User talk:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard

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

Welcome!

Hello, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 


Great job on the DNS zone transfer article. Alex Jaspersen 03:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

doubling the barrel[edit]

Hello Jonathan! Well done for findng so many people for the List of people with a double-barrelled name article! One question: Before your addition the list was sorted in alphabetical order of surname. For the "first name" sections, should we move to alphabetical order of first name? It seems hard not to, now that your massive list is included! Brequinda 07:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • In the given names section it would seem sensible to sort by given names, yes. Are you thinking of creating two categories, as was suggested? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 08:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


Warwick School and Mora Clocks[edit]

J deB P - the prefect who jumped off the River Avon Bridge? The last to do so? I wrote the article on Warwick School to remove a scurrilous article posted by some pupils of mine. I am the acknowledged expert on the school, but some people will have to quote sources all the time, I suppose. Have you bought and read my book? Do you really trust The Guardian to quote the new Head of Science as if he was speaking with authority on behalf of the school? I have complete control over the picture archive of the school, and have several wonderful aerial shots, among others. As for Mora Clocks, I wrote a short paragraph so that others can pick up on it and improve it. Isn't that the point? G N Frykman 09:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You have me confused with someone else.

    Whom I trust isn't relevant here. As for Mora Clocks: No, it isn't the point. Citing sources is partly what actually enables editors to "pick up and improve" one-paragraph articles. If they don't know where to go for information, they cannot expand articles. Citing sources doesn't just help readers. It helps editors, too.

    If any of those aerial shots are released into the public domain, or licensed under the GFDL, by the copyright owner then please upload them to the Wikimedia Commons so that we can use them. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 23:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Sorry to have confused you with an old pupil of mine.

      Personally I feel that articles written by people who know something about the subject are better than those written for fun, or by people with too much internet time on their hands...!

      I will search my own pictures of Warwick School for suitable images to upload. I shall be very happy to "donate" them. G N Frykman 14:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

      • You're probably confusing me with Jonathan Pollard, which, to quote Michael Flanders, "isn't quite the name". Let me offer a counterexample: I've written articles for fun, and I've received a barnstar for doing so. See below. (-: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that the Warwick School article is being attacked by disgruntled pupils of the school again. Thanks for your help in removing any vandalism. There are plenty of images ready for insertion in the next couple of weeks.G N Frykman 23:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The bane of school articles is that they are magnets for unverifiable original research by pupils of the schools concerned. Unless it made headlines in a publicly archived newspaper, there's simply no way that the rest of the world can verify that someone confiscated N scarves on day D. Such additions are not really vandalism, though. They are merely unencyclopaedic. Vandalism is a different kettle of fish. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the way that you call attention-seeking teenagers experimenting with mild attacks on their school and its staff "unverifiable original research"! It does seem, though, that there are enough people "out there" who think that an article on Warwick School should be just that! The school, as with all others, is very, very conscious of its public image, and a sensible Wikiarticle can only be a good thing.G N Frykman 09:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Thanks for reverting the vandalism by pupils of Warwick School. They give the game away by referring to "Nebuchadnezzar", which they think is my middle name.G N Frykman 18:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Orchids of Western Australia[edit]

Thanks for your quick work on this stub. --Apyule 07:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Removing cleanup?[edit]

Why did you remove the cleanup notice from the Simson Garfinkel article? Do you disagree that it needs more work? I was also perplexed by your edit comment: It's self-contradictory to say that one is cleaning up by adding a cleanup notice. What is that intended to mean? I'll wait a little bit before restoring the cleanup notice. I think it's still needed, but maybe you can explain to me why it is not. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clear what it means. You said that you were cleaning up the article, but in fact you added a cleanup tag rather than removed one — along with adding a whole load of errors that I've just had to fix, to boot. You didn't do any cleanup at all. You did expansion. I've just had to clean up your expansion that you mis-labelled as cleanup. Moreover: The burden is on you to explain why you think that the article requires cleanup, which you didn't. There are lots of specific cleanup tags, and there is an edit summary field and a talk page for you to explain why cleanup is needed. What the article actually requires is expansion, not cleanup. Ironically, you removed the tag (that I originally added) stating that very thing. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 20:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I did not remove any tag. And moreover, you are mistaken about the meaning of "cleanup" (I did a little bit of it after putting the tag in). However, given that you've done some positive work on the article, despite your rather combative tone above, I'll go ahead and defer to your desire to not have a cleanup tag in the article (at least for now... which in practice means for a couple weeks, since I'm going out of town tomorrow). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif An Award
I award this Tireless Contributor Barnstar to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard for his fantastic rewrites in saving articles from deletion.

--howcheng [ tcwe ] 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Minus zero[edit]

Thank you very much for correcting my misguided removal at −0 (number). I should have looked way back in the history and/or thought a bit more. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick work![edit]

ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard for creating a great stub to replace some lousy spam.

Sidney Stringer School[edit]

Good work on getting this article cleaned up and expanded so quickly. When I came upon this article, it had been vandlized so completely and for such a long period of time, the damage looked irreversible. I have just withdrawn my nomination for deletion based on your work. Thanks for your contributions! SquidSK (1MClog) 04:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Pukka Pies[edit]

Thanks so much for your wonderful work on the Pukka Pies article, I'm much in your debt.

Pukka Pies Prodding[edit]

I have no objection to your removal of the prod per se, I'd just prefer you not to misrepresent the issue. The tag was added because the only assertion of notability in the article was someone saying "The pies are among the most popular in the UK". Now, I can say that or you can say that and stick it up on the internet and it doesn't necessarily make it true. That was the objection I was raising, rather than the nonsensical one you're attempting to ascribe to me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Your notice is there for all to read. You wanted the article deleted because of "the say-so of one cited source". The notice says that "If you can address this concern by [...] sourcing [...] the page [...]". Since the article was already sourced, your objection clearly was nonsensical, since it contradicted the very notice that you employed. The only misrepresentation here is the one of your placing the cited source, an article published in Bake & Take magazine, in the same category as "something that you or I can say and stick up on the internet". Not everything with a URL has been through the same publication process. Something that you or I write and add to our personal web sites is not published via the same process as something that has to pass muster before an editor. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 10:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

About Easypath[edit]

Do not redirect. Now, will it not be possible to get by stopping because it is deliberating in the deletion request?--Naohiro19 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't redirect. Read the article carefully. I told you what you should have done right from the start, instead of wasting editors' time with AFD. I suggest that you read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and that also carefully, moreover. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Easypath. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Chovain 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't remove any content at all, and it is not vandalism. The content is right there in the article that is pointed to. Please read the content of the article, instead of knee-jerk reverting a quite proper edit. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are you editing the contents of the AfD template? This issue still needs to be resolved in AfD. A redirect isn't going to work while the AfD is happening anyway: Perhaps you should write something in prose instead (like a disambig or {{about}} link). Chovain 15:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • When did you stop beating your wife? I'm not editing the contents of the template. The AFD notice is still there, which is what the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion talks about. I've drawn your attention to this three times now, twice above, and once in an all-capitals edit summary. For the fourth time: Please carefully read the article content, the AFD notice, and the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. There's no need for a disambiguation. This is a simple redirect. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 20:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
When you do redirection act, the posting may be your blocked.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
( Addition ) You violate Three-revert rule.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 15:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

William James (railway promoter)[edit]

The reference of mine you have "corrected" is now wrong: you have the date of publication as "1969". The US publisher Kelley's edition, which you cite, appeared in 1978. 1969 is the original date of publication, from the UK publisher. Too trivial to argue over, still less to have a revert war over. --Old Moonraker 06:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed, I have corrected it. There is no need for scare quotes. And it is, contrary to what you claim, correct. There are plenty of library catalogues (which you can check for yourself by following the hyperlink) that give that publisher and that year of publication. I challenge you to provide even one catalogue that gives the information that you altered the citation to contain. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 09:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • [1] --Old Moonraker 10:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Brass Monkey[edit]

Thanks, I didn't think of looking for just Brass Monkey. I have only ever heard the expression complete. Slavlin 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Ceroc[edit]

Thanks for adding sources to Ceroc. Much appreciated. Martin 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Legacy"[edit]

About this edit...you may be unaware that when talking about technology, "legacy" means outdated or obsolete hardware or software that is still in use. Take a look at the article legacy system. In light of this, I am not sure that your edit was entirely appropriate. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Wrong. It does not mean that. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That site is by no means an authority on how the word "legacy" is popularly used. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't need to be. It does tell you to use a dictionary.

        You're making things up by inferring a new notion that isn't documented anywhere. This is Wikipedia. You aren't supposed to make things up. There's no such thing defined in the Unicode standards as a "legacy encoding". This notion is a fiction invented wholly within Wikipedia by a Wikipedia editor named Plugwash. Read Talk:Legacy encoding and learn. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 20:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

        • You make a good point that the term "legacy encoding" is perhaps not apppropriate for Wikipedia. However, that does not change in the slightest the meaning of the term "legacy" when applied to computers and technology. Also, incidentally, your preferred revision contains sentences such as "Latin letters with diacritics and characters from other alphabetic scripts typically take one byte per character in the appropriate multi-byte encoding but take two in UTF-8" (emphasis mine). This makes no sense. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing the noun for the adjective. We're talking about a "legacy encoding", not a "legacy".

From the OED:

adjective (of computer hardware or software) that has been superseded but is difficult to replace because of its wide use.[2]

Now please stop reverting back to your edits to the UTF-8 article. If you persist, it will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked. --Imroy 22:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Correcting an article to remove mention of something that was made up here in Wikipedia and does not exist in any formal definition of the article's subject is a furtherance of the Wikipedia:No original research policy, not vandalism. Are you interested in knee-jerk reverting, or in actually making your encyclopedia correct and accurate? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Jonathan, we've already been over this. In this context, "legacy" is used as an adjective. Claiming original research will not make your complaint any more valid. Do a Google search for "legacy encoding"[3]. It is not OR, nor is it a product of Wikipedia alone. It is a widely accepted term. Get over it and stop vandalising the UTF-8 article with your incorrect assertions. --Imroy 17:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Once again: Correcting an incorrect article is not vandalism, as Wikipedia:Vandalism explains to you.

        Moreover: Google searches are not research. Research would involve reading the Unicode standard, which I have and you obviously haven't, and noting that nowhere is the notion of a "legacy encoding" either formally defined or used. There is no such "widely accepted term", as actually reading the pages that Google turns up for you will reveal. There's no defined concept. (Reading Talk:Legacy encoding will also reveal this to you.) Not only have you not read the source documents, you haven't even read the results of your own Google search. Exactly how are you contributing to writing an encyclopaedia if you aren't even reading source material? Your reversions are not based upon wanting to make a correct and accurate encyclopaedia, but simply because reverting is how have become used to responding to everything. That's unfortunately something that happens all too often to Wikipedia editors. But it's wrong nonetheless.

        Finally: Claiming original research is exactly what makes a complaint valid. Wikipedia:No original research is a fundamental policy around here. Please read and learn it. No matter how much you may want an idea to be valid, you shouldn't be putting it into Wikipedia until it has been accepted and properly documented outside of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this idea of "legacy encodings" is being written about first here in Wikipedia by people who want it to exist, because that's how the world ought to be in their view, not because it's something that authoritative published source material dealing with the subject matter has actually heretofore covered outside of Wikipedia. And it's being defended by people such as you who just string two words together, count Google hits, and think that that magically shows that source material exists. My surname gets as many Google hits as "legacy encoding" does, and I'm not documented in sources.

        Stop knee-jerk reverting, stop counting Google hits as a substitute for actually using source material, read the policies, read source materials, and start working towards making your encyclopedia correct. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 12:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, I will first warn you not to make personal attacks. If you had actually checked out my contributions, you would see that not all of my edits are reversions, and that the vast majority of those are for clear cases of vandalism.

Now, perhaps it would help if I enumerated my arguments against your refusal to accept the term "legacy encoding":

  1. I never claimed the term is specific to Unicode. The legacy encoding article used to claim this, but I never did, and the article has since been edited to remove this claim. Bringing the Unicode standard into this is pointless.
  2. The use of "legacy" in this context is as an adjective. As pointed out above, the OED[4] agrees with this use. Are you contesting the use of "legacy" as an adjective?
  3. My use of the Google search results was to refute your claim that the term "legacy encoding" was invented on Wikipedia. Google shows the term is very widely used. Are you claiming that Wikipedia has influenced all of these authors all around the world?

At the moment I'm afraid we might be shouting past each other about slightly different things. Clearing up these issues would help. I'll leave your latest edit to UTF-8 for now, in the interest of setting a good example and not inflaming the situation. But anyone else is free to revert it. --Imroy 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Hvr200.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Hvr200.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 19:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Maltron-ergonomic-keyboard1.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Maltron-ergonomic-keyboard1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Maltron-flat2-front6l.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Maltron-flat2-front6l.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Maltron-lefthand-keyboard1.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Maltron-lefthand-keyboard1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Maltron-mouthstick-keyboard1.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Maltron-mouthstick-keyboard1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Maltron-righthand-keyboard1.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Maltron-righthand-keyboard1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin mnemonics[edit]

Thanks for calling that to my attention. Sometimes I think that the whole joint's gone mad for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A star for you[edit]

Barnstar rescue 04.png A star for you
Even though the AfD on Galactic Empire (Asimov) is still open, I have no doubt that your tremendous work [5] will make it much more likely to survive. Yngvarr 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Latin mnemonics[edit]

As you nominated the article at GA, just letting you know there is a review now at Talk:Latin mnemonics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanophilia[edit]

Could you at least try to be civil in the discussion at Talk:Japanophile? While I agree with you in principle, I think you're being a complete dick in how you're arguing your case. -Amake (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Everything that I said was perfectly civil. There's not a single incivility anywhere. Go and read Wikipedia:Civility#Examples. You'll find not a single one of those in anything that I've written. Pointing out that people are are not putting Wikipedia's policies into action is not incivility. Pointing out that an argument is entirely specious, and explaining why for the second time, is not incivility. Practically begging people to actually go and read the cited sources, to see what they say for themselves, is not incivility. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Search engine test[edit]

Please discuss this on the essay talk page before making this change again. This change does not reflect consensus and links to a self-published page you wrote. Torc2 (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • That it links to a Frequently Given Answer is immaterial. That page links to several other informative web pages, too. That you are objecting to the conclusions of linguistic research on the grounds that it "does not reflect consensus" of a group (apparently of size 1) of Wikipedia editors is rather silly. Truth is not decided by a majority vote. Nor does a person with only a pseudonym outweigh linguistic researchers from the Universities of Bologna, Sussex, and California at Berkeley. (I'm not even asking you to rely upon my status as someone whose works are occasionally cited here and there.) In any case, your "consensus" appears to comprise just 1 person: you. I suspect that what you really mean is that what I, researchers, and many others have actually found out about search engines does not reflect what you would like to be true, because the arguments that you've heretofore been making, that have relied upon a meaningless metric, have suddenly and inconveniently turned out to be built on sand. Wikipedia:Search engine test is a project namespace resource for Wikipedia editors like you to learn about how and how not to use search engines when writing the encyclopaedia. It isn't there to reflect editors' collective ignorance of search engines. It's there for you to learn better — as, too, is the Frequently Given Answer. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That the page is called a "FAQ" is indeed immaterial. What's not is immaterial is that it's not a reliable source. It's your self-published website and is largely OR, granted, with a couple sources that don't say quite the same thing as you say. Why source to yourself instead of to the actual reliable sources? I've read them; they say what the essay said before you changed it. It also doesn't matter that I keep reverting you. The consensus is the essay before you inserted your opinion in it. You're not changing anything I wrote, and the essay in the state it was before you changed it is hardly a consensus of one person. The searches aren't useless; people just need to understand what they're seeing to use it properly. Don't like the essay saying that? Why not discuss it on the talk page before making such a huge change. It shouldn't have to be like pulling teeth to get you to discuss these changes with other editors. Torc2 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The only thing here that is like pulling teeth is getting you to grasp the idea that scholarship has long since shown that what you keep reverting to is wrong, despite the fact that I've pointed this out in every edit summary from the first onwards, and that the important thing here is to correct the page. You're just knee-jerk reverting, without any consideration of making the page actually correct and (as I noted before) probably because it shows that what you would like to be true is wrong. You are defending that knee-jerk reversion with false assertions of consensus, and defending what is erroneous with the fallacious argument that consensus even determines truth in the first place. You clearly have no clue as to what original research actually is, nor that it is not a problem that something outside of Wikipedia may be a primary source written by a named expert.

        Here's a hint for you: Something based upon previously published papers by linguistic researchers from the Universities of Bologna, Sussex, and California at Berkeley is not original research, in either of its Wikipedia senses. Additional research performed by a named expert may be original research in the sense of being primary research; but primary research outside of Wikipedia is perfectly all right (and is indeed the lifeblood of Wikipedia) and certainly isn't original research in the sense of idiosyncrasy when it reaches the same conclusions as obtained in 2005 by Véronis and others.

        Once again: That Wikipedia editors are collectively ignorant of something, that scholars have known about since 2005, does not make their beliefs correct. That you could get another Wikipedia editor to agree with you doesn't mean that either of you would be correct. I repeat: Pages like Wikipedia:Search engine test and my Frequently Given Answer are for you to learn better, not for reinforcing collective ignorance as you are trying to do. I suggest that you learn from the things that you are being pointed to, rather than, as you are doing, not learning and instead promoting falsehoods that would be convenient were they true but that people doing actual research into the results given by search engines have long since found to be false. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

        • Well, you're apparently convinced you've got the absolute truth and everybody else and all the policies regarding sources are wrong. Fair enough. Here's a truth: there's absolutely no way this will get included in the essay unless you discuss it on the essay talk page and reach consensus. Feel free to ignore this and keep reverting without discussion. Eventually you'll just be blocked for edit warring. Torc2 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Hello. I added a note to Wikipedia talk:Search engine test. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's more discussion about this disagreement at the project Talk page. Please review it and comment there before adding back in your changes. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest warning[edit]

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Biblioteca Virtual en Salud logo.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Biblioteca Virtual en Salud logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Budget Day[edit]

Updated DYK query On 15 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Budget Day, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

yes and no[edit]

Nice work.

It's getting a bit heavy on dicdef's though.

It might be better to split the article, one article on sentence words. And one for the two(/three/four) form system, although I am not sure about a good name for the latter. Taemyr (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  • … or we could leave it as it is, and aim for a comprehensive article that covers all aspects of yes and no. Not every article has to be four paragraphs long, you know. (-: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the current article is an article about the words, rather than about the concepts. That falls under WP:Dicdef. Taemyr (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
      • If it were at Yes or No it would certainly be. But it's at yes and no, and covers a lot of territory that a dictionary article wouldn't cover, such as the N-form systems, the translation difficulties, the relations to echo answers and word sentences, and so forth. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
        • An article on Yes and No is still an article about the words. And article on Agreement and Disagreement would not be. Taemyr (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
          • That's logic chopping. An article on disgreement would still be about the words used for agreeing and disagreeing. Linguistics is about words. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Agreed, but an article on agreeing and disagreeing would also cover modes of agreeing that does not correspond directly to "Yes" and "No", such as echo answers and similar. Taemyr (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest submitting the article to Did you know (DYK), for mention on the Main Page. A hook could be "Did you know that the words "yes" and "no" were originally used only to reply to negative questions, while “yea” and “nay” were used for positive questions?" Note that DYK entries must be submitted within 5 days of the article being created or substantially expanded; at the moment it meets all the criteria, I believe. I can probably submit it for you if you wish, though I think DYK's are normally submitted by the person who worked on the article and I can't guarantee that I'll have time to do it.

To avoid concerns about dicdef, and to avoid having anyone delete the stuff about other languages and about answers such as "It is." on the grounds that they're off-topic according to how the topic is defined in the first sentence of the article, perhaps the article could be renamed to something like "Answers to yes-or-no questions" (or perhaps whatever the linguistic jargon is for "yes-or-no questions"). If the article is renamed, there would still be a redirect from Yes and no (unless someone deletes it), so people would still find the article.

I may have some material to add: I'd like the French word "si" and the similar German word "doch" to be mentioned, and stuff about how in Chinese and I think in Russian, the roles of the two words are reversed (in comparison to how they're used in English) when you go from positive to negative questions. Thus, an English-speaking soldier being asked a series of questions by a superior would answer a question such as "You wouldn't want to break the rules, would you?" with "No, sir!", and might be standing there saluting and saying "Yes, sir! Yes, sir! No, sir! Yes, sir!" but a Chinese soldier wouldn't say that, but would answer always the Chinese equivalent of "Yes, sir!" to all questions; to say "No, sir!" would indicate disagreement with the superior. I don't think the article covers that point. I may not have time to work on this for some days at least. I previously put some suggested material here at Talk:Yes#Beyond dicdef, which you're welcome to use if you want. (You might mention me in the edit summary if you put it in.) Note that there was some disagreement there about my assertion about ambiguity. It may need to be reworded. I think people do tend to tack on the verb when replying to negative questions, and that people receiving a simple "Yes" or "No" in answer to a negative question often ask for clarification, though there may not necessarily be two equally valid interpretations. Some questions are (arguably) ambiguous as to whether they are positive or negative questions and more strongly require the verb-echoing in the answer, e.g. "Did you put it in the box that didn't have a label?" "Is this a not-completed one?" "Did you neglect to bring an umbrella?" "Is it impossible for you to bring your harp?" Personally, I would tend to interpret an emphatic "yes" in answer to the last one as meaning "Yes, it's impossible," but a hesitant "yes" as possibly intended to mean "Yes, I think I could bring it," and therefore ambiguous. I suspect there's less of this kind of ambiguity in languages with the Chinese system. Coppertwig(talk) 18:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The German and French words already are covered in yes and no. Read the article! And the article already has been submitted to Did You Know. Answering yes-no questions, including their ambiguities, is covered in yes-no question#How such questions are answered. And if anyone comes along and deletes verifiable encyclopaedia article content about yes and no because of some daft notion of it being off-topic in an article entitled yes and no, then they will be, to put it bluntly, a fool. You can rightly hit them over the head with this policy.

    Furthermore, there's no need for renaming, or convoluted names, and every reason, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), to stick with the current name. Yes and no, and their multifarious aspects, are dealt with in yes and no, the questions and their replies (where only the reply part relates to yes and no, and where a lot of stuff is not related to the words for yes and no) in yes-no question, the more general class of echo answers (which, again, has aspects not related to yes and no) in that article, and the more general class of sentence words in that article. And they each cross-reference and (where appropriate) tangentially summarize one another where necessary.

    And I'm not going to use the content that you put on the talk page, because it's downright wrong. Welsh does have words for yes and no. Again: Read the article! Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

    • About the Chinese system...I'm not a native speaker, but in the example Coppertwig mentioned above, I think the most common way a person would respond to something like "you wouldn't want to break the rules, would you?" would be not just with a single word, but by repeating the auxiliary verb: "bu hui!" ("i wouldn't," "i won't") or "bu xiang!" ("i don't want to"). The Chinese "yes" word, shi, might also be used, but when used like that it's generally closer to meaning like "correct" or something (although I guess that is pretty close to "yes"). —Politizer talk/contribs 21:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Yes-no question[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Yes-no question at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. And by the way, I noticed A-not-A question redlinked in the article...I guess now I know what my next little project will be! Best, —Politizer talk/contribs 21:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? For the purpose of DYK, I suggest just adding one additional footnote, attached to the fact mentioned in the hook; so the paragraph will have 2 footnotes to the same source. After the article is no longer on DYK, the extra footnote can be removed, I suppose. I would do this, except that it wouldn't be right for me to add the footnote without verifying it myself, which I couldn't easily do if it's an offline source. Possibly I could do it while mentioning in the edit summary that my edit is based on your statement that the source covers the whole paragraph.
I have no simple general solution. For a single-author work, a footnote covering a whole paragraph is fine. In a Wikipedia article, someone might later add a sentence in the middle of the paragraph, and it would then be unclear what footnotes covers what material.
Thanks for adding material about Chinese and Japanese, which I read with interest. Coppertwig(talk) 15:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on WT:DYK about your hook[edit]

Howdy! I was intrigued by the discussion going on regarding your hook and started a discussion on the DYK project page at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Inline_citations_and_redundant_footnotes. I think it is a worthwhile issue to get a consensus view on regarding not only your hook but future potential DYKs that may run into the same issue. AgneCheese/Wine 06:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Yes and no[edit]

Updated DYK query On 23 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yes and no, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Coppertwig(talk) 13:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I award you[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for your edits on Make Compatible! Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

wh-question[edit]

I know you did a lot of work on yes-no question...do you have any plans to write something about wh-questions as well? Currently the page wh-questions is pretty useless...it's a disambiguation page that links to the Five Ws and Interrogative word, but no actual articles about questions; wh question used to redirect to wh-movement. Of course, wh-movement and interrogative words are all related to wh-questions, but are not quite the same thing; this seems to be a pretty big hole in Wikipedia's coverage. Now that we have such a detailed article on yes-no questions, it would be nice to have a good one on content questions/wh-questions as well. I don't really have the resources to attempt that right now, but I figured I'd check with you and see if you have any plans. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Windows Program Group Converter[edit]

Should I create the article "Windows Program Group Converter?" More information. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Yes/old version[edit]

I have nominated Yes/old version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Yes and no![edit]

Thanks for your contributions to the Yes and no article. I found the information very interesting! Especially about the former English four-form system, which I hadn't known about, and the derivations of words such as "nein" and "oui". Coppertwig (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct WP:LAYOUT for notes and references[edit]

Wikipedia layout sample Notes References.png

See example above from WP:LAYOUT#Notes and References. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to format and place citations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Try to think about what you are doing, instead of robotically applying rules. When something isn't a footnote, it's stupid to label it a footnote. It's not even as if the rules that you are robotically applying even tell you what they think they are telling you. You should also try reading what you are pointing to, and understanding it. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Try to have a clue instead of needlessly reinventing the wheel. The circumstances here are no different than in the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of articles which this standard layout was designed for. Very few of them are "footnotes" either, and the section title does not in fact say "footnotes" -- so your argument is utterly irrelevant. Encyclopaedias generally have standardised formatting. Wikipedia has established such standards, so lacking a good reason (and you have provided none), I see no reason not follow it. This is not being "robotically .... robotically" (my you do have a tediously limited vocabulary). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Such childish parrotting doesn't make you look smart, you know, nor does trying to insult someone's vocabulary in lieu of proper argument. Nor also does not even figuring out that "Notes" is in reality no different to "Footnotes". Now get a grip. You've been here 3 years or so. You at least should have seen the large number of those "hundreds of thousands of articles" that, as the page tells you, would you but read it instead of robotically mis-labelling things that are not footnotes as footnotes, use various different names for the sections, including "Sources", "Bibliography", and so forth. "Sources used" isn't exactly novel. Indeed, "Sources" is what one gets as standard from Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I repeat: Read what you are pointing to and understand it. And if you've never seen these "several alternative titles" that the very page that you are pointing to talks about, and live in some mythical world where there's this single standard that you have in your head (even though the page that you yourself are pointing to says that there isn't), then you haven't looked at enough articles in those three years. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


  1. Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. "childish parrotting" is as insulting as it is inaccurate.
  2. If you don't want your vocabulary ridiculed then stop robotically saying "robotically" over and over. Use "mechanistically", "regimentedly", or whatever as well. If you're going to be insulting, then at least be imaginative about it.
  3. Given you're making such a wikidrama over what is a perfectly unexceptionable convention, I decided to pull Ronald L. Numbers' The Creationists (the most authoritative work on the subject, and memorable for its copious citations) off the top of the stack of books next to my computer. Guess what it calls its 140-page long citations section? "Notes". So WP:LAYOUT's standard nomenclature would appear to be academically unexpceptionable (I can start pulling up other texts to see how they label citation sections, if you really want to make an issue about this).
  4. I can assure you that few, if any, of the articles in question use the highly informal and unencyclopaedic "What supports what" & "Sources used" that you favour, and that a very large number use the standardised 'Notes' & 'References'. A smaller, but still significant number, use the suggested alternatives.
  5. Repeating unnecessary instructions does not make them any more pertinent.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's rich! The person who attacks other people with insults tries to pretend that it's the other people making the personal attacks. Stop projecting yourself onto others. The only person making a drama is you here; as is the only person who decided to insult people's vocabulary and start childish parroting in lieu of argument. If you hadn't made these ridiculous and plainly wrong changes, labelling things that aren't footnotes as footnotes out of an entirely thoughtless and robotic application of rules that you haven't even understood in the first place, nothing would have happened.

There's nothing "unencyclopaedic" about simply descriptive headings. That's a ludicrous reach, too. Simply descriptive is simply descriptive, and there are plenty of examples to be found here of it. There's nothing "bad form" about such a thing in the slightest. Here's some more Clue for you: I've been around a lot longer than you, and I've seen fashions come and go. Some of my old articles from years ago don't even format correctly now because of changes in fashion. What you erroneously think of a standardization (which isn't even standardized by the manual of style) is mere fashion, and some other wrongheaded manual of style warrior like you who doesn't see that the manual doesn't fix a particular style — for very good reason — will no doubt change your idea of what's "standard" in the months and years to come, just as it has changed before, without realizing that that completely undermines the idea that it is actually a standard.

Now go and read the very page that you're pointing to, look around the encyclopaedia a bit more than you have, and get yourself some understanding. I've handed you Clue several times over, not least the Clue of looking at more articles than you clearly have, to learn why the rules say that there's no set form. Show some good sense and take the Clue on board, instead of making even more ridiculous arguments. You'll be pretending that it's uncivil to tell you that you're wrong, next. That's typical of the pattern, too. You might try breaking it and learning when someone tells you that you don't understand the rules, your edits are plainly wrong and applied robotically without thinking about what you are doing with them, your style of argument is to childishly parrot and insult rather than read what you're waving around when told to, and you aren't supported by simple common sense, what you are waving around, or the many hundreds of thousands of articles which don't fit the single style that you've erroneously and thoughtlessly got into your head is somehow the norm. The Clue is before you. Avail yourself of it.

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Friending layout[edit]

Hello. Just noticed the "What supports what" subheading in your good work on the Friending article - I appreciate that WP:FNNR is only a guideline and the reader can easily distinguish footnotes from general references from their formatting, but "What supports what" does seem a bit too informal for an encyclopaedia. Just having a "References" section and a "Sources" section seems cleaner than the nested "References > What supports what" and "References > Sources used". --McGeddon (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cleanup-link rot[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Cleanup-link rot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –MuZemike 01:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Scooterboy[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Scooterboy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Biker Biker (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Friending[edit]

Thanks. Your version is a much better, much more verifiable and accurate and properly sourced view of the topic, so I've withdrawn the AFD nomination. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see this comment until just now — but for what it's worth, the core principle of WP:UE isn't that the words and/or spelling in an article title must always be in English with no exceptions; it's that the words and/or spelling need to be whatever a speaker of the most relevant dialect or jargon of English would recognize as the standard name of the topic in actual usage. For example, even though the individual words in the name of Canada's Parti Québécois are spelled in French rather than English, the name itself is still the standard name for the organization in Canadian English, and any anglicized version would run afoul of our original research policies by virtue of being an unattested and unknown usage in the real world. In this particular case, I'm not familiar enough with the concept of Brusselisation/Bruxellisation to know which spelling is more standard, but the principle is the same: we need to use whichever spelling is actually used in English-language urban studies literature to refer to the particular concept of "Bru(ss/x)ellisation", regardless of whether or not that corresponds to the normal English spelling of the city of Brussels. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The nudge[edit]

Thanks, I'd misread what the sections were trying to do, and yes, I realised, that's why I reverted my own addition of the inline-refs notice. It looked like the informational footnote was only there to explain the word "befriend" in the disambiguation, which is why I dropped it when I replaced the hatnote. And I went back to a standard reflist template because the 20em width was breaking up the list (I get "^ a b c Drucker, Gumpert & Cohen" in one column and "2010, p. 73." at the top of the next, in my browser). --McGeddon (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  • It looks unbalanced to have the one sub-heading rather than two. (It looks even worse to have no sub-headings at all, because it looks like someone has just put two bulleted lists of different kinds right next to each other. In fact, it most closely resembles the mess that one sees in articles where the conversion to fully crosslinked citations is only half-finished — which I consider to be another reason to avoid it in articles that are not partway through such conversion.) On the width, I have no personal preference. Use 30em or something if the columns are too narrow. I don't spend too much time hunting for the perfect em-dash number when I'm concentrating upon reading and writing.

    "What supports what" may not be perfect, but replacing it with a notice claiming that the article doesn't say what supports what is rather daft. Yes, it's perhaps not as stilted as it could be, but it's fairly straightforward and explanatory. I've yet to find something better that is still as clear.

    References are not footnotes. And there are no general references in that article, notice. General references, remember, apply generally to the whole article, as a sort of catch-all — one that is all too often, sad to say, abused by lazy writers. In what I wrote, as you can see, each source supports, and is directly cross-linked to, specific content.

    The lexicographic footnote, I submit, is a small but fairly important detail for a reader. Several of the sources that I used (and indeed read but didn't use) made a point of noting that "friend" was a verb in this context. (Some didn't even realize that it already had been a verb, long since: long enough to become an archaism in fact.) It's knowledge of the subject to be incorporated into the article, therefore, I think. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    • By "general references" I mean the sort discussed in WP:CITESHORT, which is exactly the type of referencing we have here - a list of short citations, and a list of works that those citations draw from. WP:CITESHORT puts these in two top-level sections called "Notes" and "References". --McGeddon (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The examples do that. But if you look further up that very same page you'll notice that it is explicitly states that these headings are "for example". The reality is that there's a fair amount of leeway in headings. One can use several different combinations of "sources", "bibliography", "reference bibliography", "footnotes", "notes", "references", "citations", and several others. I personally strive for what is expected in good quality encyclopaedias by readers (nearly all encyclopaedias in my experience that have these things have References and Further reading headings below the body of the prose) and what is straightforward and clear (hence "sources used", "footnotes", and so forth). Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Dream transference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dreaming (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) 10:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Bevilacqua Dynasty prior to the twelfth century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pope Victor (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) 10:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Major Major Major Major[edit]

Very nice quick save there. (I was trudging through my talk page discussion while you were actually adding content!) I will try to add some things--maybe a bit more about the filmed version and some political uses by third parties--without mucking up your good work too much. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I suggest avoiding the political speeches altogether. They really aren't scholarly analyses of the work and really don't tell us anything encyclopaedic about the character. But the book by Stephen W. Potts has some interesting tidbits to add, in particular with respect to the father character, and can also support some of what I wrote as an extra source. I notice that we both found Harold Bloom. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Arithmetic shift, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GCC (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) 10:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Boron neutron capture therapy[edit]

Thiw was actually a PROD deletion discussion. I had done a little bit of "merging" (if you want to cell it that) to get some bits of info from the article to be deleted, into the remaining one. But that kind of merge results essentially in a deletion, and requires a deletion RfC first. So tell me exactly what you think somebody did wrong, here? Your edit summary before blanking the material and redirecting (which would have been done in due time) I found rather snarky. Previous editor needs to read Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge? Pehaps editor following needs to read the previous section, Wikipedia:Merging#Mergers as a result of deletion discussionsSBHarris 18:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You are terribly confused. There are no such things as either "PROD deletion discussions" or "deletion RFCs". Nor does deletion involve in any way blanking and redirection. You do little more than confirm that you need to read that page, and that I was quite right, with all that you write here. You need to read several others, too, including not least Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, m:Help:Page deletion, and the whole of Wikipedia:Merging, where you clearly need to figure out what parts tell you in their first sentence that they don't apply when there isn't an AFD discussion involved. Go and read them all, and do not again waste other people's time with invalid deletion nominations that violate Wikipedia's copyright licence and that aren't even needed in the first place when one does things properly onesself. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Goldblatt v. Hempstead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth Amendment (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) 14:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. You have new messages at Jasper Deng's talk page.
Message added 00:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have various things wrong in your analysis, mainly things like range sizes. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I take that with a vast pinch of salt from the person who changed IPv4 to IP version 5, and forgot that ::0/128 and ::1/128 combine to a /127. ☺ Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't change it to IPv5. And ::1 does have legitimate uses on this website and can be blocked if we have a malfunctioning script.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • You most definitely did say IP version 5, kid. Ironically, your edit summary claimed to be correcting "incorrect terms". It's not about legitimate use, either. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That!=IPv5. Please take a careful look at "IPv6."--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes it is. You quite clearly changed "IP version 4" to "IP version 5" there. The diff is incontrovertible. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
            • I did not, you misread. IP version 6=IPv6, if you can't make that blatantly obvious distinction I have no words for you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
            • I saw that, now, my bad - I had thought you were talking about RIRs. Great apologies. --Jasper Deng (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cleanup-bare URLs[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Cleanup-bare URLs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jodosma (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)