisconsin System or University of Wisconsin-Madison articles, then I don't agree.

The see also tag at the top of one of them is IMO not very helpful, although not harmful enough that I'd remove it. The article itself should contain sufficient information and wikilinks to enable navigation, which is far better than a link that says see also but doesn't give any idea of why you should see also. If you can think of a better tag, please add it! Andrewa 03:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Straw (politician) move

Why no consensus on this Requested move? There were four Oppose votes and six Support votes. Philip Stevens 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not any sort of consensus. If any one person had changed their vote, it would be a deadlock, even numerically. Andrewa 20:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• What majority does it take to be a consensus? Philip Stevens 05:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not that simple. There was a rejected policy proposal that it be 60%, see Wikipedia:Supermajority, but in the end the existing policy that Wikipedia is not a Democracy was upheld. The 60% figure would be achieved... just... by counting your vote as proposer. I suppose I could have voted against it to decide the issue, but I didn't feel it necessary.

Do you feel that consensus has been achieved? Have you asked any of the opponents to reconsider their views? Andrewa 20:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Guitarists!

Hi!, thanks for signing up. We are dedicated to improving all guitarist articles, including bass guitarists and all genres. We also work on guitar equipment articles. Check out our main project page and see the to-do list for places to get started. Welcome! Anger22 22:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organ pipe, Organ stop and Pipe organ

Hi Andrew,

I have just been looking into the Pipe organ and surrounding articles, and I think that the article you created at Organ pipe is almost redundant thanks to the great deal of work that has improved the Pipe organ page, which seems to now supercede your article. How do you feel about merging Organ pipe back into Pipe organ? I feel that a more specific article should contain more specific information. I don't think this one does any more! Would you take a look and give me your opinion? I'd be interested to see what you think of the Organ stop page, which isn't as good as it could be.

Many thanks,

Mdcollins1984 13:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't had a lot of time for this lately, but I'll have a look. I've no opposition to the merge in theory. Andrewa 19:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)