User talk:Gciriani

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Welcome!

Hello, Gciriani, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I believe the segment removed from Osteoporosis might be more suitable for the whole body vibration article. Whole body vibration remains mentioned in the article.

Giovanni - I deleted Encore Medical from the list of Blackstone's "most notable investments". Blackstone has made many notable investments, arguably Encore could be among them, but an $870 million buyout in 2006 was certainly not in the same category with the group listed there as the firm's most notable. It appears that medical devices is of particular interest to you but in the context in which you attempted to insert the text I don't think it really belongs there. I think you will appreciate that the article is not the dumping ground for trivial items it was when you original inserted your addition in September of 2008. Hope that clarifies. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanrenewal, I checked a few investments in the list you argue are "most notable investments", but it would seem that you used double standards. Legoland for instance was acquired for $475 million. If you have the resources to apply a unified criteria for inclusion, please do so for the entire list, otherwise I suggest you reinstate Encore Medical.--Gciriani (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion - unfortunately it does not address the key issue which is that you have an objective you are trying to accomplish relating to this one company which is completely out of proportion to the content. You could make an argument that Legoland does not belong on the list - although it is pretty famous - but not really a good one that your company belongs there. Also I don't think the onus is on me to come up with a "unified criteria" |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanrenewal, I thought the key issue here was, as you stated above in your initial rationale, whether or not Encore was in the same category as the group listed. I'm not trying to be confrontational :-) I added Encore only because I had done some homework on the company and therefore I knew they had been acquired by Blackstone. The onus is not on you to come up with a different rationale, but I'm trying to do what is right, and I hope that you will do what is right too. If we both act rationally, and exclude something based on a rationale, and then we see that the rationale doesn't apply, either the exclusion was not right, or the rationale was not right. I'm perfectly willing to work with you on that.--Gciriani (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiating the fibre types is definately important! Tyciol (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanrenewal, you are obviously well versed in private equity. Do you know where to find more intelligence on a company purchased a couple of years ago by J.H.Whitney? Their website has zero info: Power Plate International.--Gciriani (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC-4)

I don't have a lot of special info on J.H. Whitney, aside from what is in the public domain:

Power Plate International Limited manufactures and sells fitness equipment for individuals and trainers in the United Kingdom and North America. It offers body toning, vibration training, and cellulite reduction machines, as well as accessories. The company also operates fitness studios and gyms that provide exercises, including ski training classes. Its products are used by notable professional users, including professional athletes and celebrities. The company sells its products through department stores, as well as sells its products online. Power Plate International Limited has strategic partnerships with Personal Training on the Net and Athlete’s Performance. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is based in London, the United Kingdom.

uk.powerplate.com

I know the company was bought in 2006 but don't know for how much or what return Whitney will make, etc. Good luck. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fermat burial plaque.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new image, but have a few recommendations, some cosmetic. Firstly, maybe it's just me, but I've never liked the grey background. Second, I'd also recommend making the lines thicker, for easier visibility. Finally, I can send you the data from my graph (data from an actual in vitro test) so you could add actual velocities, powers and forces. I also don't think the double-hyperbolic curve is quite so prominent at physiologically relevant temperatures - I've certainly never seen it in my tests, probably because the massive increases in shortening velocity between 1C and 30C flatten it out to the point experimental error overwhelms it. Mokele (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mokele, I followed your cosmetic suggestions. I think it's better not to label the axes with numbers. I kept the secondary curves, power and relative max-power lines thin, so as not to distract the reader from the main curve. No need for your data, as the numbers used in the graph are actually from in-vitro tests that are published in the 1988, Edman paper. I don't understand why Wikipedia takes a while before showing the updated file, grrr...

No worries. As for showing the file, if you clear your browser cache then reload the page, that should do it, but it can be a bit finicky at times. Mokele (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Muscle Force Velocity Relationship.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 23:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, you did not transclude this article in the Articles for deletion log page when you nominated it for deletion, as required in step 3 of the subsection "How to nominate a single page for deletion” on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page. Another user has performed this step for you to complete the process. In the future, please follow all of the required steps when nominating an article for deletion. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chronic training load, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Power meter (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) 11:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know italian language and/or how to write a phonetic transcription, please avoid to edit. I had to correct a silly mistake of yours (see). --87.7.117.139 (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid to edit? The entry was actually missing before I added it. So thanks to both my entry, and your correction of the phonetic transcription, we now have a good entry. This is the collaborative spirit that is the engine of Wikipedia.--Gciriani (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Richard BB 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I'm using Internet Explorer with a widescreen monitor. I don't know what browser you have, but if you're looking for a magic bullet that will leave neither of us with whitespace, I'm not the one to ask since my knowledge of TOC formatting is limited. There are two places where I recommend that you ask for advice. The first is the help desk, which has numerous editors who have strong formatting knowledge. Perhaps they know of a trick that will help. The second place is WT:FAC, which may help answer the question of whether a TOC forced to one side is acceptable in a featured article. I can't recall a similar case before, and am unsure if the concept would garner a positive response there. As the creator and main author of this FA, that is of great concern to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried experimenting with placing TOC left at the start of the lead's last paragraph, and thought that the result looked awful. It pushed the text in that paragraph and the next one to the middle of my screen, which did not leave an attractive appearance. An article with that type of scrunched-together text would not pass at the featured article candidates process, and if the article appeared on the main page somebody would quickly remove the TOC left anyway. Unless I placed TOC left in the wrong position, I don't think this is an optimal solution. I also saw your talk-page comment on a college-related sentence in the article, and will take a closer look at that tomorrow, when I have more time. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.

---

I just formatted your reference on the American Cancer Society page. If you take a look at it and at Template:Citation it can help you do references in a standard form. No biggie just thought I'd suggest it.MrBill3 (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference you formatted was not mine but somebody else's.Gciriani (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is good Wikipedia practice to enter an edit summary after each edit that alter content Help:Edit summary. Please help others understand your changes.--Gciriani (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. Most of my edits tend to be self-evident, obvious, and "minor" (i.e., adding a comma, where needed, or some such). Hence, I usually do not add an edit summary; typically, I merely check off the "minor edit" selection box. Did you notice a particular edit that concerned you? Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to one of the later edits you made on the Aaron Hernandez article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Hernandez&diff=next&oldid=562852275, which was not minor. As you can see I further modified your change. I was concerned that perhaps you had a valid rationale, and I could not understand it because you did not explain the change. Eventually I decided to go ahead with a partial reversal of your change, and explained why I was doing that.--Gciriani (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To be honest, I thought that those changes were self-evident, also. (1) A comma was needed, so I added it in. (2) The word "police" should not begin with a capital letter "P"; it should have a lower-case letter "p". So, I made the change. (3) The sentence has no context whatsoever by simply claiming that "the police found evidence". The context needed is (a) that the evidence is against Hernandez; and (b) that the evidence is against him in the Odin Lloyd murder case. Without those two facts – both of which are supported by the cited source – the sentence makes no contextual sense. That is, what sort of evidence did the police find? Against whom? In which criminal case? So, I made that change. Do you not agree with these three issues (#1 and #2 and #3 above)? In fact, I will be reverting your changes so that my changes show up again. But, I will wait to hear from you first. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that your changes were not self evident to me, is in support of why Wikipedia Edit summary policy makes sense. Regardless, I think that nobody is exempted form Wikipedia practices once one understands them. If you read the link I gave you, you will understand that changing The Police to police is a minor edit, whereas adding evidence is against him is not a minor change. Please read my partial reverting edit summary to understand my rationale: deleted "against Hernandez in the murder", because only a trial will determine whether it is against or in his favor. I think that edit summaries go a long way to explain issues, avoid lengthy back and forth among editors, and prevent editing wars.--Gciriani (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has absolutely nothing to do with an "interpretation" lent by a trial that will determine if the evidence was for or against him. This has simply to do with what the sources say. The source says that the police consider this as evidence against a specific person (Hernandez) in a specific case (the Lloyd murder). These facts are germane to the article. The fact that the police report this – and that the reliable sources report this – has absolutely nothing to do with what will eventually bear out at a trial. In other words, what may or may not happen in a subsequent trial is completely irrelevant; the only thing that is relevant is what the reliable sources state. Because these two statements were made in the cited source, and because these two statements were necessary to provide context to an otherwise naked/bare statement that makes no sense standing alone, I considered the edit to be self-evident. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article simply says: the police believe could be evidence in the murder case against him. If the article had stated "the police believe could be evidence against him in the murder case" then I would totally agree with you. But the way the article has been written is skillfully worded. Yours is just an interpretation, and as such should not be added to the article in agreement with Wikipedia policy. Again, please understand that the stuff they found is evidence in a particular case. Then in the second portion of the sentence of the article the case is defined as the murder against him.--Gciriani (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see your point. Actually, it could be argued that you are making the assumptions. According to you, the article says, quote, the police believe could be evidence in the murder case against him. You are parsing that one way, and it could just as easily be parsed another way. You are reading that as "the police believe could be evidence in the murder case that was filed against him". Another person could reasonably read that as "the police believe could be evidence against Hernandez in the murder case". Who is to say that your interpretation is correct and mine is not? You call this "skillful wording" of the journalist. I think it is simply a sentence that can reasonably be interpreted in two different ways, your way and my way. That being the case, then, I think the "safest" bet is to simply include a direct quote (and let readers use whichever interpretation they want of that direct quote). As an aside, I am sure that there are other sources that do not use "skillful wording" and probably state my interpretation directly. I don't have time to look for them now. Your thoughts on my proposed use of a direct quote? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.--Gciriani (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still see that you make changes that are non-minor without edit summary, which was the main subject of this talk. The reason why you changed the Aaron Hernandez article is obvious only to you and me because we had a conversation spanning two days. But everybody else would have no clue why you changed it. The other potential problem I see is that the sentence is verbatim like the Associated Press article, and there could be copyright issues there. That's the main reason I had tried to rephrase that sentence; I'm not sure that mentioning the source is enough. It either has to change or quoted as in "according to the Associated Press". Finally a very small thing: I see you added a wiki link to North Attleboro; however, according to Wikipedia' writing style an article shouldn't have wiki-links all over, just once.--Gciriani (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. (1) Again, I thought that the edit was minor and self-evident, to the extent that it simply stated (or restated or quoted) was what explicitly mentioned in the cited source. (2) I think that it is redundant to cite a source and to explicitly indicate "according to the Associated Press". Citing the source itself is "short hand" for saying: "this information that I am offering in this Wikipedia article is according to this source that I am hereby citing". In other words, it goes without saying that the info is "according to the AP" if, indeed, we are explicitly citing the AP source. (3) As far as a copyright issue, I don't think that's applicable in this instance. A copyright violation would not occur here. First, we are directly citing the source. Second, the words in question are so vague, general, generic, simplistic, etc., that there is no need to "reword" them. The clause in question uses such generic words that rewriting the clause would simply use the very same generic words. It would be: (a) an exercise in futility; or (b) an academic exercise to change a few words simply for the sake of changing a few words. The phrase "police believe could be evidence in the murder case against him" is not so unique that repeating it would arise to a copyright violation. It is a pretty generic clause that can hardly be rewritten without, essentially, using the same exact words. It's a generic concept that is being worded in a simple and straightforward way. (4) As far as the wiki link to the name of the town: my understanding is that policy does not preclude linking the same link twice (or multiple times) within the same article. In fact, that happens all the time. My understanding is that, within the same article, if there is a significant separation (i.e., a lot of intervening material), it is fine to use a second wiki link. Many people do not read an entire article all in one fell swoop; rather, they read individual sections here and there. If the linked material is important enough (in this case, the name of the town), the reader should be able to click on that link immediately ... rather than have to search the rest of the article to see when, where, and indeed if it was linked above. As an example: in the Aaron Hernandez article, the wiki link for Rob Gronkowski seems to appear about 5 or 6 different times. Now, perhaps, 5 or 6 times is a bit much. But, there is nothing to say that it should be limited to one and only one link. I am sure there are several other examples within the Hernandez article (and others) that we could find if we looked. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing out this discussion thread on my Talk Page. Thanks for all of your input and suggestions. If you have any other questions, just let me know. Thanks again! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ozymandias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hunt (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) 08:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Electroanalgesia. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate the suggestions.--Gciriani (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv. Further to your reverting. Unfortunately both links do not support the statement. They are merely insurance manuals that instead of supporting the statement, they rather debase it. Therefore a deletion for both references and a citation needed tag are appropriate. Please let me know what you think.--Gciriani (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by debasing it. If you feel insurance coverage documents that cite a plethora of sources and provide analysis of the quality of those studies (in other words, secondary sources on the level of meta analyses) are somehow not reliable, I strongly suggest you ask for input at WT:MEDRS. The sources clearly state that H-Wave has been used to treat those conditions, though evidence is lacking for the efficacy of such treatment. Instead of removing reliable sources, if you disagree with the statements those sources are used to support, you should focus on fixing the statements. Both sources have a great deal of material on H-Wave. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the email - once you pointed out they were waiting for OTRS I knew where to look to find out the situation. It was just a small filename issue that I've now fixed. Happy to help, Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OIC, the file extension has to be jpeg and not jpg.--Gciriani (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you changed "ISI's" to "IS's". It is certainly not very clear from the text, but the reference is to the Islamic State of Iraq, not the Islamic State. If you click on "Awakening movement" there, you will see that this is correct. Could you alter "IS's" to either "ISI's" or "Islamic State of Iraq's", please? I think "Islamic of State of Iraq's" would be preferable, as "ISI's" does look a mistake. Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about what the acronym refers to, but ISI is not one of the alternate names offered in the lead. reading through the article I had the impression that, as names changed, various sentences are oblivious to it and we need some uniformity thrroughout the article, not one alternative popping up from nowhere.--Gciriani (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gciriani was just about to undo. i have been updating the reported case for the last two months. My dates are correct the 23 Sept is for Senegal and Nigeria which are stat. Believe me it is a nightmare to do the reports..But thanks for reverting .. Kind regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Best update system ever! Thanks for working hard on it.--Gciriani (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Good Judgment Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washingtonian. 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) 08:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.--Gciriani (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Good Judgment Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menlo Park. 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) 08:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.--Gciriani (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Good Judgment Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin-off. 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) 08:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Chemotherapy-induced acral erythema page, your edit caused a PMC error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Good Judgment Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Armstrong. 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) 10:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Maria Elena Boschi page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cell. 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) 10:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of attention the auction received in the media, it may well merit a sentence in the lead. There are a couple things in that sentence that could stand to be cleaned up, but that would be easy enough to do. My biggest concern is where you're getting the $3.3 million number from. Other than the auction house, which would be a primary source in this context (not the best when there are many good secondary sources available), I'm consistently seeing $3.26 million as the reported figure. This article gives a more precise figure of $3,263,246. Is the auction house rounding the number up, or is there some type of commission that isn't being reported? Tough question, and I'll try to investigate it when I get a chance. Either way, I added a paragraph on the auction in the legacy section, as I felt that was clearly merited. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The auction house has the same correct number, but the title of the press release rounds it up to the nearest $100,000.--Gciriani (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Costa Concordia disaster page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I stumbled across the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation article, saw it needed sources, Googled the Foundation, saw there was a CBSnews.com article from yesterday which mentioned the Foundation, added a sentence but noticed you removed the source.[1] I have no skin in the MS game but am curious why you flagged CBSNews.com in the edit summary as a Healthday News SEO service. I'd never heard of Healthday before this, and upon closer inspection, saw the Healthday reference in the masthead. I Googled them and discovered that this group appears to be providing freelance journalistic content to CBS, similar to the AP, but otherwise no reliability flags were set off. The pedigree of the reporters is high, and the articles look fine as well. Here's another one I just saw [2]. Could you clarify what makes this content inappropriate for Wikipedia articles? Is there some unspoken ban on Healthday content? My interest in this is purely so I don't inadvertently put in any citations that are not 100% kosher. Also, I'm not stalking you ;-), but was curious what TUSC is and clicked the link on your page, and saw that the EL is dead. Cheers! Timtempleton (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim - HealthDay explain in their website that that's what they claim they do in their website: SEO Search Engine Optimization and Duplicative Content. I really saw it as a big stretch by Tony, the statement that the MS Foundation provides statistics for the MS community. Also there was a comment by Grayfell that hinted at that. I quote: "sources derived entirely from press releases should be treated the same as any other form of public relations. We use independent sources to determine what is very noteworthy." It's plausible that the MS Foundation was accidentally mentioned in that paid article for content duplication, or it's possible they paid HealthDay to disseminate. Either way it's bogus news dressed as some sort of press announcement, a far cry from AP, which is a journalistic agency.

TUSC: I don't remember what it was; it must have been a contributor who put together tools for Wikipedia and gave me the template to post that. I guess he moved to some other site--Gciriani (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, Loved your flags and copied your template!--Gciriani (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. You could probably argue that any content that is well written improves SEO, either intentionally or accidentally. Google certainly liked it too, ranking it number one for Foundation searches at the time. Upon rereading the article it still seems valid, so I will likely continue to use relevant CBSnews.com articles as future sources for other news even if they do have a Healthday byline, and just hope that the content passes muster. Glad you liked the template. I can't remember who I borrowed it from so can't take credit but it is a fun project to update. Timtempleton (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gciriani, let's reach a consensus here not to flood the article discussion page (is that ok? I know little about wikipedia conventions in that regard). So, the disputed claim is whether analemma is symmetric in the case when equinoxes coincide with apsides. I couldn't find yet a reliable source for that specific claim, (from my perspective, I attribute that to the fact that in of itself the claim is of no applied technical use; however, I find the related claim that "asymmetry is due to that misalignment" quite useful for illustrative and summarizing purposes). However, the matter is simple enough that I believe we can quickly reach an agreement.

As you write that you have a counterexample, I would like to know the specific data for it (eccentricity, tilt, etc.). On the other hand, here is my argument for my claim. Putting the time origin at an equinox that is also an apsis, we observe that both components of the equation of time are antisymmetric (the values at times t and -t are negatives of each other), but so is the declination of the sun. Hence at times t and -t the sun would be at the opposite locations (both horizontally and vertically, if to speak coordinatewise), so that analemma would be symmetric and lobes would be equal. L3erdnik (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the equation of time link I gave you? It shows that the contribution of eccentricity is close to a sine function of period Y, where Y is one year, and the contribution of tilt is close to a sine function of period Y/2. The phase difference between the two sine functions is the difference between the winter solstice and the the perihelion. Thus in the case in which the equinox coincides with the perihelion, the phase difference is 90 degrees, and you can easily see how the analemma shape turns out. You can also convince yourself easily that a perfectly symmetrical eight shape is possible only when there is not eccentricity. That explains the whole thing.

Regarding contributions in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collecting documented facts. Thus you cannot come up with your own theory or idea and write it down. That goes hand in hand with the policy that you cannot make things up, and cannot write things in article that are not supported by other sources. Thus you cannot just write something you think it is correct, nor your own thinking. You have to write something that is supported by other citations. I hope that helps.--Gciriani (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also clarify here a bit my suspiciousness with regard to your subscript copy-paste typo. The passage seemed pretty much as something I could say (I've also sent a link to equation of time, the wording could be interpreted as a continuation of an argument for my point), and that led to my misunderstanding. L3erdnik (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]