User talk:AngoraFish/Archive 1

Hi. Thanks for letting me know the etiquette for AfD discussions. I didn't realise that I was not meant to vote, being the person who marked the AfD in the first place. This is the first article I have marked for deletion. I have now removed the comment. Cheers. ChimpanzeeUK -

Cheers. :)

Debate 木

07:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest leaving some of the auction types as "see alsos" for now, or at least don't go out of your to incorporate them into the text. Some should be potentially deleted and/or merged. Questionable ones include: Candle auction (maybe use if it looks good in history, but I'm lilkely to merge that article with English auction); Chinese auction (I see it's already gone, good); Iraqi auction (should probably be deleted entirely); Swiss auction (looks real, but of pretty low importance at least first run through); French auction (like Swiss auction, looks low importance)

I'd also suggest segregating "real" auction types from ones that are mostly/only models. All-pay auction is a great model, but pretty irrelevant to the practice of auctions. Dollar auction is a funny trick, but likewise irrelevant.

I hope these (and any future) suggestions are helpful. As long as you're the one doing the work, don't feel any particular obligation to follow my advice. Go

Ah, my bad, got burried in the edit summaries.

木

13:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I knew is because I'm the one who PRODded it last time. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Now

木

13:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So, how is the Milgrom book? I should probably pick it up myself. Cretog8 (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. It's dense. It jumps straight in at the deep end and keeps diving so I certainly wouldn't be recommending it to relative beginners such as myself! You, on the other hand, might find it more than sufficiently rigorous for your taste. Milgrom is an impressive thinker and the writing is very readable, if you can cope with the math. Unfortunately, I'm having a great deal more trouble than I had initially expected extracting any useful citations out of it for this place.

BTW, I'm currently in the process of a bit of reworking on the

木

03:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To butt in, I found the Milgrom book hard to follow but Paul Klemperer's book was pretty useful. Besides, most of it is free. Protonk (talk)

Yeah, I need to make more use of that. I am a little uncomfortable, however, using Klemperer's draft as a

木

02:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's cool. The chapters that I read from the published version (2 and 3) did not differ significantly from the published version. I don't recommend using the draft itself as a source, but the book is helpful. Also, have you read The Lonely but Lovely Vickrey Auction? The paper there is the conference report but it was published in Milgrom's Combinatorial Auctions. The math is no less imposing than that found in Milgrom's other auction works, but at the very least the Vickrey Auction is a simpler mechanism to analyze. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I'll check it out when I get a spare moment. :)

木

04:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello--I have to admit I'm losing my ability to

Thanks, sounds like good advice. I'll try to concentrate on making good changes rather than debating at the talk page. Cretog8 (talk)

I oppose the merger on all grounds, most importantly the ground that no consensus was sought nor obtained for such. Badagnani (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as stated above. Respectfully, consensus will need to be obtained for such a merger. Badagnani (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's best to address such questions at the actual talk page itself, or, even better, disseminate news of such a merger plan to the relevant article talk pages and projects. Badagnani (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion over at

Sorry for ignoring your message for a few days. I'll review the discussion that already exists and take action if necessary. If I recall correctly, there was still disagreement, or at the very least not total agreement, regarding where the resulting page should be directed. I'd prefer not to take any action until there is consensus on where to place the article, rather than merge

tussock (grass) and then later decide to move it to tussock grass. Keep an eye on the talk page over there for a new thread to direct conversation, if necessary. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk

) 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A user you have recent interaction with is the subject of an ANI discussion here. Please feel free to comment. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing barter. Pawyilee (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, anytime. :)

木

09:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You deleted my addition; it was truely neutral addition; you thought it was a viewpoint; it is not; did you EVEN READ the reference which was from the prestigeous Livermore National Labs (where they design nuclear weapons) or did you did delete-on-impulse my addition...

If you knew anything about that subject, you would have kept it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.254.207 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You contribution was not "truly neutral". There was argumentative phrasing throughout such as "the wasteful American consumer" (opinion), "EPA studies indicate" (which studies?), etc. Overall the contribution clearly read as an argument in favor of lighter paper weights and made little apparent effort to match existing text. Additionally, ALL CAPS was used repeatedly and in-line commentary was smattered between facts such as "is (apparently!)", "See new-provisional wikipedia entry", "which should be "absorbed" into future wikipedia article" etc. Furthermore, the one link you provided did not clearly support the information contained in your text - a reader should not have to wade through an extensive website in order to find the specific pages that you have used to source your contributions. There was also confusing grammar (eg "...ANY WEIGHT STRICKLY 20 and is...") and the contribution was incomplete by its own admission suggesting to a potential reader that it had been thrown together quickly and without a lot of forethought. See Wikipedia's

木

01:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back! I have no idea how long it will last. I'm here for fun, and found myself spending too much time pissed-off, so I still need to find a sustainable WP mind-space. This is a very peculiar project. Cretog8 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I entirely understand. My first experience with editing drove me off Wikipedia for a year. Since then I've tried to stick to stuff where my care-factor is a little lower and the conflict less frequent, or at least, in which I have less personal investment, eg

木

03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a good one, I'd forgotten about it! I also keep this in mind: http://www.xkcd.com/438/ Cretog8 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

:-)

木

04:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I just looked over my edit at

Not a problem, I admit that I'd missed the collapsed discussion archive tab. :-)

木

00:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for being so understanding! ;) About the name, I agree with you 100%, the name you suggested should be the official name, but since i followed the original debate I know that that proposal would have a zero chance of being accepted. I mean, both sides were mostly

civil towards each other and they argumented strongly for their respective "cause", but in the end, the discussion becamed a juggernaut, everything said got repeated over and over again, until the current compromise was (finally) reached. Talsurrak (talk

) 23:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick thank you for your constructive criticism. You have made me double check a lot of things, including my motivation for contributing to wikipedia. It is a wonderful, if at times painful learning experience.Philip1966 (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you think so, I try to be objective in these things but that always has the potential to end up pleasing nobody... I unfortunately have this conversation a little too often, but to repeat a comment I've recently made to someone else above, I was turned off editing Wikipedia for nearly a year after my first go here. I find that the disclaimer below every edit is often painfully true - if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. It helps if you can stick to topics where the personal investment is a little less intense until you get a good feel for the place - an investment in time that I can sympathise is very hard to justify for many.

木

07:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(cross posted from Commons) You did a really great job with this. It looks a thousand times better than the last one. Thanks for all your help and if you need any article work done, please let me know. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Flattery will get you everywhere. ;-)

木

01:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please retouche this. I can't rezolve that eror. Please. Asybaris01 (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, are you willing to help me again with some work on this map? The author managed to do some tweaks to it, but there still are a few minor problems (cosmetic ones), that shouldn't be hard to fix for someone with experience.

Can you please make it look like the PNG, from every aspect? Thankfully "every aspect" ≠ many aspects, but it requires a certain level of knowledge. But please don't add that blue title in the lower left corner of the PNG, that's the only thing that should be kept out. About the rest, I'll list them, in order to get a better idea of what I mean:

• The colors — can you please make all the colors of the SVG be the same as in the PNG, without exception (the text, the markings, everything).
• The big text around the green area — can you please also make these have the same curvature?
• Proportions — the proportion of the green area compared to that of the canvas. In the SVG the text touches the margins in some places, could you fix that as well?
• The text — in the SVG it is a little deformed, or otherwise odd looking. Could you fix that? An example is "La podu' lu' Fus". Basically all the text should be make at the same angle, font size, and the same case (lower or caps) as in the PNG. This will probably be the hardest thing to do, but please help if you can.
• A missing text — "În prundu' lu' Șesăr" was taken out by the author because it didn't display properly in the SVG. Can you make it look like this?
• And two more minor modifications — the color and font of the map scale, and the transparency of the compass.

I know this might be quite a lot, but I really don't think it is that hard. Anyway, if not, could you at least do a few of these things? But if you can plase help me with this. Diego_pmc ^Talk 19:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very busy in real life right now, but if I get a chance to have a look at this I will see what I can do. There could, however, be a bit of a delay.

木

09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm going to watch this page, but if there is any important update, could you please also notify me on my talk page? Diego_pmc ^Talk 13:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll leave a message on your talk page.

木

14:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to ask you something. The author, as you can see, did a few other changes. The text however looks odd in some places, especially the smaller one, with letters getting into one another, and the text is not very readable. Do you know why in Inkscape the text is perfectly fine, and when you view it at its original size at Commons, it looks like that? Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very hard to get a consistent display of text with an image this text-heavy because SVGs do not save the fonts themselves. How a particular font is going to be displayed by individual browsers is likely to be effected by a range of factors unique to each person's system, so it's hard to get a consistent result. For example, the image looks okay on my screen, although clearly not so good on yours. A couple of things you can do to possibly improve things: a) try to use one of the wikipedia

木

19:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your break, however long it may be, and congratulations. I've enjoyed it when we both worked on articles. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've declined your speedy on this page as G4 only applies when the page has been deleted due to a discussion at AfD (or IfD for images, etc.). Having taken a brief look at the article, I don't see that it meets any of the other speedy deletion criteria. If you still have a concern with the article, though, you may want to nominate it for deletion at AfD or add an appropriate cleanup tag. Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions.

Emailed to you. Once the debate starts up, I may just restore it depending on how much you refer to those comments in your nomination.

a/c

) 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.