User talk:Jerome Charles Potts

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

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 06:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

-- Thank you. I don't know how to reply to you, so i will do so here. Greetings to you too. Jerome Charles Potts

The way to reply is to click on my signature and then click on the discussion button - it is called the user talk page. Anyways, don't bother as I have already seen your reply. All the best for your stay on Wikipedia!! --Gurubrahma 06:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks[edit]

Shortcut:

Thanks for the edits on Marjane Satrapi and tahdiq. Hope you got something from the Wikipedia:Bootcamp and will come back often. -- CQ 07:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Chicken with plums[edit]

Your chicken with plums article was deleted because it was a recipe and Wikipedia is not a cookbook. However, a large number of recipes exist at the Cookbook section of Wikibooks. You are welcome to add any such articles there. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox text editors[edit]

I noticed you added SlickEdit to the Orthodox text editors category. What, precisely, is an Orthodox text editor? I've never heard of it before. Was it meant as a joke? — Frecklefoot | Talk 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No it's not a joke, although it's kinda funny. Actually i had just created the category and started filling it up with a few members, one of which SlickEdit. But every time i create a category (and these have been very few, hence my difficulties), i read the help and do what it says, but that's not quite enough, so i now just edited it (the category page, not the SlickEdit article) and added a link that explains what this is about. --Jerome Potts 01:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto XEDIT et al. If you're going to advance this unusual "Orthodox editor" idea, I suggest you start by creating the article, not the category. The category won't last long without an article to back it up. Good luck with it — it's an interesting perspective. RossPatterson 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The description in the category is simply a link to a definition on the Internet. I'm sorry, but the idea of "Orthodox text editors" seems to be an idea presented by one person, Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. Unless it is widely used and known (which it is not), it shouldn't be added as a category to the 'pedia. Unless you can find further adoption of the term, I suggest you delete the category. It looks like a neologism that hasn't caught on. I agree with RossPatterson, you should create an article before a category. — Frecklefoot | Talk 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
i recently discovered the term in The Hessling Editor, was intrigued by it, read on it, and thought it might be interesting to create the category (and see what happens: how it develops/gets populated). i tend to agree with that it appears to be one person's idea; but i "grew up" on Xedit (the VM/CMS one), and the concept "talks to me" (but i am not an expert on text editors). If you find the presence of the category offensive or disruptive or what else, you may want to perform the clean-up (but i thank you for having pointed it out here first). However, if you do, you may also want to clean up the THE article, as well as any other article which carries the expression, for consistency (to save the next enthusiast such as myself the trouble of making a faux-pas). You may next want to "hunt down" mentions of "orthodox file managers" (same source). Who knows, the contributor (User:Kievite) who added to The Hessling Editor (on October 8, 2005) may disagree with the removal and put it back, this time a bit more complete (but i doubt it, since no edits since October 9, 2005). --Jerome Potts 07:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

High strangeness[edit]

See [1]. —Viriditas | Talk 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ne me quitte pas[edit]

Hi Jerome:

I saw your note at Talk:Ne me quitte pas. Thanks.

I rarely stick in citation needed tags. My theory is that if every unsourced statement in Wikiland was tagged, the storage capacity needed would increase by 10%.

Cheers, Wanderer57 03:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. That's funny, i consider meself Mister frugal, but you beat me on this one. Thanks. --Jerome Potts 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Me again. Re your note at "ne me quitte pas" -- "Compiling an exhaustive list is a lot of work, and i now wonder whether worthwhile. It soon starts resembling "My Way", where everyone in the world has sung it. Perhaps we should keep it down to the major ones?

Does Mireille Mathieu count as one of the "major ones"? Wanderer57 22:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to think so, but for the fact that i can't remember that version (and i grew up in France during *that* time), so, somehow, it didn't stick (well, i used to dislike Mireille Mathieu, think of a kid who wants to hear rock & roll who's stuck having to listen to Barry Manilow, or similar (Julio Iglesias and consort)). So perhaps it wasn't a major one after all. I can only imagine Ms Mathieu singing it with much gusto, as it usually was her style; i mean i don't suppose she sang it just to make a buck, while being bored to death in the process. So, i dunno: you tell us?
Actually, this question of "the major ones" opens up a can of worms (which i then didn't mean to do). Maybe what i meant was to propose that folks add whatever version they want included, without feeling obligated to be exhaustive about it by searching the world over for versions which we've never heard. --Jerome Potts 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Folks should add a version they want included, without feeling obligated to be exhaustive about it by searching for versions which we've never heard. Sounds like a plan.
Barry Manilow? Jerome, go to your room!
Wanderer57 02:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Radio, Conservative TV[edit]

These two have stated that liberals such as Congressman Kucinich are mentally ill, as indicated by Michael Savage's book Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. Check out the article, and the book. 65.163.112.104 09:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, riiight. Sounds/looks stupid. Thankfully, i'm no customer of theirs. --Jerome Potts 05:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Singh[edit]

Thank you Mr. Potts for correcting the Singh article. I learned something new, now I will know how to quote another wiki article in the future.

Reagards,

Gorkhali (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Blah[edit]

Thanks for your message. Please find my reply on my user talk. WarBaCoN (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

LessTif[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LessTif#cite_note-0

I've thought someone has joked there. Which the heck seems at glance a joke, hungary programmers or hungry programmers? Well, I linked it so that nobody like me shouldn't be blocked by like you.--82.149.79.21 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, next time, ask in the discussion page, rather than directly editing the article. Or better yet, conduct a bit of research first, like google "lesstif" "hungry programmers". --Jerome Potts (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
ya, seems far better.--82.149.79.21 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RfD[edit]

I nominated one of your redirects for deletion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 29#ੱ → Polyethylene terephthalate. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Beer Looter Dude[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Beer Looter Dude requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ziggy Sawdust 18:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Beer Looter Dude[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Beer Looter Dude, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Looter Dude. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ziggy Sawdust 06:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Beer Looter Dude[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Beer Looter Dude, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Looter Dude. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ziggy Sawdust 06:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Object-relational database[edit]

Thank you for cleaning up my initialisms. Rp (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, it informs me that apparently i did not err in my choice of wikification. --Jerome Potts (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Escarpement[edit]

Salut Jerome- I saw your edit of escarpment, which prompted me to take a look around fr.wp, and I couldn't find an article for the term there. The general term would be escarpement, right, or maybe escarpement de faille? I wonder if I should try to translate the en one and put it on fr? -Eric talk 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

'lut Éric,
'looks like you have it all correct: my Larousse Lexis says: « n.m. (1701)
  1. Pente raide d'un terrain, d'un terre-plein ou de la muraille d'un rempart: Les assaillants ne se laissèrent pas décourager par l'escarpement des falaises.
  2. Fortifications: Perpendiculaire qui mesure l'élévation de la crête du glacis au dessus du plan qui forme le fond du fossé.
  3. Géogr. Escarpement de faille, talus au tracé souvent rectiligne, créé par une faille. »
so, yes, it looks like the "escarpement de faille" would be it.
Yes, by removing the :fr:falaise link i thought someone would do something about it, somehow.
Bon courage,
--Jerome Potts (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hé, your Larousse is better! My p'tit has a much more condensed definition! Ok, I'll wait for a rainy day and put at least a stub over on fr. Merci! -Eric talk 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice[edit]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation[edit]

I reverted this edit. This is a style that is common in scientific writing, and is used in many articles on Wikipedia. The idea is simple: equations fit into the flow of the text, and are punctuated as if the equation were replaced by the words you would say when reading it aloud. In this case, the periods are there because the equations fall at the end of a sentence, and sentences end in periods. In other cases the sentence may continue after the equation, and the equation may be followed by a comma if the context requires it. --Srleffler (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Conversion templates[edit]

Oops, thanks! CRETOG8(t/c) 05:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

RAMSTEDT[edit]

When You created the Ramstedt article, You apparently used the Finnish / Swedish spelling of his first name (GustaF). I wonder if that is what we should use, since all the English-language references (e.g., the obit and Krippes - I don't have physical access to the original articles by Ramstedt, so I don't know how his name was spelled in his publications) I have seen to his work use a different spelling (GustaV). Kdammers (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm i don't remember pondering over it, i pbbly simply wrote it as i found it. But now that you bring it up, i can say that i am in favor of using a person's name as (s)he would write it, so i would pbbly prefer if it was left this way. A Gustav John Ramstedt redirect could be created, and so could a Gustav Ramstedt. However, i don't maintain that article, so perhaps it's "yours" now? --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
See also Gustave Flaubert. (I'm French and i prefer it when he is not referred to as Gustav Flaubert). --Jerome Potts (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Or (and i am sorry i didn't think of it earlier), name it Gustav, with the beginning going such: Gustav John Ramstedt (in Swedish, Gustaf John Ramstedt), ... --Jerome Potts (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian dances[edit]

Thank you for linking Bulgarian dances. The article Musical ensemble though does not mention the Bulgarian "wedding " style bands, which are on Bulgarian music. And the article Beat (music) as it stands, is hard to apply to Bulgarian music, as the metric time unit is too short to be recognized as a "beat"; the Harvard Concise dictionary of music says it is real or imagined conductor strokes, which then can be both more (at slow tempo) or fewer (at hight tempo) than the measurement unit of the meter. Haberg (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and thanks for the feedback. But, aha!, so now you know to go improve those deficient articles. Or find more suitable ones to link to. Or unlink, then. I just thought it would help, but if it doesn't, then let's undo. But that would be a defeat, no? --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The best way would to be add those things - I just give somebody the opportunity to do it. With hopes for the future. Haberg (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hydrogen production[edit]

Hi, thanks for cleaning up, a link for the fact is provided in the history, sorry for intervening. cheers Mion (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could at least have added the ISBN, now that you had found it. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, i have no clue how to add the isbn in the way you did :). Mion (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, so perhaps you're not familiar with the somewhat intricate source templates; but the ref which you put back was written in free format, the ISBN could've been added just the same. --Jerome Potts (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
yes, after the rev i realised that sticking it in the history wasn't the best move. Mion (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
But what else could I do, adding a fix to closed sources is not my thing, similar with the branding of Elsevier and Kluwer Academic Publisherspp in the way it is done now, Members only, Commercial creep into the project. Cheers Mion (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
What you could have done was to add the missing ISBN, so that whomever wishes to check on that ref, or to conduct some further reading on the topic at hand, locate a copy source text easily. Most always there is only one ISBN per published work. Elsevier and Springer Verlag are the publishers of their respective documents. If you have an open source to offer, then by all means replace the refs which i simply formatted, and the ones which i completed, with the more accessible (not-for-a-fee) versions. However, if the solution you find is limited to a paper document, then please leave the links to the abstracts, so that they be accessible at a click of the mouse. --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we can ask cluebot to auto replace the links with alternative sources from open access journals. Mion (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, i don't particularily know Cluebot. If it can do that, then that sounds rather good. --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I think nobody asked User:ClueBot yet, anyway keep up the good work. Cheers Mion (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Starving Wikipedians[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Starving Wikipedians, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michel Potay[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Michel Potay. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Potay. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Twin (windowing system)[edit]

This article was deleted rather recently, see [2]. You should add the two inline refs I used for it in the GNU Screen article, otherwise it's likely it will be deleted again. Also, ask an admin, e.g. User:DGG to WP:USERFY the old article to your userspace. It had some info worth restoring, I think. The German LinuxUser article is pretty good, there's also a Spanish version of it, but no English one that I could find. Pcap ping 05:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, i did as you recommend, except that i didn't pick DGG, since he isn't on the list of admins of whom to ask that. However, i have taken notice of him in the past (in an admirative way), so you just confirmed.
I'm short on time to go add the two refs you mention: i may do it, and may not. Perhaps you would do so yourself ? And i doubt that i'd add a foreign language ref anyway, unless it is quite rich in illustrations (i.e., screenshots). --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Umm, admin User:L'Aquatique hasn't edited since May last year, so you'll have long time to wait... Pcap ping 23:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Ouch, good catch. Thanks, i'll try someone else then, and be more attentive this time. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, that's done. I'll keep the subpage for a while, for you to pick up whatever from it, then i'll scrap it. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard the Pilgrim[edit]

I'm not sure whether you've checked the sources. Please be specific and tell me what precisely are the copyrighted passages - not references - that are objectionable.

In filling out the article I used multiple sources, most of them repeating the same information. These are historical sources and the material is very often derivative in the first place, a large part in most cases drawn from and often bulk-quoting Butler's Lives of the Saints, over two centuries old. I rewrote most of it, partly because of awareness of coyright issues, partly because Butler's original antiquated language was inappropriate, but mostly to give a synoptic view.

The Saint Patrick's link was an existing one. I followed it for another reference and found it wasn't working, so wasn't able to check it let alone use it. The Findagrave material is clearly derivative in the first place, as is most of the celt-saints material, which is from a public e-group and much of it repeated on at least one other public e-group.

As I said, be specific about the issues. Just because I've cited a reference doesn't mean that it's the only source. I cite a reference because if you don't the article gets deleted, as confirmation of facts not as an acknowledgment of creative debt. If I've used any creative materials that are legitimately copyrighted just get rid of it. If you can't be bothered to go through it in detail just revert the whole article, because I certainly can't be bothered, I've now spent as much time as I intend to on it.

I only worked on the article because it was cited as an article that help was needed expanding. It was interesting, of course, but as far as I'm concerned it's water under the bridge. Just get rid of it if you think it's inappropriate. Be sure that you are doing it for good reason rather than on the basis of automatic warning signals generated by thre use of referencesbut otherwise do whatever you like. I find too much effort is wasted too often at Wikipedia, it's better to move on. Enough, goodbye to Richard the Pilgrim, good luck with it. Opbeith (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether i really need to answer your questions, since you're done with the article, as you say. But OK, here goes:
"In art, King Saint Richard is portrayed as a royal pilgrim (ermine- lined cloak) with two sons--one a bishop and one an abbot. His crown may be on a book (Roeder). He is venerated at Heidenheim and Lucca (Roeder)."
Who is this Roeder ? Not listed in a bibliographical section. This is what got me to Google for it and found it, verbatim, at St Patrick's web site.
Carefully studying your modifications, via the article history, following the sources you provided, led me to tag several paragraphs with the relevant template. Yes, i did see your rewrite efforts.
At any rate, a specialist is supposed to examine the claim and act accordingly. So if i made a mistake, then hopefully it will be corrected.
And yes, BTW, blogs as sources are not usually accepted here, are they ? And who is this Butler ? What did he write ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there were passages I missed adequately rewriting, I can't remember which may have been there already and which I may have missed, but that specific passage sounds as if it was probably my introduction.
"St Patrick's" material is used by numerous source - I didn't look at St Patrick's much after I had problems with a link early on. Looking at the "St Patrick's" site now I see that the Saints of the Day are based on the research done by a parishioner Kathleen Rabinstein so it seems likely St Patrick's was the source for the others and it's reasonable for them to copyright the specific text. However Rabinstein was very thorough in citing her sources, so although the unrewritten language is probably hers most of the information is liable to be reproduced from eg Roeder, Helen (1956). Saints and Their Attributes. Chicago: H. Regnery Co. LCCN 56013630. . Because it is so comprehensive Butler's "Lives of the Saints" (eg http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-books/Butlers-Lives-Of-The-Saints/sku/2630 ) tends to be used as a common source for material on the saints, with the antiquated language rewritten but I haven't the energy to go back to Butler and check what is essentially his and so out of copyright. This business of providing source references and then ensuring no copyright violation is like Scylla and Charybdis and when it's a subject that you're happy to contribute a bit to but not wanting to assume an academic specialist's responsibility for, it is all just too much.
I don't object too much to having copyright issues pointed out to me when they're genuine, rather than spurious, it's the demolition work of finicky reference demanders who demand every blade of grass documented or they'll take a scraper to the lawn that fisnishes me off. Anyhow, though I can see your intervention was quite reasonable here I think the episode came at the right time to teach me a lesson. I've come to other articles as a break from the articles that I'm fundamentally interested in / slightly knowledgeable about, but too often the exercise ends up with too much time wasted after getting bogged down in arguments with people who aren't interested in either the subject or the amount of effort people have devoted to material that isn't up to their authoritarianly applied standards. You've made reasonable objections clear and I don't quibble about them, but I won't do anything more with the article except apologise for you getting the full blast of my exasperation. But anyhow the episode has been useful in helping me take the sabotage of another time-consuming article elsewhere with equanimity. Opbeith (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, i fixed it, removed a bunch of stuff such as from unreliable sources : blogs and web sites which don't bother to name their sources, they could just be writing anything any which way they like. And provided refs for the St Patrick's one (borderline ref, if you ask me). Removed the Copyright violation tag, now that it is perhaps acceptable. Man you'd done a sloppy job, throwing crappy URLs left and right, some not even matching the statements they were supposed to back up. No thanks. --Jerome Potts (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, JCP. Thank you for doing all that hard work. To excuse myself a little about the mess you faced I'd spent quite a lot of time and wanted to pull things together before closing down, so I was going to come back and do more work on the article - tidying up - later. That's basically the way I work, by doing the basic spade-work and then going to knock off the rough edges and then again hopefully to manage to finish and polish. It was the instant wipe-out of everything that I'd spent a lot of time on that discouraged me, because I assumed you were simply another one of these uncooperative policeman who hand down their pronouncements but don't offer any genuine collaboration. I knew it wasn't done and dusted so when I saw the bomb crater at what I'd done, your polite invitation read like the start of another of the pointless exercises I've engaged in of trying to satisfy someone's demands while knowing that each argument overcome is still just another step towards deletion, eventual if not immediate, or never resolved battle.
I'm not clear why so many editors at Wikipedia push for deletion of less than finished articles. That puts pressure on editors who want to contribute. In some areas of course accuracy is critically important and in those areas who could argue that rigour is necessary? In others there should be a way of making it clear that there is work in progress. Users should then be assumed to have a certain amount of common sense. (I know that working "at home" is a more appropriate way of doing things but I've had two projects like that that have never got to the stage of uploading - partly because I'm conscious of vulnerable areas that would involve too much time and effort discussing. So all that work is sterile and given other constraints may never get put to use).
Having seen what you have done with the article I have the odd quibble, but overall I'm very grateful for that willingness to deal with all the issues I hadn't tackled. I apologise for my initial reaction to your intervention. Seeing all the effort you've been prepared to devote to the task of organising the heap of bricks, I was clearly mistaken in my assumption that you were just another policeman.
I've still decided to give up trying to defend most of the other articles I've worked on myself that aren't in the areas of my core interests, but if someone else is prepared to be as constructive as you've been that makes the effort worthwhile, even if it may all end up eventually going down the drain.
So I'll carry on trying to fill in the gaps at Richard the Pilgrim. Essentially you've made that worthwhile doing. Opbeith (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You bring up some good points. I now must face that, even though i went through your edits, as stated above, i failed to pay attention to their timestamps, which might have shown me that those were very recent ones, therefore possibly a work still in progress. I don't remember exactly what brought me to the article in the first place, one article leading to another is what happens to me a lot.
Now this brings to my memory that there is a work-in-progress template banner somewhere, to be apposed to an article in such an instance. Nag, nag, nag. Better luck next time. --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm the last person to be discussing failure to pay attention - congenital, I'm afraid! The important thing is to deal with the situation and show good will. I don't have any complaints, I've enough experience of being roughed up to be able to tell that you were pulling me back from the edge of the platform.

I think Richard's article is actually rather an interesting subject because his family (and obviously his influence on them) are so important in the history of a neglected period when the basic framework of what we call European civilisation was being established.

That's why I'm keen for the reference to the image of the Einschatt group of figures to remain. I'm not going to overturn what you've done, so I'll keep looking for something like a tourist guide as a reference, but I'm a bit anxious that if I fail to find it soon I'll just forget and then the citation needed flag will catch the eye of a policeman rather than a detective.

I'd argue that Wikipedia is actually wrong - practically and philosophically - to exclude references citing blogs that are not clearly untrustworthy (Roman Miscellany is a priest whose interest and enthusiasm gives no obvious indication of unreliability, similarly with the Celtic Sainst group contributor, who provides all those references but without linking them to the individual saints). Anyhow, that's a much wider issue.

And I made a big mistake. Boniface was Winna's brother, not Richard's, thanks a lot for trapping that one! Opbeith (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Physics in medieval Islam[edit]

I just noticed your good work tidying up the citations in the Physics in medieval Islam article. I just wanted to alert you to a couple things about that article (and many others on similar issues). The editor who has been responsible for much of it has an odd use of citations: where a footnote says "source one (cf. source two)", what he means is that he has probably never seen source one but is using source two's report of it. Add to this the problem that source two (in that article as well as elsewhere) is frequently muslimheritage.com, which is not a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 18#History of Science) and has been known to misquote its sources (see User:Syncategoremata/Unreliable sources#Websites for one example), and you will need to tread carefully. None of what you have done there is problematic but I thought you should probably be aware of these issues.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, while cleaning up, i of course ran into those "cf."s, and started examining them, which led me to suspect exactly what you put forth. I thought that i would keep this first pass of clean-up, so that it all becomes clearer, then a second pass, more thorough, can be performed. --Jerome Potts (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds perfect to me. All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Rats, just now read the Sources Noticeboard. How did i miss that from your first message ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry! I'll emphasise it more in future. If you are doing more work in this area, you might also want to check this for some background.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
And, of course, I missed your edit before I replied. I would prefer to remove links to articles on MH, but I would strongly prefer to remove ones written by Salah Zaimeche: see my notes at User:Syncategoremata/Unreliable sources#MuslimHeritage.com for one reason (and I seem to recall that there is another equally abhorrent distortion in that article that I was too frustrated to bother noting).
I agree that their articles can be very useful for the lists of references and the other links they provide. Unfortunately some of these references are to material just as bad as MH itself. I'm putting this rationale together at the moment before deleting yet more bogus nonsense taken from MH but which are actually from a dreadful source they cite.
Erm, rant over and all the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for this friendliest reply, and for the pointers.
Bah, i was just passing though. But it's quite possible that i be back at it, my view being that Islam deserves the coverage it was denied for so long in our western christian realms. Hell, i had to find out on my own, no one helped me, the ignorance was enormous even in my own (recent) lifetime ; i resent that. Very much, actually : i feel i've been cheated. Interestingly, since the big blast of 2001, things have evolved very quickly. But let's think back of previous times.
Of course, excessive, exagerated self-promotion is unacceptable.
It seems that the article which i put back has been seriously reviewed since its first version by Zaimeche, hence my thinking it of possible value. Hopefully some will examine it closely enough and help us out by rendering their verdict. You, possibly ? (as if you weren't doing enough already. Sorry to see such a load) --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, hint taken: I've added it to my to-do list.
My first reaction to skimming through the article is to note that it uses the very source that I characterised above as a "dreadful source" (Kettani (1984) "Science and Technology in Islam") but otherwise, nothing else immediately jumps out at me.
To follow up on your comment above about Islam deserving coverage that it was denied for so long in 'Western' culture: my hope was and still is to add material on medieval Islamic philosophy, science and technology for exactly that reason, and it is a painful irony for me that my time is instead being spent removing certain 'exaggerations'.
Ah well, all my best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you guys worked really well, as i see in the RFC on Jagged85. A very impressive read. Sincere congratulations, and thanks. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
My many thanks (on behalf of all who worked on that RfC/U). I'm sad to see that Jagged seems to have quit working here entirely, as he plainly had a phenomenal amount of energy and enthusiasm: if he were to have applied that with a little more care, everyone could have benefited greatly. Perhaps it will still happen.
All the best once more. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Computer file name suffix[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Computer file name suffix, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks[edit]

Calling another editor "chicken shit", even in an edit summary, as you did here, is a good way to get blocked. I suggest you keep you emotions in check, or if you can't do that, walk away from your computer until you can.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that one slipped. Sorry. --Jerome Potts (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Good of you to say so. I understand: I know from experience that this can be a very frustrating place sometimes. And I don't mean to sound condescending at all, but my rule has always been that the urge to become aggressive toward other editors is a good alarm bell to tell me that I need to back away and spend more time on my real life and less time (for awhile, anyway) dealing with the silliness that often arises here. Good for one's peace of mind, and all that. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

man-wiki.net[edit]

There exists a wiki under the domain name of http://man-wiki.net/. Are you the Jerome Potts that has made many revisions to it? It currently appears to be "un updatable" do you know anything about that? Thank you 21:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGerman (talkcontribs)

Yes i am ; i haven't checked there in quite a while (the timestamps will tell you so). Back when i contributed to it, things were very protected already, because of the spam ; you had to dig deeper to find your way around. Perhaps you could tell me more about what you are tying to do, and i can take a look. --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Samsung Gravity (SGH-T549)[edit]

Hi. I have just deleted a string of R3 redirects you tagged for this, and I am a bit worried because I can't see where the actual article has gone amid all this moving and redirecting - is it still there somewhere? If not, I'd better find where it ended up and undelete that one. If I have to do that, what should it be called? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Samsung SGH-T459. Notice how the 4 and the 5 were inverted in the redirects i asked to remove. Thanks for helping me complete the clean-up. --Jerome Potts (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Honda D engine[edit]

(Moved discussion to the talk page of said article.) --Jerome Potts (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding "gossip" to Talk:Stevie Nicks[edit]

The link you seem to want listed on the Talk page doesn't belong there (see below). Please don't keep sticking it back in.

From WP:TALK:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.

The "gossip" link, while it might be interesting, isn't discussion of changes to the article, as required by the guidelines, and doesn't belong here. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 14:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what the problem is, i am indicating that article from a reputable press entity to the contributors of the WP article, as a possibly interesting source, should they want to use it to further the WP article. I am certainly not using the talk page "as a platform for my personal views on a subject". Ms Nicks reveals quite a bit of interesting information in that article, possibly for the first time. It seems to me that your problem arises from my choice of the word "gossip". --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you read WP:TALK? Please look there at #1.2, item 2. If there is something on the page in question that you wish to add to the WP article (in keeping with WP:BLP), say so. Otherwise, just parking a link isn't good. (BTW, does the site meet WP:RS guidelines?) What's to stop someone from Googling "Stevie Nicks" and posting all the results here? It's just not necessary. And with any living person we must be extra-careful what we publish. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, WP:TALK#1.2, item 2 sez:
  1. "Stay on topic
    — I am.
  2. "Talk pages are for discussing the article,…
    — I am providing a source about the subject.
  3. "…not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects).
    — I am not bringing forth my own view or opinion on the subject at hand, and am not "conversing".
  4. "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.
    — I am providing a source about the subject.
  5. "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."
    — It is neither irrelevant, nor a discussion.
"does the site meet WP:RS guidelines?"
WP:RS#News organizations has it that "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. […] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting."
  1. The Guardian is definitely considered a mainstream news source.
  2. Regarding "the case-by-case basis": If you have a specific problem with that specific news article, then say which it is.
  3. Lastly, what we're dealing with here is not an opinion column, it's the "Culture: Music: Pop and rock" section of the paper. In addition, it happens to be an interview, and the article reports what Ms Nicks chose to share. To a reputable publication (which, i assume, has a serious editing board, with fact-checking and all that jazz).
"What's to stop someone from Googling "Stevie Nicks" and posting all the results here? It's just not necessary."
— Best argument so far. However, i thought that that article is a good catch, hence my posting its link.
"And with any living person we must be extra-careful what we publish."
— No publishing of any words here, that's just a pointer.
Anyway, it seems you know something i don't, so i'll drop it. Other than that, thanks for your RC patrolling. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Live at Raul's[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Live at Raul's has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability--one of thousands of albums like this, locally-released.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Red Link Recovery[edit]

Hello. As a French-speaking WikiGnome, I'd like to solicit your help in testing a new tool. For a few years now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using the Red Link Recovery Live tool to track down and fix unnecessarily red links in articles. Recently, the tool has been expanded to work on non-English Wikipedias. A small set of suggested fixes for red-links on the French-language Wikipedia have been prepared and I'm hoping to interest some French-language speakers (such as yourself) to work through them.

If you are interested, please visit http://toolserver.org/~tb/RLRL/quick.php?lang=fr. Each time you refresh the page you'll be presented with three new suggested fixes. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the tools talk page. - TB (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Snakebite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ptosis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

REFB feedback[edit]

You asked at WP:REFB's feedback about importing BibTex and similar citations from Google Books. You can import information directly from the Google URL on Wikipedia. Use the "cite" button in the toolbar, then paste in the Google Books URL, and click the "expand" button next to it. It will fill in all the fields for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting any button next to the URL field when i select "cite book" from the "templates" drop-list of the "cite" thingy: the only such button i get is an "autofill" one next to the ISBN field, which works so-so; and i have to add the Google Books URL. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Mine has the same four-green-arrows autofill button next to both the URL and the ISBN field. I might be running an older version. It cleans up Google Books URLs very nicely. I wonder where the help page is on that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject C-SPAN?[edit]

Greetings fellow Wikipedia editor -

I am leaving you this note because I have reason to believe that you are interested in C-SPAN. (I may have made this assumption based on your C-SPAN user box, or perhaps for some other reason.) If this is not an interest of yours, please feel free to read no further and delete this message.

If you are in fact someone who is interested in C-SPAN, then let me put forward an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. What if we started a C-SPAN WikiProject?

The parameters of this (potential) project are up for discussion, but it could include some or all of the following (as well as things that may occur to you that have not occurred to me):

  • Creation, maintenance, and improvement of articles and lists directly related to C-SPAN and its programming.
  • Use of C-SPAN programming in citations for various topics
  • Inclusion of unique and targeted C-SPAN video links for various articles. (Doing this with respect for established guidelines at Wikipedia:External links.) (Example: If you are interested in the submarine USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), then having easy access to the eight hours of programming taped while a C-SPAN crew were guests on that submarine could also be of interest to you.)
  • Inclusion of (and possible further creation of) templated links such as {{C-SPAN|laurabush}}, that will easily take article readers to a link of all C-SPAN Video Library links for the person about whom the article is about.
  • What else?

I don't know exactly how far we may want to go, nor in what directions, but I do believe (as I have long noted on my user page) that C-SPAN and Wikipedia are both...

...fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, and they both invite the participation of any parties (expert or amateur) who are interested in taking the time to absorb and/or contribute to the ideas and information offered. C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly, and I want to help give other Wiki users easy access to the great work that C-SPAN has done on a variety of topics.

Now, I should mention that I have never started a WikiProject before, and I do not know the best way to go about it. (Perhaps one of you do?) Let me offer one of my sandbox pages, User:KConWiki/sandbox/Wikiproject C-SPAN?, as a gathering area for comments until such time as we gather enough steam to start our own WikiProject page.

Thanks for reading this far, and I hope that you will give some consideration as to whether this is something we ought to attempt. Please feel free to pass this message on to others you know whom might be interested, and please let me know your thoughts and comments.

KConWiki (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Links[edit]

The policy is here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 6 January[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)