User talk:Dbfirs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It could be useful on occasions, but I shall use it very sparingly, and only for obvious vandalism. Dbfirs 16:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hawes

Regarding the second editor who tinkered with the population, do you believe it might be worth looking into to see if they're a sock of the first editor, who also played with the population? GABHello! 22:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered that, though the timing would be well past the first editor's bedtime. We'll keep a watch on future edits. Dbfirs 22:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Editor 1 is indeffed, editor 2 has made no other edits. I'm curious, and not sure if it's worth it... but I have opened it anyhow. GABHello! 22:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it looks as though I was mistaken in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Dbfirs 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ani

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Word Error Rate

Thank you for your notice on reverting my edit on Word error rate. It was not a test! I think it is important to know the difference between insertion and deletion. They are easily mixed up, because it doesn't make a difference if you're merely interested in the value of WER. But what if you want to discuss the Formula? What if the penalties are modified and insertion to have a cost of 2? I wanted to look up which is which and didn't find it, so I researched it and put it in. I am an infrequent user, and I do not insist that my edit is kept as it was, but please make sure that future readers of that article know which one is the deletion.  Preceding unsigned comment added by PeerVal (talkcontribs) 22:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that it was not a test. I was using software that flags up possible vandalism, and your edit was obviously not that, so I chose an alternative category because I thought your explanation was too basic to fit the article. If you think there is a possibility of confusion, then I'm happy to restore your edit (and have done so). Happy editing. Dbfirs 23:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!


The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar

Congratulations, Dbfirs! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing banned users' edits

Please be more careful, it was the removal of a long-term abuser edits. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It was difficult to know who was the pot and who was the kettle, because you almost blanked the page and removed many references. What was I to think? Who was the banned user? Anon IP 64.134.184.28 seems to still be editing and has a blank talk page. I'll leave you to argue it out because I've no interest in the topic. Dbfirs 23:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Unintentional Edit

Hi Dbfirs I am new to Wikipedia and unintentionally deleted some text. Sorry about that. I am very unsure about making addition and changes to articles and would feel better if there was some one or way that I could have my changes reviewed before I do a commit? Is there a way I can e-mail you? Thanks Phil Bender AKA pbender3469

Don't worry about that. Lots of people delete text accidentally, and it gets put back. You can preview your changes before you save them, and I find this quite useful to check that I haven't made a silly mistake. Keep on editing. Dbfirs 10:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Haggard

Hi Dbfirs

I am Robert von Greding the former clarinet player and ex-composer of the classical pieces of Haggard. That's my name.The name of the flute-player is von Zastrow! Cheers from Munich, Robert VGreding (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about the names. The software that I was using flagged up your edit a possible vandalism, and I made an incorrect judgement. I've now found the names elsewhere, so I've restored your edit. Dbfirs 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

kidz bop 28

Hi there,

I see you reverted vandalism on the page for Kidz Bop 28. Want to leave a record of what you deleted on your page: you chose to revert an edit that claimed that there were "explicit bonus tracks" (although this was misspelled as "exclipt") on the album. This is a clear act of vandalism, and completely fabricated. Not sure why you would attempt to revert this after the issue was resolved, but it's vital that pages for children's entertainment are as factual and safe as possible. Thanks!  Preceding unsigned comment added by Commons22 (talkcontribs) 21:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging up the error. The software I was using brought up your edit as possible vandalism (as removal of content often is), but I must have been distracted because I somehow missed seeing your edit summary which explained your edit. I've removed my erroneous message on your talk page and replaced it with an apology. Dbfirs 22:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
All good, thanks!  Preceding unsigned comment added by Commons22 (talkcontribs) 22:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Telluria mixta

You are mistaken in reverting my edits. I made the article match the title and corrected the grammar. Perhaps you should READ the edit first.

I did read your edit, and I'm still of the opinion that the stub was better before your edit because you left an initial definite article, but it needs expanding, not arguing over. I've made a start on expanding it, so please improve it further so that we can work together to make a better encyclopaedia. Dbfirs 19:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your further improvements. Keep up the good work of improving Wikipedia. Best wishes. Dbfirs 10:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I rolled back on this article one step further back than you did, there was some mischief included by th eother IP as well . This tehcnically means I rolled you back, but that is not the purpose of course, but the consequence of rolling back further. Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I hadn't looked at the prior history. Dbfirs 17:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Online estate agents

trying to contact you about deletion and notability online real estate agents , I cant find you email link can you please tell me what what notability was used criteria as i would like to re edit to prevent delete proposal, kind regards  ?

Please see WP:Notability. Also, other editors have expressed the opinion that your article would more appropriately appear as a section of the Estate agent article. Dbfirs 16:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism misidentified as good faith

I wanted to let you know that you blatantly misidentified obvious vandalism (this edit) as a good faith edit. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 04:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if I'd looked at the full edit I'd have labelled it vandalism. I had only a small window in StiKi but I should have scrolled down. Thank you for pointing that out, and for commenting on the offending editor's talk page. Where the edit could possibly have been accidental, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt, but in this case the history shows a repeated pattern by an IP-hopping vandal. Dbfirs 07:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I appreciate your response to correct me and looking for your guidance in the future. Take care. Wbuddy (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
hii 123.255.250.178 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Merger of High school into Secondary school

Sorry, but the merger of High school into Secondary school, which you supported (actually without giving an argument), seems to be particularly ill-judged. Note that I have just proposed undoing that merger, with a quite comprehensive rationale on Talk:Secondary school#Revert merger of Secondary school and High school. Feel free to join into the discussion. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I supported the merger because I was not aware of usage of the term outside the UK. Perhaps we need to describe usage of the term "High School" separately for each country where it is used. Here in the UK it is just a secondary school that has chosen to include the word "High" in its name. Dbfirs 19:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you for your great answer at the Teahouse!

Elsa Enchanted (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Summer

I think you've made a mistake: June may be summer although days until 21 are in Gemini, the sign of the end of spring. 26 January is obviously winter, not summer. --Sean Ago (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored this edit. Clearly January is summer in the southern hemisphere. 22:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Meters (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Meters.
Sean Ago, the article explains the meteorological seasons where June is summer in the north, and the months of December, January and February are summer in the southern temperate zone. You are thinking of astrological seasons which are never observed in the southern hemisphere. Dbfirs 22:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you're an copyright defender I would like to know whether crawling Math is Fun website violates the U.S copyright Laws?Could you help me.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help you because I've never used a Web crawler, and I live thousands of miles from the United States, so I know little about their copyright laws. Websites can request no crawling. The storage of copyright material for any commercial purposes would be illegal here in the UK, but some leeway might be allowed in the case of private storage for educational purposes. You would need to consult a lawyer conversant with US laws, but each page of the "Maths is Fun" website contains the text "Copyright © 2013 MathsIsFun.com", and many puzzles are marked with individual UK copyright, so are covered by UK copyright law. Dbfirs 07:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.That's no problem.I've send an e-mail to the website owner regarding the copyright issue.JUSTIN JOHNS (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Season

The existing explanation of seasonal temperature variation—the obliqueness of the suns rays—is the correct one. Passing through more of the atmosphere would, if anything, increase the absorption and re-emission of light as heat, but I have never seen such a phenomenon associated with seasonal temperature variation before, and I would need to see a mighty unimpeachable source to add such a claim. But I think what bothers me more is that you reverted a revert. Following one revert, WP:BRD (and, I think, common sense) suggests that if you don't agree, you move to discussion before re-reverting. If you'd done that, you'd have understood why my revert was correct. —swpbT 18:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the main reason for the seasons is the greater area and shorter days, but our article Effect of Sun angle on climate makes the claim "The Sunbeam entering at the shallower angle must also travel twice as far through the Earth's atmosphere, which reflects some of the energy back into space." The diagram in that article also makes the same claim, as do many other websites. Do you have any figures on the extent to which this effect is significant? There certainly is an effect, but it may well be negligible as you claim. Dbfirs 18:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The claim is not supported with sourcing on that article either, and so I will remove it there as well. Wikipedia is not beholden to what "many websites" (of which I can find none) claim; we are beholden to reality. If there are academic sources showing otherwise, we can re-examine, but do not expect there to be any. The effect of the atmosphere is not merely negligible, it likely contributes in the opposite direction to what was claimed in these articles. —swpbT 19:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It would be really helpful if you could find an academic source to support your viewpoint. The reflection of sunlight by particles in the atmosphere has been taught as an additional reason for the seasons for many years. If science has changed it's mind, then we need to know. If the reverse is true as you claim, then that article needs to explain why. Dbfirs 19:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I must be adamant: the burden of proof is not on me in this situation; it is on the party or parties that want to include the dubious claim in the articles (and policy is very much with me on that point). "Science" has not changed its mind; science, to my knowledge, never forwarded the explanation we are discussing. If such an explanation has ever been taught (and I do not see evidence that it has), it was taught wrongly. —swpbT 19:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
If you can find one website that supports your view, then I will not bother to re-add the claim with citations from the websites that you consider erroneous. Remember "verifiability, not truth", and WIKI does not mean "what I know is". Dbfirs 19:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect (and I do sincerely respect you), you are wrong. The absence of a claim does not require sourcing; the presence of a claim does. I don't know that there is a source to support the statement "this explanation is wrong", because I don't know that this wrong explanation is widespread enough to have produced such a debunking; but you need to understand that no such source is required here. However, if you were to re-add the claim, you would be obligated to produce sourcing—and rock-solid sourcing at that. You might find anonymous or non-academic websites putting forward this explanation (and Wikipedia might have been their source!), but you will not find authoritative scientific sources that do. I encourage you to search to your satisfaction. We can certainly continue to discuss if you like, but I am quite certain that policy is firmly on my side, and broader community input would be as well. —swpbT 19:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The point is that the theory you removed is so widespread that we will find other editors adding it back again, with references, if we can't find a proper scientific analysis. I agree that your removal of unreferenced content is in line with policy, but adding it back with references is also perfectly acceptable, which is why I hoped you were more knowledgeable about atmospheric science than I am, so that we can agree on text that will pre-empt a repetition of what you believe to be a misconception. Dbfirs 19:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
If others add it in again, we'll deal with that if and when it arises. It certainly doesn't look widespread to me: I still have yet to find any sources advancing this explanation, let alone a reliable one, so I am not highly concerned that the misconception will be re-added. I am fairly knowledgeable on the topic, as I work with operational spacecraft for a living, but I am not a reliable source. If I come across anything suggesting that this explanation is as widespread as you say and talking about why it is wrong, I'll be sure to add it, but right now there's no justification for the articles to mention the explanation at all. —swpbT 19:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Having looked at a selection of educational websites, I've found a small number that do include the atmosphere effect, but the best ones don't mention it, so this supports your viewpoint. The atmospheric reflection and absorption effect is clearly demonstrable on a small scale, but probably has negligible effect on a global scale. I haven't found any site that includes the thickness of atmosphere claim in its list of misconceptions about seasons, which is what I was looking for. In the absence of a good source, I'll leave both articles as you left them, not mentioning the atmosphere. Apologies for the revert on the season article. I looked at the more detailed claim that was linked, but failed to notice that that article, in turn, was unsupported by references. Dbfirs 20:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for doing the digging necessary to put together this response on atmospheric absorption and scattering, and for your constructive attitude in response to criticism! I wish all Wikipedians would rise to a challenge the way you've done here: you didn't just take my word for it, you did your own searching and found some new relevant information, in the form of hard numbers. You might consider it to be all in a days work, but I wanted to express my appreciation. —swpbT 15:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I must admit that at first I thought you were just stating your opinion because I'd seen the atmosphere effect reported so many times that it seemed "common knowledge", but when I came to look closely at the evidence it became apparent that the undisputed attenuation of low-angle sunlight at earth's surface did not necessarily imply a reduction in the total energy absorbed, and that the most reputable sites did not claim that this effect contributed to seasonal temperature. I wonder where the idea originally came from. Anyway, thank you for your patience (and for the barnstar). Wikipedia is no longer reporting a flawed theory, and that's what's most important. Dbfirs 16:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Marrows galore

Hi Dbfirs. You rashly promised pictures showing your marrows and courgettes. Here in S England we have been harvesting for the past 3 weeks, so I imagine in your neck of the woods the marrow season must also have started. 86.154.102.53 (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I should have taken a photo when I saw them on display next to each other in the supermarket but I didn't have my camera with me on that occasion. I haven't seen any marrows recently, but I'll post a photo as soon as I can. I'd need a greenhouse to grow them where I live because we have too much rain and not enough sun. Dbfirs 20:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Photos now added. Dbfirs 14:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Dbfirs. Thank you for your comment on the edits on the Cool Hand Luke page. Unfortunately, this is an ip address on a public network, so I am not the person who made those edits. I ask you please not to sanction this ip address if the edits were offensive or pernicious. Thanks! 162.218.144.66 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dbfirs. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

English-language vowel changes before historic /r/

I beg your pardon, sir. You made an edit on the listed above with a question in the comment. I only wish to answer your question. The comment is below:

Re-phrased. Is this what was intended?

To answer your question, the content of your edit probably was what was intended. I didn't fully understand the original wording myself. That's all.LakeKayak (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. If anyone else thinks it means something different, then they can explain. I'm still not quite clear what some of the other bits mean, so I'll leave them for someone who has read Wells extensively. Dbfirs 18:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"iodine" in British English

An anonymous user reinstated "iodine" on the page American and British English pronunciation differences. Is his claim accurate?LakeKayak (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's another example where both pronunciations are used in both countries, but there is probably a statistical difference as there is with "either" ( where I use both pronunciations). Perhaps we should have a section for statistical differences? I say /ˈaɪədiːn/ but the OED says /ˈʌɪədiːn/ first, and both /ˈʌɪədʌɪn/ and /ˈʌɪədᵻn/ as alternatives for British English, and /ˈaɪəˌdaɪn/ for American. Is there a big variation in the States? Dbfirs 09:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Webster lists both pronunciations. However, I myself have only heard [aɪədaɪn]. LakeKayak (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, probably just a statistical difference. If we could obtain some reliable sources, we could have a separate section to list the percentages for these AB2s. (I think the /ʌ/ in the OED is just outdated 1950s RP.) Dbfirs 20:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

?? Thread/Yarn/String/Cord/Cordage ??

I left some more questions for you at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#What_is_string?. The Transhumanist 07:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Tigers and Bites

Hey, I just wanted to apologize for what was probably a bit of a WP:BITEY tone in my defensive reply to your comment on false accuracy in the paper about tiger bites. You seem to have taken in good stride, thanks! SemanticMantis (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That's OK, I wasn't offended, and hoped that you hadn't been either. My criticism wasn't particularly directed at you. As you said, the paper was perfectly respectable, I was just concerned about the way we were using it. Your reply made me read it properly! Dbfirs 20:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

IP

Hi, Inregards to this - Incase you wasn't aware an IP had actually changed the content not me or the script, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 22:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I should have looked properly at the history. Apologies for accusing your useful and blameless script. Dbfirs 22:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"Copyright free" images

Hey Dbfirs. At the Teahouse you told a user that we only allow images that are "free of any copyright". I really hate to contradict people there so I thought I'd drop by here and ask you to correct that. Even if you don't want to get into fair use with a user, this is not correct as to a huge amount of our images, which are copyrighted but bear a free copyright license (just like our text content). You might say something instead like barring fair use (use of fully copyrighted images which we allow only where the ten non-free content criteria are met), images must either be in the public domain or copyrighted, but bear a free copyright freely licensed that is compatible with the free licenses borne by the majority of Wikipedia content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I did wonder about mentioning fair use, but thought that was possibly a bit complicated for a beginner. My intention was to warn against the common practice of uploading an image from the internet on the assumption that it is public domain. I'll re-phrase my reply. Dbfirs 13:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

DRN case

Hi, User:Dbfirs.

I have added a notice to the dispute resolution noticeboard at WP:DRN#Talk:Sierra_Leone, about the ongoing edit war by Fuadorko2. It would be helpful if you added a statement. Thanks. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this notification. Dbfirs 13:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Sierra Leone". The case is now closed: not enough extensive discussion at article talk page. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Additional comments by volunteer: consider refiling after having extensive discussion at the article talk page under already started discussion on this. Also, filing party should notify all concerned parties about the drn immediately after filing DRN. See closing comments for more details.P.S. You were the only one discussing the issue started by Jimbo himself.
I stopped participating because the discussion was turning into an edit war. I'm happy with article as it now stands in respect of this dispute. Dbfirs 13:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:English English

Hello. I made a request on the aforementioned talk page, and I haven't heard a response yet. Would you be willing to put your two cents in? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help_desk#Verifiable source

Thanks for your suggestions. Although I have decades of experience in subjects such as aviation and internet, I'm new to Wikipedia and still getting to grips with how it works. Gunner1989 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for being you! Rose387 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Paul Osborn American Playwright

Thank you so much for your notes on my entries for Paul Osborn. I especially want to thank you for fixing the all caps mistake that I made. I will be working on citations for Paul Osborn and his plays. I feel strongly that he was a major American playwright and should therefore there should be more information about him on Wikipedia. Selig1553 (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Smith's suggestion sounds etymologically unlikely

Teahouse edit problem

Ref Desk

Book

Your signature

Someone edited my user page...

Non-rhotic /ɜː/

Help desk comment

Hi

Thanking people

imdb

Marrows

Dry shampoo- 'Undid revision 850879540 by H.A.W.C 101 (talk) Wikipedia is not a "how to use" guide.'

global warming

A barnstar for you

Epistemology - filium unigenitum?

Failed login attempts

Lithuania

Microfossil vs nannofossil and Limalok

File:PhiladelphiaSketchClub.jpg

Quick clarification

Hello

HELP CREATING A WIKI PAGE

birth year change of la la anthony

You're a 'Featured Host'

To reply

To respond

References

Correction done

Ellis and Swaledale

Nuts in May

A cup of coffee for you!

Shamsheer Vayalil

The Study of Dialect

Orphaned non-free image File:New Logo for 3D repo.png

Edit: DO NOT DELETE

Draft Josip Zovko

Please help

Sorry for my response on the help desk

Following up - Logo change for an article about a company

/* THE BLUEPRINT SHOW */

Can list of notable authors be added to publishers page on Wikipedia?

Thirteen years of editing!

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Arithmetic mean

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

On a warning/block

Happy holidays

"American logical grammar"

Happy First Edit Day!

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Happy First Edit Day!

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI