User talk:Osiris/December 2013

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 25


Please fix Template:Convert per the change made by a wizard at en:Template:Convert/sandboxlua. That fixes the following problem that can occur with broken input:

  • {{convert|1|ft|=m}} → 1 foot (0.30 m)*

The problem is really confusing when you see it as I first did:

  • {{convert|1|ft|m|adj=mid|=done}} → 1-foot (0.30 m)*

Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm, it was calling a template. That is weird. I'll let you know whether any pop up in the category. Thanks, Johnuniq. Osiris (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Very Confused :/

Hi I want to just mover User:Louise d'Orléans, Princess of Conti to an actual article page but it will not let me move the user bit would you be able to do it? there will be a few redirects too I think :/ Simplegoose (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2013

It looks like it's been taken care of. Have you had a look at the suggestions I made on the talk page? Osiris (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting rollback

Hi Osiris, nay I trouble you to tend to my request for rollback on the RfP page? Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'm just about to go and eat. I'll be back with you in 15 minutes or so. Osiris (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Is dinner that early in Australia? It's summer, btw. Even when I was there in winter, I only ate long after sunset at 5pm. Just curious. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I had it a bit early today. The sun sets at around 7–8ish at the moment, so I usually eat before dark. Osiris (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like I got here too late, sorry. You're doing good with your reverts, from what I can see. Just keep at it. Osiris (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Re-Location map templates

Hi, Osiris: Thank you for saying welcome. About Location map templates, yes Im planning to use them, but you dont expect me to do it at the same moment, let me create them first. --Bajardo (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I do, actually, since we usually only create templates precisely when we need them. Osiris (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Spider International RfD

I also said that evaluating notability does not only involve the sources listed on the page. A quick glance at Google Books, Google News and Google Scholar brings up dozens of sources on the topic. This isn't about whether the Audiophile field is notable. You're wasting my time. Osiris (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have shown you using your citation, that you are contradicting yourself, and instead of AGF action, you have provided side-issue that wasn't a part of the discussion in the paragraph, and then degraded the whole discussion with derogatory/disrespectful remark, I opt not to descend to this level, and thus I opt to discontinue the discussion on your talk page. Thank you for your time. Tdfdc (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't contradicted myself anywhere.
  • You asked: '...Spider's brand and the company is notable in audiophile circles, however the number of people around the world who consider themselves audiophiles, and the relevant media is quite narrow. For example, in the audiophile article on the en.wk only 3 sources are listed for audiophile related information. Should we consider significance of coverage in relation to the number of the available sources that are dealing with the topic?'
  • I responded: 'You will find that there are a whole range of subjects that are extremely notable, but don't fit Wikipedia's inclusion requirements because they haven't been previously written about by sources that are acceptable to Wikipedia,' and later, 'If there aren't many sources available on a given topic, then the topic probably isn't notable under Wikipedia's guidelines.'
I neither expounded upon, nor mentioned, nor alluded to your supplementary example. Nor is it logically conceivable that I would have, since we were not discussing the notability of "Audiophiles". I kept my response focused on the notability guidelines in general, and on Spider International, because those are the only issues we are supposed to be debating. It is not a "side issue", it is the issue, and the only issue as far as I am concerned. I apologise if I caused any offence, but I have spent more than a week exploring the guidelines with you, and not a single source has been provided in that time. So it has been nothing if not a complete waste of time, from my perspective. Osiris (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
"and not a single source has been provided in that time". You are wrong, yet again. Check the revision history of my sandbox, I have added a source on 28.11.13.
"So it has been nothing if not a complete waste of time, from my perspective." And that is why I have said: "Thank you for your time."
On a bigger scale, you have spent a lot of time to deal with the notability issue, and, yourself, haven't provided one source in the entire time of our discussion. I would assume, that you could try to find also a few reliable sources, and help to improve the article. Tdfdc (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right. I really haven't given enough of my valuable time to improving your article. Look at my edit history. I spend multiple hours every day making sure that other people's work is simple enough to stay here, rescuing crappy new pages, reverting vandalism, cleaning up mess, and helping new users get used to writing in Simple English. I really should just forget about all that and focus my efforts on this obscure new company that I've never heard of, but that we must have an article about for people having trouble with English. Never mind that I haven't had any time in months to write an article about what I'm interested in. Let's focus on your project. When I say "sources", you can go ahead and assume that I mean reliable sources. Osiris (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The company is not necessarily obscured, it's just notable in Audiophile circles. If you are not an Audiophile, generally you may not know it. Similarly, if you are not a boxing fan, you may not know who is Provodnikov (who indeed has an article on EN.WK.)
Noting your sarcastic tone, I opt not to react to this.
I would appreciate, not to call the article as my article. In Wikipedia's collaborative approach there are no owners.
As I have said, I appreciate the time you have spent in explaining me the notability issues and would appreciate, if some of the time (not an additional time) you could have used to help to improve the article. Tdfdc (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a small editing community. Like I mentioned a while ago, unless someone also has a keen interest in this, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to take the time to do the research and writing. I am not sure why you are so hesitant on asking other people on to help out with the article. Chenzw  Talk  13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I just don't feel it would be appropriate (to ask unknown people to edit my sandbox, especially considering that it is not sure that the article will get to the mainspace,) but thank you anyway. Tdfdc (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
And to tell honestly, I'm a bit concerned that they may be a bit ridiculed, experience sarcasm, their motives may be asked, they could be told "Not that you are unwelcoming here..". Considering that they are likely to be newbies to Wikipedia, that would create a bad initial experience to them. Certainly I would like to avoid any kind of conflict. Tdfdc (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Considering written above, I would suggest if Osiris could withdraw from dealing with my edits, especially Spider International article, and adopt a neutral stance. I'm politely requesting, if possible, as I believe it's in mutual interests. That is to avoid misuse of valuable time, and to avoid things that related to his interactions with me that became unpleasant towards me on a personal level. I would accept a neutral stance towards Osiris as well, and hopefully in the future it could be changed towards AGF and mutual respect. Tdfdc (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The way I look at it, the article in its current state does not prove the notability of the company convincingly enough. Thus, were it to be moved into the article space, it will, depending on the actioning administrator, be either 1) moved back to the user sandbox or 2) deleted. I have given my suggestions over here and in other places already, and I will leave it to your judgement to decide the best course of action for the article. Chenzw  Talk  16:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Chenzw, I didn't mention anything about moving the article in the article space.
And, in the same time, I would like to recall your original decision that was to allow to post the article, if I'll change it. Do you remember, in the beginning of the RfD you have said that you are disappointed that I did only cosmic changes? Well, then, during the RfD and after it, I have added 3 additional sources, the text was reworked and another member simplified and improved the wording. Tdfdc (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but that does not mean that I will not be disappointed if you went on to do non-cosmetic changes. The article is still unacceptable. I stand by this judgement and will continue to do so until I see more substantial changes and more reliable (and independent, verifiable) sources added to the article. Chenzw  Talk  03:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel I have acted unpleasantly towards you. I don't recall saying anything of a personal nature. If I have, I sincerely apologise. I am only interested in the quality of this project. I realise I haven't met your expectations, in that I haven't helped you in actively editing the page myself. As I said, I have too much on my plate at the moment and it's never going to be a priority for me. It does not mean that I do not respect you. And it does not mean that I will be adopting a neutral stance. My stance is simple: it's the guidelines. I will never be "neutral" about the guidelines. Either you have the evidence of notability, or you do not. Like I said, though, you do not need to get your approval from me. Osiris (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, I appreciate your apology and it is certainly accepted. I'm also interested in the quality of the project. Tdfdc (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Chenzw, have replied to you on your talk page. Tdfdc (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

ABOUT Requests for Patroller

I have been editing on Wikipedia for about a year now, but decided I wanted to help the Simple English Wikipedia. I was looking at things I could do, and I saw the Patroller request option. I would like to become a patroller, but I realize that I have only been on the Simple English Wikipedia for less than a day. Although most things are the same, I still find things seemingly different from Wikipedia. I was wondering if in some time, you would consider me for a patroller. Until then, I will be happy to accept any friendly criticism or suggestions to help me get my editing to what it needs to be for such an important job. Thanks for your time, and please contact me on my talk page to let me know what you think about my proposal and what I can do to get there. Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 16:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pending! Welcome to the project! As it suggests, patrollers are allowed to mark new pages as patrolled. But they also have their own edits automatically marked as patrolled. So you just need to show that you know what an article is supposed to look like. A combination of fixing up pages on Special:NewPages and creating new pages of your own will get you the experience you need. Most of that is quite similar to the English Wikipedia; there are a few quirks here and there that you'll pick up. If you have any questions regarding any of them, please feel free to ask. Face-smile.svg Osiris (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank You Very Much. I am working on getting my editing experience on the Simple English Wikipedia right now. I have already (In under a day) created an article (the link can be found on my page) and almost completely rewrote/wrote an article that did not have proper format, nor correct facts. I will start my work on Special:NewPages right away, sparing no time. Face-smile.svg --Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)

Auto Confirmed Rights

Is there a way you can give me the rights of an auto confirmed user? --Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Pending. That right can't be given. The only way to get it is to have an account that is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits. See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users. If there's some change that can't wait that long, you could ask at Simple Talk for someone to do it for you. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Alright thanks for the help. Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)

Feature movie or Feature film

Hey, how's it going. I recently created a new article entitle Feature movie for that DYK hook, but I was wondering should it be Feature movie or Feature film. If everything is okay should I create a redirect from Feature film to Feature movie? Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, up to you. In a Google search, "feature movie" gets a fraction of the hits "feature film" does. So it could be argued that "feature movie" is more obscure, and therefore less likely to be familiar to English-language learners. However, this wiki seems to prefer "movie" to "film" for some reason, so it might be better to keep it all the same. I don't know if that also applies to compound words like this, though. Yes, create a redirect from the other title though. Osiris (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Osiris. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can take off this notice at any time by getting rid of the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Thanks. I replied. Osiris (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Permission to Use Twinkle

I understand you can not give me auto confirmed right (As by the description I already have them) is it possible you can make it so I can use Twinkle? Currently it says I cannot. --Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)

Probably because you're not autoconfirmed. You registered on the 3rd, so it'll be working for you after tomorrow. Osiris (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Your account has to be 4 days old or have made ten edits. I have made way more than ten edits.--Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)
Not or. And. Osiris (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
AH. Ok I see. So there still isn't any other way to allow me to use Twinkle?--Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)
All there is to do is wait. Only (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Alright. I guess Its good for me to get used to using templates.Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)

I wait no longer. I am now an autoconfirmed user. Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 14:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

IW links

Do we not use them anymore? I saw your edit - it confused me anyway, all the links were there but no IW link in the article... I must have missed that change while I was away? :) Kennedy (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh they're just centralised in Wikidata now. So each page here is connected to a page on Wikidata, and that transcludes the IW links onto our page. If you want to connect, say, Hallasan to its corresponding item on Wikidata, you click "Add links" under the "Languages" section of the sidebar and then enter one other article on another language-version of Wikipedia (Language: English (enwiki); Page: Hallasan) and then it'll connect our page to the list. Osiris (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have left a change summary. I thought Eptalon had just left it on the page. Osiris (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. That'll save time. I never knew about that, thanks! :) Kennedy (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


I was wondering, is there a way to auto archive your talkpage? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

See User:MiszaBot for info. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Is there no need to add interwiki links nowadays? (Just saw this). Also, thanks for the heading name change. Yottie =talk= 00:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just added in a different way now. See #IW links above. Osiris (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. Guess I'm not the only person around here who's confused. ;) Yottie =talk= 00:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Add phoptos

Hello Osiris :) I'm new in wikipedia, i recieve your mesage about new page hwo i want craeated, i understand reason for nedd to be delete this page and i write a new article, i hope for this time to be ok. But i need little help please: "how" can add pictures on my article? Even i read about this on internet still i don't real english is not my native lanquage and i don't know english very good unfortunately :( If you can help me to explain me about pictures will be awesome

Thank you and have a beautiful evening - Redorchidd (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2013‎

Hi Redorchidd :)
To add images, follow these instructions (한국어/日本語). First, though, you would need to upload an image of this person to Wikimedia Commons. The image must be available under a copyright license that Wikimedia Commons accepts. If you're not familiar with copyrights, it can be a bit complicated, but this page (한국어/日本語) should give you a basic understanding. Probably most of the images you will find on the Internet of this person will be copyrighted at least commercially and, therefore, you will not be able to use them. If you have taken a photo of this person in a public place, then you'll be able to use that.
About the article: If you find it difficult to read and write in English, I would recommend that you first write an article about the person in your native language. I've assumed that it's either Korean or Japanese. Publish the article in your native-language version of Wikipedia (한국어/日本語). Then try to translate it into Simple English, and I'll be able to help you.
If you need anything meanwhile, let me know. Regards, Osiris (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


Queue 2 is full. Time for an update. I would do it myself, but I'm scared I might screw it up. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Spider International RfD 2

Could we have another RfD for the article? I think that at it's current state it might be suitable for the main space. Tdfdc (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I've been on a break for the holidays. I'll have a look at the sources a bit later and let you know whether I think it's ready. Osiris (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So we needed to see reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that show significant coverage of the company. Let's examine what we've got:

  • There are the references that were on the page when the RfD closed:
  • An article in PC Magazine that briefly mentions a product by Spider as an example for a wider study. Reliable, but not an example of significant coverage (especially not of the company).
- You have misunderstood a bit the article, probably because you have used a computer translator.
  • Listings on two trade show websites. Not examples of significant coverage; not really reliable either.
- On world known trade shows. Reliable for the fact itself that it was/will exhibit there, right? As for scientists notability would be acquainted via participation in world known conferences, so for the companies is participation in the trade shows.
  • That review on, which looks like a sponsored review. Reliability is dubious, and not really significant coverage.
- Well, is listed as a reliable source on En.Wk for Audiophile related information, actually I got it from the article. Should we assume without an evidence that it is a sponsored review? I would think we could give it a benefit of a doubt.
  • Added since then are the following:
  • A listing in an online telephone directory. Reliable, but obviously not an example of significant coverage.
  • That review from iLounge you linked on my talk page, a standard review of one of the company's products. Not really reliable and not an example of significant coverage of the company.
  • A catalog page on that advertises some of the company's products, along with their prices. Not reliable, and should not be linked anywhere from Wikipedia. I'm surprised our spam filter didn't block it.
  • A page on comparing online reviews for one of Spider's products. The reviews compared are by users (customers) on various consumer websites; in this case, and It also compares the prices quoted on various websites. Not an example of significant coverage in reliable sources.

The writing is much better since we had the RfD, from what I can see. But we've not had any real improvement in terms of sources. I'm sure that you made a serious effort in trying to locate such sources, but if this is the fruit of your endeavours then it might be time to concede that there just isn't enough out there to sufficiently demonstrate notability.

If you want to review the decision to delete the page, you can file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review at any time, and invite the editors who were part of the original decision. Osiris (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove the reference from I haven't done yet a serious effort, there are more sources. I have added a request at Deletion review, could you please check whether I have formatted it properly and fix if there is anything wrong?
I would appreciate to know your opinion on every count, if possible. Tdfdc (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The company is a CEA member. While I don't know what that means, it might imply a point towards it's notability as well.
There are two more sources:, and, the latter requiring a payment to get an access. While scientific articles with a need of payment we could get access to, I doubt there is a way to get an access to this one.
Have added a source from of Postmedia Network - likely a very reliable source. (
Have added a reliable source. It also says: "The 2012 International CES, the world’s largest consumer technology trade show". So, the company has participated two times at the largest consumer technology trade show in the world. Has listed following claims after being translated:

~ ~ American professional headphones website HeadRoom recommended as the 2011 best buy ear headphones ~~美國專業耳機網站Head- Fi推薦為2011年秋季最佳禮品(Holiday Gift Guide) ~ ~ American professional website Head-Fi headphones recommended as the fall of 2011 Best Gift (Holiday Gift Guide) ~~美國Mainstreet Newspaper推薦三大Great Headphones for Business Travel ~ ~ American Mainstreet Newspaper recommend three Great Headphones for Business Travel

I'll dig into it to get more sources. Tdfdc (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2013‎ (UTC)
It would have been a good idea to make a serious effort before requesting a review of the deletion decision. Repeat requests are not likely to be welcomed. But whatever you come up with during the review will be taken into account. About the additional sources: while I'm sure the websites are reliable, the content you're citing is not independent – it's written by the company itself... However reliable the websites, showing that they host such content is not demonstrating anything of importance. I'm sure you realise this, but the quantity of references doesn't make a difference. The company's name can be mentioned on a million websites, but mentions and listings are not what editors need to see. Osiris (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I have taken a serious effort. But I haven't very very serious effort. :) What you have said regarding 'it's written by the company itself" I'll address on the DR, if that is ok. Tdfdc (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I hope you realized that you have told me that after I have started the DR. (Rightly assuming that I indeed didn't know this.)Tdfdc (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting AWB permission

Please take a look at my request here. Please direct all your future messages there. Thanks. - Jayadevp13 17:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)