User talk:Yosofun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please don't "cut and paste" entire articles, like you've just done at tetanus. It destroys the history linking the authors of the article to their words. Use the move function instead. - Nunh-huh 08:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh, I did not know of the move function. Thanks for notifying me of this! -me (00:15, 7 Mar 2005 PST)

No problem, live and learn <g> - Nunh-huh 08:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Will do! :)

You do know that four tildes (~~~~) will sign and date your messages, right?<G> - Nunh-huh 08:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still learning! (wowie!) - Yosofun 08:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Image copyright problem with Image:Tetanus.jpg 2 MathCad 3 Re: Philica 4 Articles for Deletion info 5 Re. No consensus 6 Wikilogos

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Tetanus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tetanus.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 05:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MathCad

I've reinstated the line about its use of a Maple-derived algebra engine, MKM. It's certainly true for my of copy of V7, and also for 2000i I read. Linuxlad 11:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you set up a new entry on the MKM? I admit I'm only a "frontend" user in the sense that I haven't yet had to worry about which kernal's being used--only that whatever math magic I input has an acceptable output. I was initially confused by what you meant because MathCAD and Maple's frontend input system (and even Mathematica's) seem completely different. (Yosofun 21:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Re: Philica

(copied reply here to be sure you could see it)

Sorry, I meant that googling "philica" got about 500 hits. A little oddly, philica without quotes gets about 500, and "philica" with quotes gets about 2000 - although Philica also appears to be a surname. In any case, the website is still in beta per its FAQ, so I suspect having an article on it is a little premature. If you'd rather get other opinions the article can be listed at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion for discussion. Opabinia regalis 04:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no minimum number of Google references required for notability, or at least, I'm not aware of any in the Criterias. Also, Philica has been publicized on Nature, which you might know as one of the most mainstream scientific journal, read or skimmed by practically all scientists. [1] Seems pretty notable to me... Yosofun 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion info

Hi, this is regarding the Philica article deletion situation. It is not considered acceptable on Wikipedia to remove the AfD notice from an article. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion for an overall description of how the AfD deletion process works. I see you've been a Wikipedia editor for some time now, but perhaps you haven't dealt with Articles for Deletion before, so I'll sum it up. The AfD discussion goes on for 5 days, after which point an Administrator will review the discussion and decide what the consensus was, and then delete the article, or leave it alone, or do various other things with it (merging it, sending it to wikibooks, etc.). If the article is kept, then the administrator will remove the AfD template from the beginning of the article. It looks unlikely at this point that Philica will be deleted, but you need to wait for an administator to close out the discussion and remove the AfD stuff from the beginning of the Philica article. It's been more than 5 days now, but there is often a backlog and sometimes it takes a few more days until an Administator gets around to closing these things out. --Xyzzyplugh 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification. This is not my first dealing with an AfD, though I admit I have only dealt with very few of those. I've seen that many-a non-administrators (other than myself) in the past have removed the AfD's (c/o deprod edit summary), and I was not aware that a foreign administrator had to waste her time with moderating disputes that have apparently been settled already. I'm going to remove the AfD again, though, since I can't seem to find the requirement of an Admin on the AfD page, and I specifically recall a discussion at Wikimania against such processes. (If this is a missight from my tired eyes, please point out the passage I have missed on the AfD page.) Like I mentioned earlier, if you have anything else to add to the REJECT reasons for Philica, please continue the assumed-closed discussion here. Also, I should mention that since your original reasons for notability did not meet the criteria for Deletion, the AfD tag did not belong on the article in the first place. Therefore, even if there is some sort of process requiring a moderator in the Deletion process, the task of judging the merit of this article ought not to waste that moderator's time. (Yosofun 01:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

I think you may be confusing Wikipedia:Proposed deletion with AfD. In proposed deletion, anyone may remove the Prod tag at any time if they disagree with it. That is probably what you've seen, if you've seen people remove the deletion notice. I'll repeat the fact that AfD notices are not ever supposed to be removed until the AfD debate has been closed. See Template:Afd and look at the template, it clearly states not to remove the notice. This is not just my opinion, this is the agreed upon process that everyone goes by.

Removing the template is bad for multiple reasons. First of all, it will not stop an article from being deleted, if that is what's going to happen. If the Administrator who closes out the AfD debate decides to delete the article, it will be deleted, whether the notice is still on the article or not. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, removing the AfD template from the article keeps people who read the article from realizing that the article is up for deletion. Therefore, removing the template may in fact make the article MORE likely to be deleted, as the people who are most interested in it may not be aware that its in danger of being deleted. --Xyzzyplugh 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy aside, may I ask why you singled out the article for deletion in the first place, rather than listing it as a proposed deletion? It meets WP:WEB 1 and 3 from cursory glance, and it might have won an award so 2's probably in, too. Moreover, since when have Alexa rankings been a criterion for notability? I'd keep the AfD quirks in mind for future articles, if I encounter the notice again, but the tag's not needed now as the points for keep have been stated, and there does not seem a valid reason for Philica's deletion. (And... back to policy -- would you mind spending your time updating the AfD policy, making certain important points stand out -- such as deletion is independent of the presence of the AfD tag on page?) Yosofun 22:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. No consensus

It means there's no strong consensus to either delete or keep the article, and it therefore defaults to getting kept, but there's nothing to stop it from getting nominated again (as opposed to a 'keep'-result, where the article usually should not get nominated again with the same reasoning). In this case, I'm pretty sure someone will nominate the article for deletion again pretty soon unless its notability is clearly established, since the 'keep' comments had weak reasonings behind them and the article itself doesn't back them up. - Bobet 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

go back to where you started: boink

You can read more about notability at WP:N and WP:WEB. In this case, you should try to find reliable sources for the article. It currently only has links to their own website, with no reliable third-party information about what makes it so great. Since it's an online journal, you really shouldn't have trouble finding non-trivial mentions of it on the web. If there aren't any mentions, then it isn't notable and should be deleted, no matter how great you or someone else feels that Philica is. - Bobet 08:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a Nature link in the discussions page; as you might know, getting even a brief line in Nature is considered one of the highest forms of recognition in the world of academics. Does that not suffice? Yosofun 08:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilogos

I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 10:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)