User talk:Darrien/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive. Please use User talk:Darrien for new comments

This user page is a barnstar free zone
This user page is a barnstar free zone

If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond to me there.

Affirmative action[edit]

On the affirmative action, it's important to point out arguments against affirmative action to maintain a neutral point of view. I've just put all that material into a separate section to show how it's not part of the movement itself, but an opposition opinion. --zandperl 18:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re Sulph/furic acid - if you want to move it, you can do it yourself :) Just use the Move This Page link. I'll let you do it, so you can practice... HTH Dysprosia 22:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, done. By the way, if you want to indent, you don't have to use spaces, just use a semicolon at the beginning of each line. Dysprosia 22:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, i guess you created dimethylmercury ... i guess we created it at the same time, and it said it had been edited since i pressed the submit button ... i just added your bit about the profs death. Whatever, it makes no diff =p YahoKa 18:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


My goodness, I'd never thought I'd get into a dispute over a darn picture. Have you read: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution ?

I think you may not have done so, since you continued to revert after I'd asked you to discuss things on talk. In fact, you did so twice. That's just not very polite of you.

I reverted only once after you asked me to discuss on talk.
Darrien 11:31, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Just in case I'll need it, I'm also going to point you to Wikipedia:Quickpolls_policy. I hate quickpolls though, let's try to stay constructive.

I've posted a constructive way out of this dispute at talk:file system

have a nice day! Kim Bruning 10:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

fyi: page history:

  1. (cur) (last) . . 12:02, 4 Apr 2004 . . Darrien (rv: Remove unneccesary image yet again.)
  2. (cur) (last) . . 11:25, 4 Apr 2004 . . Kim Bruning (RV the image back again. I will not have an rv war over this. Take it to talk now please. Thank you very much.)
  3. (cur) (last) . . 11:00, 4 Apr 2004 . . Darrien (rv: Remove image again. It's unneccesary and has nothing to do with filesystems.)
  4. (cur) (last) . . m 09:18, 4 Apr 2004 . . Hadal (image fmt)
  5. (cur) (last) . . 09:15, 4 Apr 2004 . . Kim Bruning (rv to before Daniel. (Daniel, you didn't explain why you removed the image on talk?))

That's 2 times. Maybe you missed it the first time. Thank you for conceding that you did in fact do so with full knowlege at least once.

Now I'm willing to grant that maybe you hadn't read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution at that point in time, or maybe you'd simply forgotten. That's fine by me. But well, please don't claim that I'm lying.

I would like to find a constructive solution here, which will help wikipedia. I hope you're willing to cooperate. I'll ask a sysop to come in and take a look at our dispute and give some all round advice.

Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 12:26, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see only one revert after you asked for me to use the talk pages. If you think that there is more than one, then please show it to me.
Darrien 14:21, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

You like to weed out typos. :-) Oh well, it was my typo:

  1. (cur) (last) . . 09:15, 4 Apr 2004 . . Kim Bruning (rv to before Daniel. (Daniel, you didn't explain why you removed the image on talk?))

s/Daniel/Darrien/ DARN!

Next time I'll certainly wait 24 hours before dealing with an odd looking rv. If people get hasty they start making small mistakes like that. Note that you shouldn't really revert at all if you take things to talk. Anyway, Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 17:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

EADS Phoenix[edit]

I would like to know why the spelling of the word "programme" and the SI units should be in German, when clearly the article isn't. I don't see why it is necessary, but I'm looking forward to hear why. -- Maver1ck 09:11, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I will answer this on the EADS talk page. Please do not leave a message on two pages, saying the same thing. If you wish to discuss an article, use its talk page. If you do not recieve a response in a reasonable amount of time, then you may wish to leave a message on a user's talk page.
Darrien 16:01, 2004 May 22 (UTC)


It is rather cute that you even go so far as to label your reversions 'vandalism'. Please do stop though vandalising my work though. Your only argument is that punctuation must be consistent. If all the hyphens are corrected, where is the inconsistency? You must explain yourself before embarking on an edit war. Chameleon 17:13, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

See my comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump
Darrien 17:21, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

Jeffrey Combs[edit]

Judging from your talk page, I see abrasiveness is not one of your more uncommon traits.

With regards to signatures: have you ever seen a real encyclopedia? Article authors often sign their work. Calling it "vain" is therefore insulting and rather inaccurate.

With regards to HTML markup: Wikipedia's code seems counterintuitive to me. I've already learned HTML, so why not use it? The same result is given on the page and is more universally recognized on the web. It may also help decrease the burden on the Wikipedia server.

I'm re-adding my signature.

Darrien is abrasive, but you are wrong here. — Chameleon 22:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Skin color[edit]

Darrien, have you tried the other skins? One of them might work for you. Try Standard, it's the old skin that we had before. RickK 21:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I am using standard. I have also tried all the other skins. Nostalgia doesn't have the side bar, the font is *way* too small in Cologne Blue, and Monobook is so horrible that it causes me physical pain when I look at it.
Darrien 22:08, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Try clearing your cache. I was having problems until I did that, but I'm using the Standard skin, and it looks just the same as the old version.  ::RickK 23:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Still the same. I doubt it's anything on my end because the only text that is changing is between two "==".
Darrien 01:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Try the preferences link, then select skins and choose one of the four available skins. Standard is the old default skin, which is completely unchanged.
Or use User:Darrien/monobook.css to overwrite the monobook settings to suit your needs.


Are you and David Gerard having a multi-article rampage war? You might want to get out before people take notice. The one who continues will be more at fault. - Tεxτurε 15:51, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Space article[edit]

I see the CJK link at the top now, thanks. On the other hand, I think it'd still be useful to have it linked from within the table, because it's easy to miss if the reader skips the paragraph on international & historical usage. Also, I think the link is actually more relevant down there. Gwalla | Talk 07:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ed Wood[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you made minor (but valuable) edits to the Edward D. Wood, Jr. page I'm working on. Thanks for that! I wonder if you'd be able to drop by that page again? I tried to add an image today but I've never done that before and I'm not sure why it isn't working. Does Wikipedia need to approve it first or something? Thanks, buddy! - Angry_Candy

It looks like you've got everything working. Do you still need help?
Darrien 21:34, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

Race image[edit]

Hi, I noticed you ditched the image I added to race. I put this on to move the article from Articles missing pictures on WP:FAC. Can you find an appropriate image? Cheers, Lupin 01:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs an image. Race is an abstract concept and cannot be represented with an image.
Darrien 01:22, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
Very well. Would you object to illustrating (for example) the sections that talk about activists including Martin Luther King with images of those activists and/or their activism? Lupin 09:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes I would. The article is primarily about race in a biological sense. If you must clutter up the page with semi-tangentially related pictures, I would suggest something along the lines of this: Image:Binary-tree-structure.png.
Darrien 21:48, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

Sulfur and aluminium[edit]

When you're done correcting "sulphur" to the IUPAC standard "sulfur", will you be correcting "aluminum" to IUPAC standard "aluminium"? There are many such pages: Indium, for example, claims it's "chemically similar to aluminum". Marnanel 14:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I will. I have corrected it in the past and continue to do so now. If you see any references to aluminum, feel free to correct them.
Darrien 21:48, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

GNU GPL changes[edit]

I disagree with your recent changes to the GNU GPL page. You labeled an externally linked article as "why the GPL is too constrictive". I previously labeled it as "an opinion piece claiming the GNU GPL is too restrictive". A scientist can explain an accepted fact, such as "why the earth goes around the Sun", but she can't say "Why God exists" - that's an issue of belief. Whether the GPL is too constrictive or not is also an issue of belef, not accepted fact. I do prefer the word "constrictive" over "restrictive", but I think the label should be "an opinion piece arguing that the GNU GPL is too constrictive".

If you are going to label it as an opinion piece, then you must also label: "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else. ...why a GPL-compatible license is important to the health of a project" as an opinion piece.
Maybe such opinion pieces should be in a subsection. I'll leave as-is for now.

Secondly, you removed my link to the text of GPL v1.0. I can't see any reason for removing this historically relevent and important document. I'd like to re-add it, and to make the above change, but will this be reverted again, or have I justified my work? Gronky

I did not remove it, I moved it.
Darrien 04:41, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
D'oh. My mistake. Gronky 22:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Several people have taken time on the talk page to explain why the photos need a lengthy caption. Yet you continue to revert, without addressing anyone on the talk page. Please stop. If you can't accept the consensus on the talk page, go to the mediation committee and ask for mediation. But stop reverting. Slrubenstein


Hi Darrien. Slrubenstein has requested mediation with you on the race article. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and let us know if you agree to participate in mediation. Thank you. moink 19:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)[edit]


Please be advised re the ban warning you issued at that this IP address is one of three public IPs from a large aerospace company with ~170,000 employees (Samspade will let you know which one, if you're really curious). Anyone who hits the web from inside the company has a 33% chance of showing up as being from that addy.

Banning that address would affect a lot of people. Just FYI.

Linux caption, information in captions[edit]

I think your wrong in wanting short image captions that do nothing but identify the object in the image.

You think my wrong is what?
Your wrong is in trolling. Did I point out that the logical conclusion to draw from your changelog comment "Don't put information in captions..." implies that there's no point in having captions? We're out of band here, gimme some slack.--Kop 16:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you respond to me again.
Point taken. Your right. I'll try again. --Kop 08:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think you're making fun of my writing. If true, this is a personal attack and not nice. --Kop 08:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Be realistic, if I can't understand what you write, then I can't respond to it. If you believe that me asking you to clairify what you mean is a personal attack, then please end this discussion *now* and refrain from talking to me in the future.

Your position seems to conflict with Wikipedia:Captions guidelines.

If it does, then the guidelines conflict with the examples they give of good captions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Writing_Captions. A few examples from DOOM, Olympics, History of computing hardware, and Charles Graner:
  • For months before the Olympic Games, runners relay the Olympic Flame from Olympia to the opening ceremony.
  • Athletes trained in this Olympia facility in its heyday.
  • With 10 Olympic titles, Ray Ewry may be considered the most successful Olympic athlete in history.
  • Gears are at the heart of mechanical devices like the Curta calculator.
  • The slide rule, a basic mechanical calculator, facilitates multiplication and division.
  • Nomograms, like this Smith chart serve as analog computers for specific classes of problems.
  • Electronic computers became possible with the advent of the vacuum tube.
  • ENIAC performed ballistics trajectory calculations with 160kW of power.
  • Transistors, above, revolutionized computers replacing vacuum tubes as smaller and more efficient replacements for vacuum tubes.
  • Graner poses with Pvt. Lynndie England.
  • A picture showing Graner (marked number one) and other prison staff.
  • Graner poses over the dead body of Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi prisoner; a small patch of blood can be seen on his right temple and his eyes are sealed closed with tape.
  • The DOOM title artwork depicts the lone hero, a space marine, fighting demonic creatures.
  • Episode I: Knee-Deep in the Dead takes place in a military base. In this image the player is currently using the chainsaw, a powerful melee-only weapon. Pools of toxic waste are visible on both sides, and a zombified marine approaches.
  • Episode III: Inferno is set in Hell. The player has just fired the shotgun at a group of Imps and is reloading it. He is badly injured and has only seven shells left.
  • Adrian Carmack working on the Baron of Hell. The DOOM monsters were digitized from clay models.
  • In this screenshot from DOOM II: Hell on Earth, the player has just fired the double-barrelled shotgun, thus exploding a minigun-equipped zombie.
Notice how all of them simply describe the picture?
Let me be more accurate in my phrasing. Captions should not (just) name the subject of the picture.--Kop 16:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That sounds more like a new statement than a re-phrasal of your original one.
Could be, none the less, that was what I had in mind when I first wrote. --Kop 08:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You should consider reverting your change to the Linux caption. --Kop 14:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have changed it so the text displayed under the picture meets the definition of the word "caption". Please let me know if this is acceptable to you.
I think you've a very good caption there. (Somebody might quibble about dashes, but that's detail and a dash is ok by me.) However, for the very reason you pointed out in the image caption changelog I think your caption is more appropriate for the image in the Tux article. Your caption is about Tux, with a little Linux thrown in. I prefer my caption for the Linux article as it's more about Linux with some Tux thrown in.
You seem to think that the word "caption" has a meaning which it does not. The relevant entry from Webster defines "caption" as: "the explanatory comment or designation accompanying a pictorial illustration". A caption should not contain anything more than a description of the picture, not only because the definition of the word (and Wikipedia policy) says so, but so that people using a screen reader (or text browser) can form an image of what is in the picture. Extra information, or information that if one were interested in, is visibly linked to in the caption, only serves to clutter the page.
I think the Wikipedia will be most useful if the "explanatory comment" explains the relationship of the picture to the article in which it appears. This is how I read Wikipedia:Captions#Criteria for a good caption points 2, 3 and 4. An ideal caption will present this 'extra information' without significantly detracting from the visual description presented via a screen reader, because it is, well, extra. --Kop 08:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
But you raise a good point here and one worth bringing to the attention of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions people. Captions are not ideal and there's only so much that will fit. Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions seems to directly conflict with Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, which on a quick reading seems to want exactly what you want, the text should just describe the image. I was under the impression that when an image was uploaded it got descriptive text along with it, and the descriptive text would then be used as an image alternative text for screen readers, etc. This would be the descriptive text which would always go with the image. It seems there is a place for descriptive text to go with the image but it is not used as the alternative text for the image, and seems more centered around copyright tracking. The Image:M1A1 abrams front.jpg image appearing on Tank has an image description that begins with "A front view of an M1A1 Abrams..." that would be the perfect alternative text. But it is not used.  :-( I now notice that the alt text of all the images is the same as the captions, and I don't think this should be the case. They serve two different purposes. If MediaWiki had a image alternative text to go with the image, and used it as alternative text, then we'd both be satisfied (and the Alternative text people wouldn't have to duke it out with the Writing Captions people.) What do you think? --Kop 08:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That sounds OK to me, though I would still prefer captions to be somewhat limited in verbosity. At the font size I use, overly long captions can severely impair readability of an article.
FYI, There seem to be a number of threads related to this. I believe they're all referenced at this MediaWiki URL. -- kop 00:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Consider the general case where many articles use the same image, and rightly so. Clearly (to me) one caption will not best serve all articles.
This is where we differ. One caption should be good enough in all but the rarest cases, as a caption is only describing the image.
Ah, this is the crux of the matter then. --Kop 08:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What criteria should be used to craft the best caption for each article, or, to put it another way, what should be the distinguishing characteristic(s) that differentiate these image captions?
OT, Your caption does contain information already in the Tux article.
You didn't seem to have a problem with your caption containing information in the Tux article, why should you with mine?
I don't have a problem, I'm just stating the fact as the topic of my paragraph.--Kop 08:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't think this is a problem in a Tux article caption as I see no reason not to assume that many people will first look at an article's image and caption and then, perhaps, go on to read the article. I buy the argument at Wikipedia:Captions#Why use full sentences? We are not looking for the highest possible information density, "accessibility/friendliness" is a concern too. Of course, the article could always be amended to exclude any information present in the caption.
What if a blind reader were to configure their screen reader to *not* read text from image captions? Omiting information in an article because it is duplicated in a caption would deprive them of information.
Which is why I say we are 'not' looking for the highest possible information density, it's fine to duplicate information.--Kop 08:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Darrien 06:35, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
Darrien 03:54, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
--Kop 16:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Darrien 20:12, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

At the distinct risk of jumping into the frey, I see a couple of things going on here:

  • Wikipedia:Captions conflicts with Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, and the chief reason for that conflict is technical: there is no (convenient) facility for specifying separate alt text and caption. (Ergo, we should ask for a facility.) I will explain this on Wikipedia_talk:Captions if nobody beats me to it. Further, we need to figure out how to request the change.
  • At least some of the captions cited as examples of good captions are not. I avoided checking the captions on the Charles Graner article because I got into a spat with the primary author over its featured status as relates to the pictures included. Upon review, several of the captions are less than stellar.
  • Others of those captions cited provide additional information. Consider this caption I wrote:
Nomograms, like this Smith chart serve as analog computers for specific classes of problems.
Before the edit, it was "Smith chart" or "Nomogram" IIRC. Neither told me anything about what the thing was or what it was good for, and without prior knowledge of its purpose, it just looked like a pretty Spirograph drawing. I researched it to learn its purpose, and included that in the caption. It most certainly gives more information than just a label for the picture.
Likewise, the caption which used to be "Olympia training facility" IIRC
Athletes trained in this Olympia facility in its heyday.
brings the facility back to life for the viewer.
All that said, these captions are not perfect. They are wiki text just like most of the rest of this encyclopedia. -- ke4roh 12:17, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I did like Kop's caption about Tux. Even though it repeated information about Tux from that other article, it helped me to understand the relationship of the penguin to Linux — without having to first become an expert on Tux. The capiton there today tells me only slightly more than I can see with my eyes, so it's good for alt text, but not so good for a caption. -- ke4roh 12:27, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you changed the interwiki link ordering on some articles I have added fi: link. Do you think it is right ? I thought they should be in such order that the resulting links in the rendered page are in alphabetical order. Jpk 13:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know it's counter-intuitive, but the de-facto standard here is to have the interwiki links alphabetical in the source, not as rendered. They probably should be changed so they are alphabetical when rendered, but the vast majority of articles aren't. It would create too much confusion to have some articles one way and the rest another.
If you want to have this changed, you can leave a note at Wikipedia:Village pump. Someone may be willing to write a bot to convert the entire database, or change the software so it automatically renders in the correct order.
Darrien 21:48, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Edit attribution[edit]

Hi Darrien. There is a pending request from you to reattribute edits from to you, but this IP has no edits. Was the request already processed? Thanks Kate Turner | Talk 04:37, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Darrien 20:51, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)


Please don't change British English spellings for AE spellings for the sake of it. Mintguy (T) 22:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was going to say the same to you. The manual of style says that American topics should have American spelling. Since potato chips were created in America, it should have American spelling.
Darrien 22:59, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
However, you're editing the word flavouring, which refers to the Irish invention of flavoured crisps. In Ireland, we use the u in the spelling Kiand 23:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That argument might work if the article was focused on flavored potato chips, but it's not. Also, looking through the history, I found that the article originally used "flavor". Changing the spelling to "flavour" in the first place was against wikipedia policy.
Darrien 23:13, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
The introduction on the subject of flavourings was introducted in this edit [1]. The subject is not a US subject it is a worldwide subject. Please don't change again. Mintguy (T) 08:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but the main focus of the article is on potato chips, an American invention. The MoS says not to have a mix of spellings, so we can't have just that section use the "-our" ending. And the edit you cited above went against wikipedia policy when it changed the spelling. I'm going to have to ask *you* not to change it again.
Darrien 09:24, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
Its an internationally available product, they're sold everywhere, and the flavourings are an Irish invention. I've changed back to the proper, original, real spelling of the word Flavour.
Kiand 15:12, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, if you check the edit history, the article originally used "flavor". It was changed against wikipedia policy to "flavour". Does the fact that the article is titled "Potato chips" not suggest that American spelling should be/was used to begin with? The introductory sentence "Potato chips (or crisps in British and Irish usage)" has already established that this article was written from an American viewpoint.
If you have a dispute with the spelling used in the article, you should talk to the policy makers. They are the ones that wrote the rules that I (acting on behalf of the community as a whole) am attemping to enforce.
Why don't you leave this article with the American spelling and create another such as Flavored potato chips or Flavoured crisps where it will be an Irish invention and can use Irish spelling?
Darrien 20:04, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
No, I don't see why I, or anyone else, should have to pander to American dumbing down of the English language on an International article.
However, at this stage I'm considering unredirecting Crisps and writing an article that uses real English, and refers solely to the European interpretation of crisps, just because the Americans on the Wikipedia seem to assume the world revolves around them. No other countries use the retardo-spellings
Kiand 20:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can see now that it's useless to try to reason with you. Your bigotry has blinded you to the point where you can't even see that what you're doing violates wikipedia policy. Good day.
Darrien 02:22, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

American Bobtail[edit]

PLEASE stop with the color/colour arguement. This is such a miniscule detail. Thank you. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 21:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


From the MoS "For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English." In the list of rules and exceptions that follows there is no mention of IUPAC conventions, or anything similar. The IUPAC rules also do not mention spelling, only naming, thus resolving what could be seen as a contradiction. As to the MoS discussion, I have no interest in changing the status quo and little interest in the subject in entirely. You are the one proposing substantial changes to the encyclopedia, and it is thus you who's obligated to reach consensus. - SimonP 04:41, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Is this related to the discussion we're having here: User talk:SimonP#MoS violation? If so, please respond to me on your talk page so I, and others, can more easily follow the line of dialog.
Darrien 10:45, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

Periodic table[edit]

I was rushed and had to log off before I could make it perfect. It was always intended to be a different colour. Most things I do can be considered works in progress. I am real glad someone approves because everywhere I turn these days are people being assholes to me. That doesn't belong on the list because of that POV reason, that is wrong because of this POV... Cheers --metta, The Sunborn 02:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gratoutious Linux References[edit]

Live CD. Reads like an advertisment for Linux.

Kiand 15:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up. Didn't want to tackle it myself after my rant on the attached talk page... Kiand 18:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the tip.
Darrien 18:50, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)