User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive 12

Thanks for participating in my RfA!

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover I was alerted to some understandable concerns having to do with edit warring and civility. I will take heed and carefully address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...but your support of my effort to regain my adminship was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I think I'm in good company. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Eugenics copyvio

Would be nice if you could reply to my comment on Talk:Eugenics#Copyvio. Thanks. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have much to add. We are waiting for an administrator, in my opinion. May I suggest that a single small tag might suffice for your signature, please? It is unreadable on my monitor. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fir Island (Washington)

Nicely done. Basketball110 _{i'm not yik ginlyùn} 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and for taking the time to comment. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

American Crow photos

Hie, RE: your Am. Crow photos on Commons - are they 100% American and not Northwestern? Because if the ID is certain that should be remarked - it's not like anyone could really tell from the images alone ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The ID is not certain. I'm not not expert enough to distinguish the two species and their ranges overlap in Seattle where the images were taken. I'll add a note to the image descriptions. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Fir Island, was selected for DYK!

On February 17, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fir Island, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job!--MONGO 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks for the help with the "hook". Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Well Thank You! Finally I am through with this wretched reference, it's amazing how far a dozen pages of crude 100-year-old field notes can get you when you cross-read them with their modern equivalent... Well what am I gonna do next? Maybe something about orchid bees? Or Phthiraptera? Ahhhh decisions decisions :-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Black Grace

A tag has been placed on Black Grace requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —BradV 01:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The {{db-inc}} tag was removed from the article by Keilana with the edit summary, "not speediable, 2 NYT articles".[1].Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Digital sundial

Sorry, correction was not necessary. There is no distinction between "the style of the digital sundial is parallel to the earth axis" and "the style's angle with horizontal equals the sundial's geographical latitude". At the second formulation one can have a better idea of the direction of the style. User_talk:Willy Leenders 08:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded at User_talk:Willy Leenders. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black Grace, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 15:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

halema'uma'u

I just cannot get the current events category correct! Help Please Paradiver (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Paradiver (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That category is added by the {{current}} template, I think, but it does not appear to apply to Halema`uma`u crater according to its guidelines; it is for "occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors". Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: FYI the proper name is includes the fact of including Crater -- whereby it is upper case -- rather than in the lower case form. When referred to it is referred to in whole content Halema'uma'u Crater. Crater defines the fact that it is a puka (hole) in the ground as opposed to a Pu'u is to a cinder cone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are probably correct, but let's change it everywhere, at one time, once we reach a consensus. We probably ought to wait a week. See the article talk page for the discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk)

Avalanche

Good edit.[2] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Will Beback. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Halema`uma`u crater, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 13:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Halema`uma`u crater

Hi, Wsiegmund.
As you see I've made some changes to Halema`uma`u crater article adding the writing by Mark Twain about the crater. May I please ask you to revert all the changes I've made, if IYO they are not needed and/or not helpful for the article? Thank you for your time.
Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mbz1.
Twain was not much of a geologist, but, my, how the man could write! Thank you for adding that content and the link to Roughing It.[3] I enjoyed his description of the hazards, including hot feet (earlier in the same chapter). What an adventure! I wouldn't think of removing it. Thank you for starting the article and illustrating it with your dramatic photographs of the latest eruption, too. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

Just saw you reverted your own edits to Zero g's version. Is that what you intended to do?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Corvus (genus)

I don't think there is sufficient justification, other than the time elapsed, to declare this discussion over. I think Nobody of Consequence acted without consensus, and ignored the previous discussion. I'd have said something before you archived it but I've been out of town. Is it possible to re-open this discussion? Plcoffey 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done It might be a good idea to WP:REFACTOR the discussion. It is hard to follow. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image: Pele HVO

Your help in this matter would be appreciated in this matter. Again this is NOT a copyright violations since the other user has found the author's webpage attesting to his creation of the painting.

Without completing the full reading one would see that this was the work of a commission that was created by the Hawaii Volcano National Park and is currently on PERMANENT DISPLAY at VNP. As I posted on the user's page and the author's page states: "I take it we are going to argue this back & forth. As you see from the painter's website it WAS A COMMISSIONED WORK BY THE VOLCANO NATIONAL PARK: "In 2003 the Volcanoes National Park, with the sponsorship of the Mountain Institute and a judging panel of highly respected kupuna (Hawaiian elders, teachers and leaders), held a competition to see which artist in Hawai’i could paint the best new version of the Goddess Pele. So now my painting of the ancestral deity hangs permanently at the visitors’ center in the park!" http://www.arthurjohnsen.com/about

Plus it is a permanent which now brings it under the ownership of VNP. I bet if you try to take it you'd get charged with the federal crime if theft of government property."

The sponsorship (funding) may have came from another source but the fact of the matter is that it was a government commission and at this point can only be viewed in the sense that it is government property, in it's permanent display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 02:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Added to --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) page: First I correct my last: I meant that the Government cannot claim copyright since it is pubic property thereby public domain. Second, copyright may even still exist but in most cases unlikely because the commissioned art work was in come cases a work for the Government or may have even be donated to the Government. Whatever the case the law is clear if the work was done by an employee: "§ 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." Source Title 17, of the United States Code. Copyright Law

No copyright claim is present at the site nor is it a lended picture on display. It is presently property of the US Government, which makes it public property or public domain.

In addition fair use can be claimed since the inclusion of the photo is for a teaching purpose; hence the facts that Wikipedia is an virtual educational encyclopedia and is non-commercial because it is free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2008 May 30

My reply: The image hangs in the Volcano National Park Visitor's Center and is public property. Copyright is eligible since it is government property.

Your Post: It appears you uploaded a photograph you took, Image:Pele_HVO.JPG, to illustrate the Pele (deity) article. It is a beautiful picture and makes the article look very nice. However, I am concerned about a possible copyright infringement. We need permission from the copyright holder of the painting you photographed. The page MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-ownwork says "The act of scanning or photocopying someone else's work is not considered to be "creative".--Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lovely illustration, I agree. WP:COPYREQ may be helpful, as well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment

I've got a pair of house finches nesting outside my front door, and watching them has inspired me to edit the house finch article. Smptq (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I envy you your finches! Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid removing red links

As you did on Richard Lynn. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My edit of April 27 was consistent with my reading of WP:RED.[4] Since it was not reverted until you did so today, it would not appear to be particularly controversial. The book is out of print and is not available to potential editors in major research libraries (WP:V). That is prima facie evidence that it is not notable (WP:NN), also. Since its creation would violate two policies/guidelines, it is unlikely to survive a WP:AfD review, in my judgement. May I suggest that you review WP:AGF, in view of your edit summary, please?[5] My edit was intended to improve the article and complied with my reading of the relevant guideline. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize you removed the link based on notability. I'm fairly sure the book would pass notability requirements; I wouldn't have added (or restored) the link if I thought otherwise. I read a review of it by W. D. Hamilton ([6]), which would come close to meeting requirements by itself, and a quick search reveals several more, e.g. [7], [8], [9]. It's available at my university library too. That it is out of print is irrelevant really. If that's the only reason for removing the link I think you will agree now that it is notable and that there should be an article on it, and a (currently red) link to it.

Sorry for being a bit short with you; I get frustrated easily when changes I make are undone without my noticing. You should certainly continue to remove red links when appropriate, but try to make sure that the subject isn't notable if that's why you're removing them. Richard001 (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Many research libraries don't list the title in their catalogs.[10] Van Court is a collaborator of Lynn and her review is not an independent opinion; the web version is not published and cannot be used here. N.J. Mackintosh could be added to your list. Mathsci has done just that at Richard Lynn.[11] I suggest treating Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations in that article. In my opinion, as a separate article it fails WP:BK. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You may like to suggest merging it into Lynn's article if you wish, but I'm going to go ahead and create Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. Coverage by six sources (one associated with the author, but published in a journal nonetheless) is enough for me. There are many far less notable book articles that should be considered for deletion; I can guide you to some of them if you wish. Richard001 (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm correct about Linn's bad ideas

I'm correct, about the bad ideas of Linn.That book is terrible.Eugenics now is ecology and Linn will remains preaching on desert.Agre22 (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)agre22

I don't dispute your opinion, but please follow WP guidelines and policies.[12] You may wish to comment on the merge discussion at Talk:Richard_Lynn. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed merge

Looks like Zero g is disputing the merge which was endorsed 5-1 and single-handedly reverting to his favorite version. FYI.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page.[13] The consensus on the merge discussion seemed clear to me and even Zero g seemed to acquiesce, albeit a bit gracelessly.[14] Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

Just a note to tell you that you can't merge/delete since that would remove the edit history of the merged text, which is required under the GFDL. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about infobox photo at Talk:Mount Rainier

Feel free to join in the discussion. hike395 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done

On 25 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phacelia sericea, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Thanks Victuallers (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Chimaera

The identification of Yanar or Yanartas with Chimaera was made early in the nineteenth century by Francis Beaufort; the article quotes him. There are two journal articles on the subject which support the identification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion at Talk:Yanartaş. It is clear to me that the link belongs on the Chimera dab page. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your post on my talk page about this, there are several issue involved here. One is the naming of the article, and one is the question of how to present the claims that "Chimera" and Yanartas is the same. No one is disputing that certain authors have said they believed that the geological formation was the inspiration for the chimera myth. What is disputed is 1) whether that means you can call the location by that name, especially when the name is known as Yanartas by the locals and means only flaming rock -- chimera is not the name, 2) whether the existence of some ancient sources and a couple of more recent one claiming that it was the origin of the myth means that we can state straight out that it WAS the origin of the myth. By NPOV standards I say that we cannot, and can only state which people made the claim. Experts in mythology quote lots of possible origins for the myth -- astrological, volcanic, narrative invention, etc. -- and we are not here to endorse any particular one, especially one that it such a minority view among the modern experts on the topic.

The disambiguation page cannot call the article Chimera (geography) because that's not its name. Nobody looking for Chimera would be looking for Yanartas. Nor can someone decide they want to change the name of the article to Chimera to support some theories of identification. It's name is it what it is. The speculation about it is important to be covered, but it cannot take over the article title or be portrayed in a way that we agree with their conclusions.

These are pretty basic policy-considerations. I'm afraid a couple of other editors (assuming that there are even that many) are extremely aggressive about promoting this theory. I'm not sure why, or why they because so aggressive about doing so. DreamGuy (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a RFC may be appropriate. I've been involved in a couple and they can be quite helpful. Regarding the DAB, I think it is certainly appropriate to link the ancient site that is referred to by Pliny and Servius on Aeneid, whatever it is called. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pliny and Servius (and Isidore of Seville, for what he's worth) called the place Chimaera. There are three entities here: the modern Turkish scenic attraction, called Yanar or Yanartas; the monster; and the ancient place. I know of no dispute that the first and the last are in the same place; whether the ancient site is (in some sense) the monster depends on your favorite theory of mythologies.

I do not understand how DreamGuy can argue that the ancient place is not called Chimaera. Does he adhere to a strong nominalism, which would prohibit us from having articles on Byzantium and Constantinople, on the grounds that their name is Istanbul? If so, he should come to WT:NCGN and argue for a change of guidance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)