User talk:Mckaysalisbury

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

Contents

Welcomes[edit]

Hello Mckaysalisbury and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

You forgot to sign[edit]

Hi! Just a friendly note: You forgot to sign your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Year 10,000 problem. You can sign your posts by entering four tildes (~~~~). — David Remahl 19:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to sign one, and within minutes, I get hammered ;)
 ;-). Happens to the best of us. — David Remahl 19:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

teh teh[edit]

You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 12:43, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Mars Desert Research Station front entry and greenhab.jpg[edit]

Hello. I moved this back to being the talk page for the image. Nice pic, BTW. I'm not sure exactly what you were wanting to do, but if you were trying to rename the image, I've got some bad news -- see renaming images. If that isn't what you wanted, you can probably find your answer in either HOWTOs Index or Modifying a Wikipedia page. SWAdair | Talk 01:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relational database[edit]

Both the citations you gave are good examples of bad articles. They are both bad in a manner typical of technical articles: overly theoretical regurgitation of dull classroom lectures. No good purpose is served by their presence, but it is a daunting task to rewrite such a mass of verbiage -- so daunting that few attempt the Stygian task.

I intend to insert in Relational database a lucid description of the beast -- not the theoretical model, not a plug for FileMaker, but the thing itself, filmed as it were in the act. Is there a cabal of WPdians waiting to jump on me for this? — Xiong (talk) 02:28, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel my initial remarks were confrontational. My comments were directed more toward the discussion, not to the stub. I just took a look at the page history; it's a sight. For some abominable reason, this has been the focus of a long-running edit war; I gather considerable content has been written and removed. I guess there is a cabal.

Actually, the article itself, Relational database, isn't so bad. It's just way too short, a stub; almost a disambig where there should be a glorious article. The articles to which content seems to have been moved are just terrible. They don't need "work", but a complete overhaul. I do not intend to do that overhaul, either. But I do intend to put together a lucid article on the subject which, I imagine, interests most readers: relational databases themselves, not the theory which discusses them.

I hope you may be willing to lend a hand. — Xiong (talk) 07:10, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

You and I are in perfect agreement, I think. I don't know where I'd be if I didn't have the power of a good RDBM tool -- FileMaker Pro. I came to the article, Relational database, by way of a desire to set WP firmly on the relational road -- I do not consider it to be there now.

Can't discuss RDB without laying the groundwork, so I've attacked the much simpler Flat file database first. Please let me know what you think. — Xiong (talk) (post facto)

Well... let me preface my reply by saying I've been somewhat abused by One-Thinger WPdians lately. Forgive me if I'm a little acrid or mistrustful. I don't know how well you know FileMaker Pro. It is greatly improved from the FileMaker of the Bad Old Days. I grant that it is unsuited for scaling up to a massive database, with hundreds of thousands of records and tens of thousands of queries per hour. It's a tool best used by anything from a single user up to a small company -- say, 1000 users, not all of whom access the DB at one time. But these are engine limitations, a statement of horsepower. And despite what I've said, I see FileMaker, Inc. is pushing their products into ever-larger companies.

I don't have the money, inclination, or need to upgrade to the latest version (7); let me note some of the features of mine (5.5):

  • Fully customizable layouts -- Setting up a layout is as easy as drawing with a pen tool. Layouts -- forms, reports -- are almost too plastic. Fonts, colors, styles, borders are editable as a matter of course. Field formats -- besides a straight box full of text -- include menus, radio buttons, and check boxes, all of which use a value list that may either be static or dynamic. I especially like dynamic value lists. Field formats are tied to the layout in which they appear, as distinct from field types -- text, number, date, etc.
  • Relationships -- Fields from a related file can be used in a layout just as if they were local to the master file, or inserted into a portal to display one-to-many relationships. So long as match fields ("keys", in SQL jargon) are properly defined, you can create and delete matching records in the related file from within the master file (if permitted).
  • Lookups -- Data from a related file is copied to the master file one time only. E.g., a file containing invoices looks up prices for products. The actual prices may change later, but the prices shown in the invoice do not change.
  • Self-joins (self-relationships) are possible. I've done some weird things with self-joins. I admit, sometimes I've broken it with this kind of stuff. But I've created solutions in which data typed into one record forces the creation of a related record in the same file.
  • Any field (except media containers) can be calculated. Defining a field as a calculation opens a window and you type away. Fields from the master file and all related files are available as atoms from a menu, as are all functions. The functions themselves are so comprehensive that you can emulate nearly any spreadsheet. Of course, you can do much more.
Of particular note are the many calculation functions that return some aspect of system status. Status (CurrentPortalRow), for example, tells you where the user is. Or, you can fiddle with other DB files, as in FieldStyle (dbname, layoutname, fieldname). This returns a status word, depending on whether the target field is a straight text field, or perhaps a menu, or list of radio buttons.
  • Fully scriptable -- Almost anything you can do at all, you can script. You can add or delete records, switch layouts, find, sort, print, etc.; you can define any object (including a displayed field!) as a button that invokes a script. I've done some weird things by defining a field within a portal as a button; FileMaker understands which related record the user has "pushed".
The script engine has been upgraded to allow for all the usual flow control functions. I've written several solutions that makes very heavy use of scripts; for a notable example, a slot machine that operates entirely within one record, resorting to a very complicated set of scripts whenever the "handle" is pulled. (The slot machine is also relational; there are, oh, IIRC, 2 related files, one with the reel icons, one with payoffs.) It's even possible to script SQL queries, to access foreign systems.
  • Security -- I admit, security is not as robust as it might be. You can protect whole files or control access to certain layouts and certain fields. You can roll up a finished solution into a sort of kiosk mode and you have a lot of control over what the user can do; you can lock almost the entire UI out and replace whatever functions you like using scripts and buttons.
  • Getting out of the box -- I'm not as interested in this as others may be, but FileMaker is "...Level 1 ODBC compliant, with limited Level 2 support." More interesting to me is the ability to publish solutions -- databases, with their layouts and their scripts -- on the web. This ability is unfortunately limited in my version; I gather that the more $expensive developer versions do much much more. Search for "filemaker hosting" -- I can host a simple solution right from my desktop, or pay somebody else to host it for me; it's a niche market. Pricey, too: FileMaker, Inc. is always sure to get a piece, by controlling the number of files that can be open at one time.

I intend to use FileMaker Pro to demonstrate RDB, not just because I like it, but because it's what I've got, and because its layouts and dialog boxes are so visual and easy to understand that they make good examples for someone not steeped in the subject. And, after all, if you already know all about RDBMS, you won't care to read a simple introduction to the subject.

FileMaker, Inc. is giving away a free 30-day trial. You might want to check it out, but I suggest you plan the 30 days for when you can afford the time to exercise the demo. Let me know if you plan to do this, and I will send you some old solutions and demos you can play around with. (It doesn't matter what box you're on; FM is almost totally transparently cross-platform). Who knows, you might decided to beg, borrow, steal, or even $buy it for yourself. — Xiong (talk) 15:00, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

James Earl Salisbury[edit]

Thanks! I just wanted to see what you thought and such. I gave some counter-feedback (or something like that). I'm glad you responded. =) — Indi [ talk ] 11:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Relational database 2[edit]

Hi, thanks for your interest in editing this article.

What we need is an article that bridges the gap between the mathematical terminology used in a strict definition of the relational model and the popular terminology used by people who work with relational databases. For instance, an explanation of the relationship between "relations" and "tables". At a minimum I feel this article should explain the terms covered in my attempted rewrite at Talk:Relational database/rewrite. When I suggested this rewrite many complained that it was not true to the relational model; since I am not an expert in the relational model I could not fix this problem and abandoned the rewrite.

If you have any other questions or concerns you can put them here; I have watchlisted you. --Ideogram 08:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

K, I'll put my response here, note, I copied your notice, and totally messed with it. Comments round one. Yeah, it's not perfectly in line with the realtional model:
  • "This would result in a duplicate row, which is usually not allowed" In the mathematical definition (and in "truly relational databases"), it isn't allowed, but some (SQL i.e. non-relational) DBMSs allow it. This has strong correlation to primary keys "Most tables are created with primary keys." in SQL systems. In relational systems, all tables have at least one candidate key.
  • "We are using the primary key of the organization table as a foreign key in the person table." "Primary keys" aren't technically part of the relational model. Keys are all some kind of constraint. Foreign Keys have to reference a Candidate key, and the primary key (if the DBMS supports it) is a good idea.
  • I understand what you're trying to do with the relational integrity section, but could it be phrased in such a way that doesn't show a violation of a key, like saying "suppose we tried to delete row x".
  • Normalization either needs to be pulled, or more detail should be included. It's a big leap from saying "data duplication" to "3NF"
  • Joins, do we have to use SQL? I propose a relational Algebra. Maybe a translation in to SQL might be necessary (also, you're using MySQL variety, a SQL flavor that conforms to the SQL specifications would be better)
  • Indexes are not really a part of the relational model (you admit this), so again, I'll say either more or less data. (oh, and saying "directly" is a bit of an oversimplification).
  • No, Views *are* stored in the database, (unless the DBMS violates rule four of Codd's 12 rules)
  • SQL is not part of the relational model, and so, doesn't really deserve a section like you mention it, and it is not a standard part of all relational databases.
Having said all of that, I think I still prefer the overall feel of the current relational database article. It might just be me liking the technical side of things, but I think the techinical stuff is the important part of the article. Simple English Wikipedia maybe? McKay 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't have to start with my proposed rewrite as a base. I simply wanted to reference it as a list of terms that an article about Relational Databases should cover. If you prefer to use the current article as a starting point that is fine. What I'm trying to say (which other people didn't seem to understand) is that we need an article that talks about both the theory of the relational model and its implementation in modern relational databases, so that someone wondering "Why are Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL all called relational databases?" can get an answer that isn't too mathematical. --Ideogram 08:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, you misunderstand the term. Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL, are not relational databases. Some people call them Relational Database Management Systems, but relational databases they are not. The changes I made to the Relational database article today reference some of those differences (ordered rows and columns, three-valued logic...). But specific reasons as to why Oracle isn't "truly relational" belongs in RDBMS or Oracle. McKay 09:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with the argument that relational databases are only those databases that conform to the relational model. I simply do not agree. Only theoreticians claim that my examples are not relational databases; the term is well-entrenched in popular usage.
Fundamentally this is a disagreement over terminology. However, the fact that Codd invented the relational model does not mean he owns the term. If you look at Talk:Relational database you will see my mention of a Google define: search that shows abundant evidence that the common usage of the term is not limited to databases that conform to the relational model.
As an encyclopedia it is not Wikipedia's job to prescribe correct usage of terms. We should be following the common usage and writing about what people expect to find when they are looking for an explanation of the term "relational database". --Ideogram 09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
In summary, when someone asks "Why are Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL all called relational databases?" (and in fact they are called such), the answer "They aren't really relational databases" is not helpful. --Ideogram 09:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. Yes, I'm the kind of guy who doesn't think that Oracle (or any other DBMS that employs SQL as its primary DDL and DML) should be called relational. But, I understand that that is my point of view. It is a matter of fact that the world calles Oracle a Relational Database Management System. Therefore, the Wikipedia entry on Oracle should refer to it as a Relational Database Management System. And likewise, the Relational Database Management System article should reference Oracle as one of the most popular. So, yes, we disagree over termonology, but I don't think we disagree as to what the wikipedia article should say regarding this terminology. Namely that both camps are a valid way of looking at it. Codd created the term, Codd doesn't own the term, but Chris Date's Definition and Larry Ellison's definition should both be mentioned.
What I actually said was "Relational Database" does not equal "Relational Database Management System". The article in question is "Relational Database". What I actually said was that Oracle is a Relational Database Management System, but Oracle is *not* a Relational Database. Relational Databases can be created in Oracle though. McKay 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For reference I duplicate from Talk:Relational database#starting on a rewrite the results of my Google search on "relational database" here.
All of these articles do not make a clear distinction between "Relational Database" and "RDBMS". I feel that all of these articles do a better job of answering the questions a typical novice will have about the term than the current Wikipedia article. Again, I invite you to do a Google search of define:relational database and see how many entries reference the relational model. I seem to recall there is only one other instance besides Wikipedia.
By my evidence you are still insisting on a definition of Relational Database that is at variance with its popular usage. --Ideogram 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
No, you're still missing what I'm saying.
McKay 09:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm missing what you are saying. If you read the articles I linked to you will see that they do not draw the distinction you are making. --Ideogram 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I think we're almost on the same page now. A Relational Database Management System enables you to build Relational Databases. But Relational Databases still store data. Example: At the last company I worked for, we had Microsoft SQL Server (an RDBMS). Using it, I created a Relational database that I called "ULS". This database stored data in it. Now, for how those links verify this:
  • EDM/2 "A relational database stores all its data inside tables, and nothing more." If I also stored data in files in the file system. My collection of data could not be called a "relational database", because it stores data outside of tables.
  • Whatis.com: "A relational database is a collection of data items organized as a set of formally-described tables" The ULS database has collected the data, and has organized the data into relational structures called tables, or relations.
McKay 10:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Consequently, google:"define:relational database management system" invariably describes software, or applications, it also references the term "database management system" and applies the "relational" adjective, and in some cases, lists commercial software applications. A relational database is a logical structure.
If I understand you correctly you want to call the Oracle software that creates the database an RDBMS and the actual collection of data the relational database. This distinction is not important to me. What I hoped to achieve by listing the links is to give examples of what I think any article on the term "relational database" should cover. Do you agree with that? --Ideogram 10:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, an RDBMS is an applicattion, software, code. A relational Database is a collection of Data, structures and data stored in memory. An RDBMS can monitor several Relational Databases. While this distinction may not be important to you, it is a valid and important distinction. This distinction is probably at least one thing that needs to go the relational database page. Some of the things mentioned in the articles you linked could be mentioned. Those articles are good references for the source material contained in the page. McKay 10:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) The Wikipedia article as it stands is woefully inadequate. It only explains relations, and a one sentence description of normalization. Do you agree that the topics listed in my example rewrite need mentioning? --Ideogram 10:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Relational Database has a template at the bottom mentioning the following subjects under "objects":
Trigger | View | Table | Cursor | Log | Transaction | Index | Stored procedure | Partition
If I were to do a brief outline, I'd do something like this
  1. Definitions
    1. Simple
    2. Formal / Mathematical
  2. Prerequisites (Horrible section header name)
    1. Briefly cover Database
    2. Briefly cover Relational Model
  3. Objects
    1. Table
    2. View (Relvars in general?)
    3. Constraints
      1. Superkeys / Primary Keys / Candidate Keys
      2. Foreign Keys
      3. Other constraints
        1. Table and column constraints
        2. Transition Constraints
    4. Stored Procedures (and other "code", like triggers)
    5. (Indexes?)
  4. Normalization?
DDL and DML should be covered in RDBMS, and that should cover all of the topics you had in your rewrite, and in the original article.
Transactions, Logs, Cursors, (indexes?, ) and partitions should all be covered in DBMS or RDBMS.
What do you think?McKay 10:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
K, In any case, I'm going to bed. I'll get any further messages in the morning.
I think if you could write an article following this outline that would be great. Good night. --Ideogram 10:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I spent the morning writing this up. it is available at User:Mckaysalisbury/Relational database for your perusal. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Obviously, it could use the "see also"s and "external link"s available on the current version of the page. It could probably use some references, but I didn't really look anything up. All this was basically from the top of my head. So someone should probably go thorugh and find valid references for the thigns that I said?McKay 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Provo, Utah[edit]

Well, I'm still puzzled by something. What 2000 data are you referring to on that page? The data from List of cities in Utah (by population) was (and I guess still is) based on 2005 estimates from the Utah Population Estimates Committee. What 2000 info are you talking about? Also, the 1RR isn't a rule, and I felt like I could explain myself well enough on the edit summary, so I felt no need to bring up the discussion on the talk page. Also, I'm wondering what exactly you meant by your last sentence? It doesn't really make sense to me. Generally, your entire post doesn't make sense...I need clarification of what you're trying to say. bob rulz 08:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I know what you're saying. However, the estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau actually aren't more recent; the UPEC estimates are for October 2005, while the Census Bureau estimates are for July 2005. It's just that the UPEC estimates are released earlier, because they only have to do Utah estimates while the Census Bureau does estimates for the whole country. However, while the accuracy of either of them is debatable (the Census Bureau doesn't have the greatest track record for accuracy), the Census Bureau is official, and using Census Bureau estimates maintains consistency throughout the entire country. I think we should use Census Bureau estimates for the sake of them being official. I was updating the information last night when I completely screwed everything up and didn't have the patience to fix it...so I just gave up. I might update it today. bob rulz 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Michigan[edit]

If you check out E.F.Codds entry here you will see that he got his doctorate from Michigan in the late 60's. His work with the database group there led to the development of Micro, a relational database management system. Micro was used by acadmics at Michigan, Alberta and Wayne State Universitys to manage microdata.

As that this system lived and died before the internet existed, no documentation regarding it will be easily found on the net. There are of course dank and spider infested physical archives. What from these physical archives do you need?

Robert Bressan 14:00, 8/2/2006

I've found a link int the ACM journal documenting a system in production existing 1972. [3] Association for Computing Machinery SIGIR Forum archive Volume 7 , Issue 4

Do you have other problems with incorperating this change or shall I go ahead?

Bressan 17:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Robert Bressan

Leet[edit]

You're going to need a better reason then "This page sucks" to add all of those templates to Leet. In fact, doing so again without said reason, it will probably belooked at as vandalism. tmopkisn tlka 06:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a post to the talk page. Finished about 10 minutes after I made the changes to the leet page. Give me some time! WP:AGF McKay 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, your post to the talk page didn't really explain anything. "This page sucks, so I added some this page sucks templates." Oh, and don't worry about it, you've got all of the time in the world. tmopkisn tlka 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A longer explanation has been given, but I don't think I'm up to keeping up with the edit count on leet, particularly with people who don't WP:AGF, so I'm out. I'll focus my energies elsewhere. McKay 07:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, and I'm sorry to have upset you. But, do what you must, I won't be stopping you... tmopkisn tlka 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

StarCraft Ghost "revert"[edit]

Hello. You have sent me a message about a revert about the StarCraft: Ghost article. I didn't revert anything, although I did add the category "vaporware" to the end of the article, since, the game fits the parameters of vaporware. If games that had actual demonstrations but have had a long and protracted development cycle, like the video game S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl have vaporware tags on them, why not apply these tags to StarCraft Ghost? StarCraft Ghost has been announced for a while, and it has yet to materialize as a real product. - XX55XX 19:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Periodicity[edit]

Sorry to bother. If you have questions regarding authenticity, please use the internet archive. The information is freely available and has been for a long time. The subject is current and you are right there is a better way to explain this. Wish I had the time. Will start working on it though, could you please add whatever to the information, but don't delete as it is timely and relevant. Thank you. This was added by anon user User talk:71.215.54.11


Sorry for messing up your page, I really don't know how to let you know things.
google 1ceres
yahoo 1ceres
There is a definitive publication regarding
1ceres as a planet and the periodicity
It may not be in as organized a manner that is preferrable
but, it beats Science.com HANDS DOWN regarding the subject.
You aren't looking.
Try the archive, and 1ceres is the most popular web site for 1ceres.
And, until redefinition becomes accepted 1ceres is the name of the object.
I am again sorry to display it this way. But, it has been open for debate for a long time.
thank you. This was added by anon user User talk:71.215.54.11

Scrum (rugby)[edit]

I've had a go at making the introduction more user friendly. Sometimes it takes somebody from outside to point out what all the 'experts' miss.

What I think may have confused you is the term 'set scrum', this term is archaic and is not any use to the article - I have deleted it.

What is more confusing but cannot be avoided is that there are two different sports called 'rugby'. They differ from each other much more than US and Canadian football do. Both have scrums but the scrums are quite different, but there is only one type of scrum in each sport.GordyB 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Black hole (disambiguation) and Micro black hole[edit]

RVs are only ment for own editorial work, so who is doing the vandalism? And please check your references about micro black holes because the new adapted name is "black hole analogies".(Scientific American, December 2005, An echo of Black Holes), [4] --Quasarq 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see some investigation is done by a computer freak. Nevertheless you are right at some point. Hawking named: mini black holes. "Black hole analogy" is a newer term for a quantum phenomena which is a smaller definition. But my reference is right, a "Black hole analogy" IS a mini black hole (not reverse). I change it again because most probably you don't have the scientific literature. I know my points are controversial but very often I'm right in the end because I base most of my work on WP:VERIFY and WP:REF. And please can you change my work back because evidently you just based your conclusions on opposite opinions. High regards. --Quasarq 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

o YES, you refer WP:MOS. As I'm not an English native, you better help in this regard instead of RVs, because we share the interests of black holes apparently --Quasarq 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

87.211.151.42[edit]

See also: User talk:87.211.151.42. You will probably need to look at the page's history, as he likes to delete messages sent to him.

I deleted your "id". See Help:Talk page --87.211.151.42 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It states clearly:Help:Talk page Etiquette Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them. (I boldened) I realize other pages say otherwise but I stick in this context to this.

The policy WP:FAITH Assume good faith is apparently strange to you, as I was just trying to write something and was accused of vandalism. As long as you do not apologize I assume you continue to invade the space at the IP address and continue to harass that page. There is no policy that states I have to create an account. So the IDs you label are at your own account. --87.211.151.42 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet numbers[edit]

The Minor Planet Center (MPC) (and yes, wikipedia *does* have a link to it) is the official minor planet naming and numbering service - and they operate under the auspices of the International Astronomical Union - the science's "governing body". The MPC release electronic circulars (and MPEC refers to Minor Planet Electronic Circular) about various topics - including minor planet/comet discoveries, minor planet/comet naming, and also regularly updated orbital elements and coordinates. Searching google for "Minor Planet Center" received 233,000 links. The IAU's website says that "When the orbit of a Minor Planet becomes well enough determined that the position can be reliably predicted far into the future (typically this means after the Minor Planet has been observed at four or more oppositions), the Minor Planet receives a permanent designation - number issued sequentially by the Minor Planet Center, for example (433), (4179) or (50000)."

So it's clear that the IAU believes that the MPC is the official numbering service for minor planets.

The MPC IS notable - it holds the definitive source catalogue for all minor planets. Richard B 12:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fibonacci number[edit]

Yes. I know the 3Revert rule. Can you pls tell what you mean by "Malcontent". How can one single word supported by a reference can be called as "Malcontent". I am also curious to know your feelings about this.Bharatveer 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 05:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mckay, Pls see the talk page of Fibonacci number.-Bharatveer 14:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

AVL_tree[edit]

Could you pop over to the AVL tree discussion page and respond to my comments, please. Toby Douglass 11:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

QM[edit]

Thanks. I usually do just make changes myself, but my limitations are mainly in communication, so it is often better to make suggestions. I did change the first paragraph in the QM article to include E&M early when I was here, and my changes remained for quite a while. Now it may be worse than before I worked on it. I was just saying to my wife "At least maybe some of the other authors are learning from me." David R. Ingham 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In a case like this where my changes have been reverted (after a long time), it is better to make discussion first. I no-one answers I feel confident in making changes. David R. Ingham 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Provo[edit]

Those were filters I added. I originally had it set to change LDS Church to the full name, but I figured some people wanted to keep it shortened, so I simply set it to avoid redirects.

Although the LDS Manual of Style doesn't mention this, I like to use the full name of the church for the first instance on each article, with shortened versions thereafter, and I try to avoid redirects in general. Also note that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints requests that the term LDS Church not be used.

As to the easter egg effect, that doesn't apply here since LDS Church already redirected to the same page. The page on piped links is here: Wikipedia:Piped link, although it doesn't appear to be a policy per se, and I'm pretty sure I have not violated it. Although now that I look it over I have seen it violated several times in other articles. --Lethargy 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I did find Wikipedia's policy for redirects which states that redirects don't necessarily need to be avoided, so I'll need to start complying with that. In this particular case, it is probably best to just unlink LDS Church since there is already a link for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with a note that LDS Church is an alternate. Anyway, I'll try not to step on your toes again. :) --Lethargy 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

E.F. Codd[edit]

Thanks for your comments about my edit of the article. I have added a reference to the source. Janm67 16:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:IAU planet debate[edit]

I found an explanation for your creation of Category:IAU planet debate after I nominated the category for deletion. I agree that it was useful in the short term, but I really think it should be deleted and the articles should be shifted into other categories. Do you have any ideas on what needs to be placed within new categories, if anything? Category:Dwarf planets seems like an appropriate place to collect many of the articles that are central to this discussion (the objects in question, the lists, and the debate page itself). Is any additional categorization needed for the peripheral articles (most of which appear in some other appropriate category, such as Category:Trans-Neptunian objects)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Submillimeter (talkcontribs) 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Battle.net[edit]

I noticed your recent edits to Battle.net. I understand the edits you made may be more correct in American English, they are not necesarily more correct in British English, and WP has a policy of leaving things that are correct in one locale. Personally, I don't care, and I'm only telling you because the Brit's can get pretty angry for changing these kinds of things. Good luck and have fun in WP! McKay 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about my Battle.net edits.
System.out.println("Wow, you know a great number of programming languages!");
System.out.println("I only know java.");
s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, glad I can help. Oh, your user page looks broken in IE, do you care if I tweak your user page to fix it? Merry Christmas (with a little Java present for you). McKay 05:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could tell me about the changes you would make to my page beforehand. My page, in any case, is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox. That bit of Java was great! However, I don't know if this is a problem for you, 'Out' should be 'out' since Java is case-sensitive. Happy editing and happy programming! s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

happy holidays![edit]


Wishing you a Happy Holidays
from s d 3 1 4 1 5 Happy Holidays!! 14:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your signature! sign here HAPPY HOLIDAYS!s d 3 1 4 1 5 12:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wei-Hwa Huang[edit]

I restored the usage of {{US-sport-bio-stub}} to that article. As used by the Stub Sorting project, sports includes people involved in mental competitions as well as physicals ones. If that seems strange, let me point out that while not part of the Olympic Games, billiards, bridge, and chess are all non Olympic Games sports recognized by the IOC so we're not the ones who originated the idea. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the sport article to indicate the broader uses of the term (with links and references), while keeping the primary focus of that article on physical sports. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

nullarbor demoparty[edit]

Hi, the demo party article has been nominated for deletion, and I would appreciate it if you would be able to add your input to the article and discussion. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor_(demo_party) -- Aboeing

Thanks for your help :) Much appreciated.

-- Aboeing 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

spelling[edit]

You might want to double-check the box at the head of your user page. 3rd line. DGG 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks McKay 15:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Beast (disambiguation)[edit]

What I did, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

  • I moved {{wiktionarypar|beast}} to the top of the page, and removed {{TOCright}}, as there was only one "section"
  • I removed items without articles, and "Beer nickname for Milwaukee's Best," which seemed dubious.

tregoweth (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the italics was my mistake -- I misremembered a MoS note about links on disambig pages, and thought that they were supposed to be presented without extra formatting. —tregoweth (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

MDRS[edit]

Looking through the 50 some 'Landmarks of f00', there is a mishmash of stuff--like anything that might attract people. 'Government of f00' did not look right, but could be. 'Economy of foo' that I am now creating for each state might work. There is no 'f00 science' set of categories and--from my inspection of all the states I don't think there is much to put there. Your thoughts? Thanks Hmains 04:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have it! 'Buildings and structures in Utah' It must be a structure. Hmains 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for pleasant conversation. Hmains 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pilgrimage (demo party)[edit]

revert. Redlinks are appropriate. Encyclopedic articles could be written, but they haven't been written yet.

The article for Northern Dragons has just been deleted by Proposed Deletion. I don't see how a Polygony article could ever survive WP:NOTABILITY as the only notable thing they did was to organize Pilgrimage. A search for PartyMeister reveals this is the only article which even mentions it, so, while it's more likely to be created as an article than Polygony, I wouldn't expect that to happen either. --Vossanova o< 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

136.2.1.101[edit]

Comments left for IP addresses that are clearly marked as shared are very unlikely to be received by the correct person. 136.2.1.101 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: BlizzCon[edit]

You're welcome, and thank you for inspiring me to make the edits! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 02:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii Health (AfD discussion)[edit]

  • I was actually just reading the DRV myself, but I appreciate your notice on my talk page. Leebo86 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii Play cover art[edit]

I really do not think that a straw poll is the right way to solve the issue of cover art in computer games issue. Given that the game has just been released in North America, I'd assume a definite increase in popularity of the article and its talk page from American users. This issue affects more than just Wii Play, indeed, a similar scenario has just happened at Kororinpa: Marble Mania, which also involved a page move with a vandalised redirect (although I'm ashamed that after an admin reverted the unilateral move, I too vandalised the redirect).

I am pretty liberal on my use of cover art. Indeed, I can understand what Tim means when he says "the version shown does not matter", I have personally uploaded cover art from American and European versions of games (Psychonauts and The Ship (computer game) are some examples). I was involved in Yoshi's Universal Gravitation page move, yet did not change the American cover art. I've clarified my own position at WT:CVG#Cover_Art_question_-_Wii_Play, but similar to Naming conventions, and Manual of Style dictations, unless there's an overwhelming reason why the original was inaccurate, it should be left as is. - hahnchen 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Orem, UT[edit]

My edit was not a test edit, nor was it of a "sandbox" nature. I removed Tahitian Noni International from the list because it did not come from Orem. It was originally founded in Lindon, and is currently headquartered in Provo. Neither of these facts qualify it as coming from Orem, hence its removal from the list. User_talk:70.58.32.173

Noni[edit]

{{helpme}}

I've got a problem with vandalism on Noni. If I revert again, I'll be violating WP:3RR. There are the exceptions of obvious vandalism, but I don't think it qualifies as obvious vandalism, so I've decided not to revert again. There was one user User:Mpfox2006 who I reverted a few times, and put the {{test3}} template on, so I think he created User:Eddie200700000 as a sockpuppet. McKay 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already posted at WP:AIV, which is what I was going to suggest. Let's see where that gets you. I'll check back. —XhantarTalk 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Eddie200700000 is likely a suckpuppet of Mpfox2006. Both accounts have made similar edits, and only to Noni. I'm reporting at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Also removing your {{helpme}}; I'll watch this page and follow up (you can reply here). —XhantarTalk 20:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:SSP is a good idea, but I wanted a quicker resolution because there was vandalism that I was trying to get resolved. WP:SSP is notable for its slowness, and usually for having a ginormous backlog. :D McKay 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Mpfox2006 and Eddie200700000 have been blocked indefinitely. —XhantarTalk 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello ![edit]

I am grateful to see a stand at Mario, and I suspect the article will stay. There is no clear consensus to have it removed. I am new and just beginning to learn, but the learning curve progress gets cloudy for me, when I am forced to fight personal attacks rather than substantive debate. Thank you for your clarification of issues and help at the line. I am done with that case, but not with Wikipedia. Thanks again, Lee Nysted 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Elevator surfing[edit]

Thanks for the prompt input re: the addition I made to the vladding article. Unfortunately, there is no published source; these long-ago episodes of college dorm elevator surfing were led and participated in by yours truly. While I realize this appears to contravene the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sourcing (and I gave thought to the admonition that sometimes it is better to have no information than unsourced information), I thought it important to indicate that this form of vladding goes back at least thirty-odd years. Cheers, Jhw57 12:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the well-meaning suggestion, I'm not about to travel thirty years back in time and start writing articles for college newspapers to satisfy the vagaries of someone's interpretation of WP:VERIFY. Further, I doubt that any college newspaper would publish an article about the origins of elevator surfing for fear of being seen as encouraging such activities. I will have to leave the detailed origins of elevator surfing in the dark. That being said, I am going to edit the unsourced clause about the sport having its origins in urban exploration. There is a reference to an individual's web page that provides some detail on elevator surfing, but it is merely partly entitled "Urban Exploring Techniques" with no further reference to urban exploration. The individual at least indicates that his interest arose from his undergraduate experiences. [User:Jhw57|Jhw57]] 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD for mini game lists[edit]

Another AfD for the MP minigame lists has started, we will appriciate your help as you proved decisive in the previous Afd. Follow Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames|this link and help the continued existence of these articles. Henchman 2000 09:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also one for the MP2 list. Bowsy (review me!) 09:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI... I adjusted this. The AfD was actually closed as No Consensus not a Keep. Yeah, the end result is the same, but it is an important distinction. Generally I refrain from editing other's comments, so I hope you don't mind too much.--Isotope23 15:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am confused! ? The Mario 3 closed because the nomination was withdrawn. Is that unusual? Lee Nysted 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the Mario 2 AFD? Does that one stay up? It would seem prudent for an Admin. to speedy keep it until further notice? Thanks for the info.Lee Nysted 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

I believe you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Someone moving lengthy comments from a vote-like page to its talk page is not out of the ordinary or a punishment. If you will look at, say, most current AFD discussions you will see that most comments are quite short. In the future if you want to make a comment of multiple paragraphs, you might consider writing a short version for the main page and linking to a longer essay in the talk page. Grouse 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There may not be any such policy. Not every action on Wikipedia is according to policy, and not everything an admin does is as part of their administrative role. It is custom, not policy. Grouse 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User Boxes[edit]

I really need help with making one of my own and i tried the wikipedia:user boxes or whatever thing but it confused me :( so can you help me make one please. Robert Coombs 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Coombs

Alright thank-you for your help.


Mario Party 8[edit]

I "ignored" the warning because it was no longer relevant. Nintendo officially issued a release date for the game. There is a big difference between citing an official release date and vandalizing the page with speculative dates. Zomic_13 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: My apologies for accidentally putting this on your user page instead of your talk page initially.Zomic_13 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Black hole electron[edit]

The equations below are easily verified to be approximately correct. If the last equation is numerically correct, then all are numerically correct.

2Gm/c squared = 2/3(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

Gm/c squared = 1/3(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

m = (c squared/3G)(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

G = (c squared/3m)(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

The (L3) value is (2pi)squared times one light second while (Le) is the electron Compton wavelength. Do you see any way to add some of this information to the "B h electron" article without being too speculative ? DonJStevens 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The electron is a balanced configuration with additional properties that match the Le/2L3 ratio. Other length dimensions have the same ratio as shown.

Le/2L3 = L2/L3 = L1/L2 = L4/L1

L1 = 2pi(3/2)exp 1/2, times (Planck length)

L4 = 2pi(3Gm/c squared)

Compliance with these ratios restricts the electron mass to one specific value. Gravitational potential determines the blue shift ratio L1/L2.DonJStevens 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiger (disambiguation)[edit]

Thanks for noting WP:MOSDP in your edit summary. That helped me figure out where I went wrong so I could go back and clean up a batch of dab page changes I just made. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiLoco help[edit]

{{helpme}}

We've got a vandal. User:WikiLoco. He really isn't contributing well to the pages he edits. Sure, some of his edits are fine, but many of his edits have been deemed as inappropriate. As per the comment at the top of WP:ANI I posted a notice to WP:AIV. The response I got there was that because it wasn't "obvious" cases of vandalism, that it should go on WP:ANI. So, I made a post to ANI to which no one responded. This is very frustrating, because it's taken a lot of effort to do the right things, but I feel like not only am I getting nowhere, I'm not even getting constructive criticism. McKay 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's adminstrators are all volunteers, so sometimes nobody picks up on something. ANI was the right place, but unfortunately something else major came up around then, and so nobody noticed. If the behaviour continues, I suggest posting again to ANI; there probably isn't much else that can be done, and I hope you have better luck next time (if you point out that your previous comments were ignored, hopefully you'll at least get a reply...) --ais523 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I was checking up on this, and it seems that the administrators mostly ignored the issue again, unfortunately. (There's nothing much that can be done about that, unfortunately; I've had similar frustrations before.) The user in question has now received a final warning, though, so if they vandalise again soon (within approximately the next 24 hours), WP:AIV is more likely to work, and if they vandalise again later you can give them a final warning yourself ({{subst:uw-vandalism4}} or {{subst:test4}}, depending on your preference). I'm not an admin myself, so there's nothing else I can really fo about this. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems you are doing well, but I'm too new to see if this has not been looked at by some admins. Actually, I found you through his page (he added a release date for a Dragon Quest game that has not been announced, no problems yet, but I'll tell you if it develops into something ugly). BTW, it'd be nice if you could help in Dragon Quest, that is, if you have sources; most DQ articles lack sources, but that's because they are hard to come by and/ or translate... Gracias. Nos seguimos viendo. Icecypher 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

It survived one: the other was withdrawn due to it being too soon. No consensus certainly isn't a decisive keep in any way. It's been about a month: and no major changes have been made to the articles to make them seem not like a game guide/how to play guide. 8 is the only exception, since the game isn't out yet. But when the game comes out: I can bet it will turn into a game guide as well. Keeping that article (over the others, if they happen to get deleted in a new AFD..), wouldn't make much sense, as it's the same type of list: a mini-game fancruft guide. RobJ1981 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Afd for List of Mario Party minigames[edit]

There is an AfD for the above article here, if you would like to participate. Henchman 2000 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any good reason for this: [5]. Stating your point one time is just fine, but flooding the AFD with responses that are the same to many people is very disruptive. RobJ1981 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

More unnecesary Afds[edit]

In case you haven't already noticed, there is an unnecessary AfD for the List of Mario Party Advance minigames, here. Henchman 2000 09:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Beast Disambiguation[edit]

Hey, you reverted a change I made on the contemporary usage of the word beast. It's very general information and wikipedia shares many things with wiktionary. Just because it technically belongs in wikitionary, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in wikipedia as well. The contemporary usage of the word beast does belong in the disambiguation page. Bubbleboys 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It wouldn't belong in any "beast" article. The only place it belongs is the disambiguation page. It's also too short to justify an article. Not to mention, just look at other disambiguation pages. They're dotted with information similar to the contemporary usage I'm trying to put in. Bubbleboys 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

There is an AfD for every LMPmgs that still exists going on at the moment. Henchman 2000 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing in the AFD, however, I am going to do a WP:DRV as there was no *consensus* to delete, and the AfD hadn't ran for its full time. Henchman 2000 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That comment really wasn't necessary. RobJ1981 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It violates WP:CIVIL. People don't have to participate in any any part of Wikipedia if they don't want to. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive[edit]

Considering I didn't realize at first what you were apologizing for and had to go look for it, it's not a big deal. Thanks, and happy editing. >Radiant< 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Turns out you reverted yourself while I was asleep, so I found only the new version in the morning :) >Radiant< 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James Earl Salisbury[edit]

I've nominated James Earl Salisbury, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that James Earl Salisbury satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Earl Salisbury and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>TeckWizBot 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of James Earl Salisbury during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Arkyan(talk) 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Backup your articles[edit]

Don't forget you can also add your articles to http://genealogy.wikia.com and findagrave.com. You can also add your dad to your own user space. If you need help contact me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

James Earl Salisbury[edit]

Just so you know, digging through some back and forth commentary on multiple talk pages between a few people about the MP deletions, I stumbled onto this article you had written. I'm actually taking your side pretty vigourusly on this one, its well referenced and notable. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that it was me being absolutly fascinated by something I saw, not any malicious wikistalking, and that its nice to be on the same side on something finally :) -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page, I believe you did interpret my opinion corerctly. I have to agree with you in saying that it is disappointing when you see people making straight up or down votes, "Keep per so-and-so" or "Delete per nom". I do believe a valuable part of the AfD proces is helping to determine a consensus on what does or does not qualify as notable and so-on, and constructive debate on the process helps. Although we do have processes and policies and guidelines to help us, things like notability remain subjective and require some consensus to decide what the prevailing opinion is. For what it is worth I appreciate your work in improving the article rather than just claiming it is notable without any effort to show it, or waiting for someone else to fix it for you. This one really is a borderline case, and I'll go by whatever the consensus is on the matter, so don't worry about me reappearing in a few months to renominate the article if I don't like the outcome. Cheers, Arkyan(talk) 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review[edit]

There is a proper outlet for the concerns you are raising and it's deletion review. Rather than your user page and the closing admin's talk page, that's where it should be presented. By the way, my suggestion was to merge it, as I felt was appropriate -- and you did that. I don't think my concern was unsubstantiated. Leebo T/C 21:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bringing it up on his talk page is not a bad thing, I was really talking more about your user page. It's just effort better directed toward deletion review. Leebo T/C 21:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Database normalization[edit]

Hi, I notice you removed the third bullet point in this section (1NF):

  • A table must be guaranteed not to have any duplicate records; therefore it must have at least one candidate key.
  • There must be no repeating groups, i.e. no attributes which occur a different number of times on different records. For example, suppose that an employee can have multiple skills: a possible representation of employees' skills is {Employee ID, Skill1, Skill2, Skill3 ...}, where {Employee ID} is the unique identifier for a record. This representation would not be in 1NF.
  • Note that all relations are in 1NF. The question of whether a given representation is in 1NF is equivalent to the question of whether it is a relation.

Your comment indicates that you think the third bullet point is incorrect and, more specifically, that it contradicts the second. Could you clarify? Chris Date has written (in "Database In Depth", page 16) that "relations are always normalized (equivalently, they're in first normal form, 1NF)". See http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/searchOracle/downloads/Database_in_Depth_Chapter_1.pdf. A relation by definition cannot contain duplicates, and a relation by definition has fixed headings.

Also see Bill Kent: "First normal form excludes variable repeating fields and groups. This is not so much a design guideline as a matter of definition. Relational database theory doesn't deal with records having a variable number of fields." http://www.bkent.net/Doc/simple5.htm ... this is what my second bullet point is getting at.

Would you agree therefore that the material about all relations being in 1NF can be reinstated? --Nabav 16:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I reckon I didn't express myself well enough in the second bullet point. What I meant to convey by the ellipsis (...) was that this representation of employees' skills allowed different numbers of fields on different records. So one could have:


                       Another       Another      Another      Etc.
                       Skill         Skill        Skill        (no limit to
EmpID    Skill         (if applic.)  (if applic.) (if applic.)  num. of skills)
-----    ------        ------------  ------------ ------------ ----------------
1        Whittling
2        Sophistry     Whittling     Cleaning
3        Fishing       Hunting
4        Whittling     Sophistry     Hunting      Fishing

I.e. the record layout changes from record to record depending on how many skills it needs to accommodate. There is not a single fixed set of headings to which all records conform. This way of representing things is both a) not in 1NF, and b) not relational. (Whatever other controversies there may be around 1NF, this, I hope, is uncontroversial.) I will attempt to revise the second bullet point to bring across more clearly what I had in mind.

Slightly more controversial is your Relation A. On the one hand, this has a fixed and finite number of headings. On the other hand, I accept that headings such as "nameofpet1, nameofpet2, nameofpet3" should always arouse suspicion. Does this representation violate 1NF? I don't know. Consider a relation which includes headings "PhoneNum1, PhoneNum2". Is that a violation of 1NF? Again, I don't know. Maybe PhoneNum1 means the person's land line, and PhoneNum2 means the person's mobile; in which case one could argue that the two headings represent sufficiently "different" things that they do not constitute a repeating group. Similarly, in your Relation A, suppose the semantics are as follows: nameofpet1 is the name of the youngest pet (if any), nameofpet2 is the second-youngest pet (if any), and nameofpet3 is the third-youngest pet (if any). All three attributes can then be said to be functionally dependent on the "id" attribute. Someone could then argue that everything is fine and this is not a violation of 1NF: the three attributes represent three different things. Equally, someone could counter-argue that the three attributes represent essentially the same kind of thing (a pet name), thus this is a repeating group and 1NF has been breached. (Certainly it would not be easy to make the case that this is a good design.) Where, I wonder, does one draw the line? How does one rigorously define a repeating group?

In your definition of Relation A, you designate "id" as the key, but in fact the "id" attribute will be a candidate key only if some such constraint as the one I mentioned applies: nameofpet1 is the name of the youngest pet (if any), nameofpet2 is the second-youngest pet (if any), and nameofpet3 is the third-youngest pet (if any). If no such constraint applies, then "id" is not a candidate key. The reason it is not a candidate key is that one can perfectly well have two tuples with the same id value:

{123, Gary, Fifi, Spot, Sheba}

{123, Gary, Sheba, Fifi, Spot}

So I'm still after a good explanation of what it means for a relation to feature a repeating group! If you can come up with a good explanation, we can put it in the article.

Next problem: atomicity. What does it mean for something to be atomic? Is it not the case that atomicity is in the eye of the beholder? A "Full Name" column (data type = String) can be said to hold values that are not atomic, because a Full Name combines a first name and a surname. On the other hand, if I am never going to need to expose the first name or the surname to the RDBMS, then Full Name is atomic enough for me. If we're sticklers for atomicity, we can say that no column of data type String is atomic, because a string consists of multiple characters. But in practice no one says this, because usually no one is interested in exposing the individual characters to the RDBMS. Further: as far as I'm concerned, my UK mobile phone number is atomic. But to someone who knows how mobile phone numbers are allocated, the first five digits of my mobile phone number are probably a meaningful chunk of information in their own right. Further: an audio stream seems to me to be in principle no more or less atomic than anything else. I despair of arriving at a meaningful definition of atomicity. But again, perhaps you have some ideas, in which case the 1NF section can be revised accordingly. --Nabav 11:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

I agree with you that the information is historically accurate that Young was part of the First Presidency. The problem with the link is that the page linked describes the First Presidency from an LDS POV that is not concurrent with the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ. Linking information from our page to a page that does not support our belief system is not something we want to do. We want the page to reflect our beliefs in the most neutral way, however with the different beliefs and distinctions of the different restoration factions we must always present in a way that accurately portrays what we believe. I hope this clairifies why I unlinked the phrase. It was not an attack on the historical accuracy but a clarification and distinction of belief. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.149.72.72 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry I forgot to sign my talk JRN 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It is correct that it does cover the 12 apostles at the time of Brigham Young, but there needs to be a distinction of that for the link. To link to a page with a majority of information that is irrelevent and contradictory to the beliefs of the other page to clarify a minor point doesn't seem correct. Linking to the LDS page with pictures of the LDS apostles makes it seem like we are in some way connected to the LDS and that is incorrect. Is there possibly another neutral page that just explains that first presidency at the time of the split? JRN 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
While not wanting to argue opinion on whether or not we are affiliated with the LDS church, I thank you for your comments and suggestions about what to do. Being new to Wiki I am not as versed in what to do but as an ordained minister in The Church of Jesus Christ I just want to make sure that The Church is represented in the most correct light. Again thanks for you help and suggestions JRN 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand the need to follow wikipedia policy and I do not fault you for trying to do so.
  1. As quoted from the official site for The Church of Jesus Christ (www.thechurchofjesuschrist.com), "As a note of clarification, despite being similar in name, we are not affiliated with the Church of Christ nor with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – also known as the Mormon Church."
  2. I do like to discuss differences between denominations and factions that arose from the split. I am very interested in why and how the different organizations came about and that beliefs they substantiated their claims on, and I would be willing to discuss and answers any questions that you would have about our faith and doctrine.
  3. I am not willing to argue points of doctrine. It is belief and people are free to believe what they want. JRN 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Request[edit]

I am requesting that you please stop editing the page for The Church of Jesus Christ until you become more familiar with the distinct history of our organization in relation to other restoration era churches. I don't think it is proper or ethical to edit pages that you clearly have little knowledge of. If you would like to learn more about the organization and our beliefs and differences I can recommend historical and doctrinal books to read or feel free to ask me any questions. I hope this does not seem like an attack. Thank you very much JRN 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

I am requesting the you discontinue your vandalism of The Church of Jesus Christ page. Your changes are not cited and are POV. You cannot change a church stand because you do not agree with it. Stop immediately. JRN 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

James Earl Salisbury[edit]

Great, I restored the page and left a comment on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

I will work on it, feel free to tell me how it looks once it starts to be changed hopefully in a few days...

Anyway that picture could be changed to something non-controvershal in the Latter Day Saint movement box?Jcg5029 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Something I'm sure you will like to work on[edit]

I have recently managed to get the LMPmgs userfyed. Horaay! Feel free to participate so that we may manage to make them acceptable again. Henchman 2000 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

HELP!![edit]

I was adjusting, changing the F&D to a much more appealing and clear way, but look at it...

nothing below scripture shows up even though it is there in the editing section.

really weird

Jcg5029 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Name[edit]

I made a suggestion under the topic name that I feel is a reasonable alternative that best represents Wiki standards. I understand it will take some work, but I really wanted to hear your thoughts on it...Jcg5029 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just did some research and found out some very interesting information. The Church of Jesus Christ (whimp) does not actually have whimp in its official name at all. In fact, the official incorporated name is The Church of Jesus Christ. I thought it was different simply due to false information on this page. I found out this information by calling one of the General Trustees of The Church of Jesus Christ. His name is Joe Ross. Since we already concluded the official name was acceptable clearly The Church of Jesus Christ should be the page name to this site. I am fixing the errors on the site now and am waiting for discussion to draw the obvious conclusion that the name should be The Church of Jesus Christ.Jcg5029 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, I am not suggesting that the disambig page be taken away. I want all sites to be represented. Legally TCOJC must have its official name as the name of the site. I do not know how to make both happen, but they should both happen. Either way the Church's official name must happen. Period. There is no compromising this legal issue.Jcg5029 16:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, I would like to request that you cease to use the term "Bickertonite", "Bickerton Church" or other such nick name when referring to The Church of Jesus Christ. This is offensive to all members of the that organization. This is being done under the Wikipedia:Civility policy. Thank you. CSG 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, The Church of Jesus Christ is the official name of the organization. There is a disambig page to solve the problem of multiple names. If you use the phrase "Bickertonite" or "Bickerton Church" in any way shape or form again, you will be reported to the administration for continual usage of religious slurs (see Wikipedia:Civil). CSG 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, I apologize if I was not completely clear with what my request was. I will spell it out to you in completness so you can finally understand it in its fullness.

1. Use of Bickerton Church or Bickertonite is offensive.
2. (WHIMP) does not correctly describe this organization according to the United States Government as we have constantly referenced. People associated with this organization have requested that this term not be used.
3. The official name of the organization is The Church of Jesus Christ.
If you insist on using any terms other than the offical name of the organization in question, you will be reported to administration for continual usage of religious slurs (see Wikipedia:Civil) It is very difficult to assume good faith when you seem to show none. I dont wish to offend you on any terms. I would hope the same from you. If you must shorten the name of this organization - DONT! Please refer to it by its proper name. Thank you. If you have any other questions or if I have not been clear enough, let me know. CSG 18:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

My problem is one of offense. I appreciate your willingness to comply with my request. I also appreciate everything that you have done for the improvement of the site in question. I would hope that we can all move on to completing the task of making this the best site we can make it. Thank you. CSG 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats great to hear that you have found another way to solve this problem. As long as it does not cause more problems, I appreciate your willingness to compromise. Thank you very much. CSG 18:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your request, but I am unable to follow it. While I understand that you don't think any other churches are called "The Church of Jesus Christ" you must see that I believe that there are other churches called "The Church of Jesus Christ". Under some circumstances usage of the term "The Church of Jesus Christ" is completely clear. At other times, I personally feel that there must be some sort of disambiguation. What can I do to specify which church it is when the usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ" is unclear. I think that there shouldn't be any problem by specifying the headquarters of said church, which is why I use the designation "with headquarters in monogahela pennsylvania" shortened to "whimp". If you cannot provide something to designate it, I will use that one, it is not offensive. Otherwise, I will continue to use that designation. Feel free to report me to the administration if you feel that that's what's right. I feel like I'm bending over backwards to meet your silly little whims. I'm sick and tired of your continual threats to report me to the administration. These threats are counterproductive. Either do it, or be quiet about the issue. I'm not going to change my actions unless you can provide a different option. There needs to be a way for me on the talk pages, to disambiguate your church from other churches which I believe share the name of your church. McKay 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly little whims are actually serious legal issues. You may designate this organization as The Church of Jesus Christ. It is simple and sounds nice. If you want to refer to other organizations use their proper name as well. It is a simple solution to your problem. I think those organizations would prefer it as well. If you need clarification on what those are, I suggest you look them up on the government registration list of corporations in the United States. I think that this is a good way for you to disambiguate between organizations. CSG 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was merely a suggestion to solve your problem, not a threat at all. CSG 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

I'm sorry if you took that as a WP:A, but I am honestly having a hard time with you right now. You have shown in the past that in terms of The Church of Jesus Christ you have a very strong disregard and have stated that you don't care about wiki policy "but without WP:Attributability, we don't care. Even With attributabiltiy, we probably don't care)". So when you go on to continue to refer to how much you are trying to "execute policy" after making a statement that you don't care about policy, I'm sorry but I find it very hard to not see hypocrisy when you only seem to care about policy when you can use it to your advantage. This is not a personal attack. I have quoted statements made by you on the talk page for The Church of Jesus Christ. I don't believe I have taken anything out of context. Feel free to talk further on this matter as I wish to continue to be civil. I am sorry if I am becoming frustrated with this situation. Thank you JRN 02:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What?!? Where have I said that I don't care about wikipedia policy? McKay 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not I didn't take it out of context. JRN
"I said that in that case I don't care about attributability, and you're skewing it to mean that I don't care about the rules" WP:A is a guiding policy of wikipedia. You have now said twice that you don't care about attributability. I am not puting adding any words to what you said but are quoting you exactly. JRN 16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not twisted your words in any way. I have merely quoted what was said. Please stop throwing around accusations of WP:PA. I did not make any personal attacks against you. I would ask you to please discontinue your accusations. I merely stated how I felt and why I felt that way. I wish to discontinue talking to you on our talk pages and ask you to be civil. Thank you very much 205.149.72.72 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Beast[edit]

You mind explaining what was wrong with my edit? TheBlazikenMaster 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

T-carrier[edit]

I think your {{fact}} is clearly addressed in SONET. SONET's speeds go up to 159gbps (versus a DS3's 45mbps), and fiber sees fewer errors than copper. jhawkinson 00:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rigdonite Notability[edit]

I am curious as to exactly why you tagged the rigdonite article with a notability tag. I'd like to open a discussion on that page so that it can be resolved and as you applied the tag I'm coming to you first. JRN 03:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for WP:A or something else in particular. I feel that the article is notable, but defitenely needs cited sources and some clean up. I just want to make sure we are on the same page. JRN 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
How about proposing a merge with the Sidney Rigdon article. I think that would solve the notability problem. What do you think? JRN 19:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems strange to me, you feel the artcile is notable, but you placed a notability tag on it. Why not just do some research and cite yourself? I'm not sure what the process is for this -- I just don't want the page to go up for deletion or anything. I would be fine for a merge (I'd rather not). Had you begun to get some references I could help you with? Just trying to figure out the situation and help.Jcg5029 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand, I just thought if you cared enough about the article you would care enough to do research about the subject in question.Jcg5029 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Tag[edit]

The tag is for disputing the factual accuracy of a statement. It is not disputable that the church is called "The Church of Jesus Christ". It is not disputable that is the official name of the church. It is not disputable that it is the legal name of the church, since it is the publicly registered corporate name. Since it cannot be reasonably disputed that the church is called by that name, including officially and legally, the tag is inappropriate. Vassyana 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you misunderstood what a dispute tag was about. It is about the accuracy of the statement. The accuracy of the church's name is not under any dispute. If you leave this tag up you will be guilty of the same actions of vandalism you applied to me.Jcg5029 01:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, About Mario Party 8[edit]

Hello, I'm the guy who made the "un-sourced" stuff, like the Teams Names, and the candies. I do want to say that I bought the game last night, and was just being nice enough to share my knowledge with you guys. I'd like to see my topics back in. .GameboyMN 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Dan Baker[edit]

Hi, how is your progress regarding the interview? Cyborg 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke[edit]

You missed the external link to the article titled "Teen Tests Internet's Lewd Track Record", then? What about "Web woes for Stokke"? Did you click through to see what they say, and what images they contain? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On talk edits[edit]

Regarding [6] in general, users are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages. JoshuaZ 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke[edit]

Your comments and multiple !votes on the Alliston Stokke AfD are becoming disruptive. You have made your point, please now leave it. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Your disruption has gone too far. You have reinserted material, that has been regarded as BLP violating, despite repeated explanations on the talk page and elseehere. You are entitled to disagree, you are entitled to continue the discussion, you are not entitled to replace material disputed under BLP during that discussion. Come back in three hours and behave.--Docg 16:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mckaysalisbury (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I was blocked for this edit. I feel that it was unjustified. See Talk:Allison Stokke for more information.

Decline reason:

Clearly contentious area surrounding a BLP issue, which has been discussed widely. BLP issues are taken seriously and that you won't undertake to work with that means an unblock (even though there is only an hour to go) would be inappropriate --pgk 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.


I'll unblock you myself, if you indicate you will not reinsert material that you know is disputed under BLP. You can continue disputing it, but you must not re-add it under those circumstances. Now, will you give that undertaking?--Docg 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe you don't understand. I think that you're being totalitarian, and you're mis-enforcing a policy. I think it's imperative that that content get's added. I made it very clear in my "offending" edit that the information I added was in full compliance with BLP. I've asked for the past couple days for an explanation of why sourced information is in violation of BLP and you have failed to provide such information. I'm being penalized for being bold. This single blocking is an ugly scar on my e perfectly clean block list. I intend to make sure that justice is done. McKay 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll note that my block log is substantially cleaner than yours, and I'm upset. McKay 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have recieved your email regarding this block, and have decided to decline your request to have it overturned. Youtube is never an acceptable source with regards to a living persons biography. Had you followed the discussion regarding that particular article you would have seen that we specifically are avoiding the inclusion of the fact that people have been leering over her photos. Since you didnt bother to do any research before wading into the situation, I believe the block should stand.  ALKIVAR 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So, maybe I shouldn't have added the last sentence, but was that last sentence enough for a block? I wasn't using the content of the YouTube video as a source, but merely the hit count. The original discussion was primarily with the primary sources. Aside from the YouTube hit count, the other information was clearly secondary sources. McKay 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, you say that I didn't do my research, but I have been involved in this issue for a couple days. On the AfD and on the talk page. I feel like I had done my research. McKay 17:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the sources you were using were sufficiently reliable, although the Washington post or NPR or the Tribune links would have been good enough. I'm not going to touch the block because unlike Doc I'd prefer not to use the admin tools on topics that I'm involved in. JoshuaZ 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I totally understand your opinion. That's one thing I think Doc did very inappropriately, he blocked in an issue he's currently involved in without very clear consensus. Also, it might be worth noting that I did use the Washington Post reference, and another reference I found from google news. McKay 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this block. Mckaysalisbury made only one edit to the article, even if it happened during heated BLP/Stokke drama. And despite what Doc thinks, he is currently engaged in a content dispute regarding this article, along with an earlier conflict with this user specifically, so he should not be handing blocks to anyone in this matter. Prolog 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This block was compatible with the Biographies of living persons policy (BLP). It is the sense of that policy that being "involved" and other considerations are waived when enforcing it. It cannot hurt to add the policy as evidence in the current arbitration Doc brought against Badlydrawnjeff, if you think clarification on this point of policy would be useful. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think youtube can be used for a source to say what was in youtube, even in a BLP--it is simple observation. And also the Doc was totally wrong in blocking in a case he was involved in, and that he knew was controversial., and where no actual harm to anyone resulted. I have been asked to unblock, at the request of some unstated member of arbcom. I am not willing to do so, because I am previously involved in the discussion. In my recent RfA I said I would never take admin action in a matter I was discussing--that I would do either the one or the other. DocG should adopt the same standard. There would be reason to act in spite of that standard in an emergency where obvious harm would result, but not otherwise. If Tony adds it to the ongoing arb case I will dispute him about this.
I congratulate Mckaysalisbury in not making the promise that DocG was requested. DGG 18:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So you think he should take a principled stand against the idea that it is the responsibility of the editor seeking to include content, to justify it, he should resist at all costs the idea that consensus should be reached before including questionable content, and it is outrageuous to askhim to promise not to add questionably-sourced content to biographies of living individuals? You congratulate him on refusing to promise to follow policy even though it would get him unblocked? Now that is weird. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


The Biographies of living persons policy specifically permits an involved admin to block. I've added the principle to the arbitration in case the arbitrators might want to comment. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking[edit]

With something like 15 minutes of the block to go! :-) The issue is not nearly settled enough to block over, any assertion of consensus is highly debatable, the block reason was a single good faith, not vandalism, edit, and Doc Glasgow is quite involved in the edit war, all of that makes the original block rather questionable. But in any case, the page has been protected due to the edit war, and is highly unlikely to be unprotected durign these remaining 15 minutes, which makes maintaining the block punitive rather than preventative. Which we don't do, per WP:BLOCK. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just reiterating that the BLP explicitly permits this kind of block. Doc glasgow did absolutely nothing wrong. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Relevant sections from BLP: "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." (several sections later) "Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption." McKay 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If the issue were settled, and McKay were the only person warring over it, absolutely, Doc's being involved with the article wouldn't be a problem. But I see quite a few people arguing on the talk page that the information should be included, and it is quite disputable whether merely linking to a highly reputable source is inherently a violation of WP:BLP. I'll try to avoid arguing either side of that, as I can see both, but it's certainly not settled enough to block over. Let's hope the Badlydrawnjeff arbcom case clarifies that last bit. If the page weren't protected, or the block had a longer time to run I'd have talked more before unblocking. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many people are clamoring for the material to be added. As a result of this block and unblock, I've added a proposed principle and finding to the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

[7] I can't decide whether I'd block you for BLP violations, trolling or just general disruption. But I'll think of something. Please save me doing that by desisting.--Docg 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise-J[edit]

You have posted a comment on my talk page about saying that the Enterprise-J wasn't an NX class Starship, actually it is, if you look at it closely you will see that it is an NX class Starship, the Enterprise-J looks more like an NX class Starship than any other type of Starship, I know a lot more about Star Trek than you do without knowing you personally because my grandfather taught me everything about it, he knows because he has been around since Star Trek was first created, and I have seen mostly all of the Star Trek TV series and movies and read mostly all of the Star Trek books. So clean up your act NON TREKKIE.

Wiki Policies[edit]

I would like to pleasantly remind you Wiki policies state that in your complaint section about me one post is enough to avoid long discussion, clearly anything past my apology was againt Wiki policies on your part. I would like to Assume Good Faith in your posting but it simply wasn't needed according to Wiki policies. Maybe next time when you write something on a similar subject you will consult Wiki policies first - especially when you complain about other's understandings of wiki policies. I am not saying they are hypocritical, but I hope no other editor would interpret them that way. Just a friendly suggestion and I appreciate your comments. Thanks for all your help! Jcg5029 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

TerraDrive Universe[edit]

Heh, it happens. Too bad, too. It would have been better seeing something like that come from a fan than from me. However, it did lead to something good: I noticed you. Would you be interested in moderating the TerraDrive Universe? You seem to have a good understanding of fair play, and what makes a self-driven community run right. If you want the job, you can start filling out community rules and things of that nature. I'd like to eventually add a couple more moderators...people who understand WikiCulture. Archer904 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

McKay, would you like to be the Corpers color faction leader? I wanted to ask you back-channel, so I hope you don't mind me asking you here. Archer904 17:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically it means you'll keep doing what you're doing now, running your faction, except you'll also be coordinating the allied factions as tightly or loosely as you want. You can set it up however you want. An important aspect of the game will be gathering intelligence about where rival faction leaders are, who they are, what their level of protection is, when they are weakest, etc. Another important aspect will be protecting yourself and your faction leaders. You could attempt to do all this yourself, you could establish an intel department for some functions and an Executive Protection Group for some, or you may have your own ideas. Its all your call. Oh, and color faction leaders get a special bonus gift right before PAX. Archer904 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we've got leaders for 3 of the 4 color factions now. Aioua is heading the Radicals and Phaze (Jack Kieser) is heading CBX. We still need someone to run the Bleeding Hearts. Archer904 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Betacommandbot[edit]

{{helpme}}

I've tried talking with the bot's creator, but he insists nothing should be done, or that I change the way I contribute to the wiki. Why should I have to modify my ways rather than the bot? It looks a lot like a revert war. I'm explaining my reverts, he isn't. What should I do? I could shut down the bot manually myself, but that doesn't seem very nice. McKay 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving your help template up and watching your talk page because I'd love to see the response to this. I've seen that bot tag many images that had valid fair use rationales, in my opinion. Hoof Hearted 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of advocating pointless disruption, I recommend that you submit your image to WP:IFD. If it survives a deletion discussion with humans, you can ignore whatever the bot says. Shalom Hello 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether or not the image should stay, even BetaCommand thinks it should stay, but the bot doesn't recognize my FUR template, so it keeps tagging the image. McKay 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can't get a hold of Betacommand, try WP:ANI. -- John Reaves 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been able to get a hold of Betacommand, and he insists that there isn't a problem with the bot. I could take it to ANI, but I don't see what an administrator could do? I might have the power to manually shut down the bot myself, but I don't think that that's the best solution. It might be though. McKay 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
A resolution to your "revert war" at Image:Guldukat.jpg could be to subst your FUR template, as MisterHand did at Image:Mario Party 8. But you're right, the root cause of the problem is the bot owner's refusal to take action. Hoof Hearted 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, apparently, substing my template would solve the problem, but I shouldn't have to adjust my behaviors just because some bot likes it better that way. Keeping it as a transcluded template is much more convenient when someone (like betacommand has done several times) complains about various parts of the template. McKay 15:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon the talk page for Bot policy which states that it is the place to register complaints against a bot. Perhaps this would be place to start? Hoof Hearted 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That does sound like a good idea. I wasn't aware of such a page. But that doesn't directly resolve the issue? McKay 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with copy edit?[edit]

Hi. I sent in the article Dookie for FAC, and although I have three good supports, someone opposed, listing some problems. I fixed them all, except the copy edit part. I need help on that! So, I was wondering, will you help copy edit Dookie? If so, thank you!! Also, someone else might be copy editing, so be careful of a edit conflict. Thanks!!! Xihix 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PA[edit]

Yes, I understand this better now. I understand that some people have said that it's a good idea, but I don't see how it's better personally. Transcluded templates are used in many place. I don't see how this hurts a database dump. I was not trying to make a WP:POINT. I'm trying to keep images alive in what I think is the easiset way. Please stop the WP:PA. McKay 16:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It certainly isn't my intention to hurt anyone's morale. In what way was I attacking your person or character? Please do not accuse people of attacking each other lightly. I may have been incorrect in the statement that you knew why the bot was reverting you and you may have been legitimately confused when you reverted it 7 times, but I don't believe I in any way attacked you. Referring to other people is not inherently an attack. - cohesion 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Movies[edit]

Hi, Mckaysalisbury, I just clicked on your link to your webpage, and from there I clicked on "Free time," and from there I clicked on "Movies," and from there I saw a fascinating page about all the movies you've seen since the new millennium. However, I noticed that it hasn't been updated since July 2006. If the movies on this page really were all the movies you've watched this millennium, then you've missed quite a lot. I was wondering if you were thinking about updating it. Just curious, --QQQ (9-25-07) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd kinda like you to update it as soon as possible if you can. --QQQ (10-12-07) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get back in contact?[edit]

Hi McKay,

I'm trying to get back in contact with you. I'm not having much luck via email. I'd like to get some pics and the video of your hotel hit at PAX. Some of the guys at PA and a couple other places want to see it. Would that be possible? Archer904 19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's on my list. I'm kinda busy. I'm going to be doing a writeup soon hopefully. McKay 05:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(Bickertonite)?[edit]

Interested parties who voiced opinions on this in the past, read all about it - the raging debate on moving the article on the definitely-not-Bickertonite Church of Jesus Christ has flared up again, at Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ#Requested_move.2C_take_two. Come back for more fun and games if you care to - thanks for playing... - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 04:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

TCJOC (B)[edit]

In your last comment at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), maybe you should add "P.S.: Claiming that the term "Bickertonite" is offensive and therefore must be avoided doesn't count." Whenever opponents of the name change get stuck, that the old red herring that comes out, as you no doubt have realised from the previous work I have seen that you have done there. Snocrates 05:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Invite[edit]

Incidentally, if you're interested in other fun that is Bickertonite-related, feel free to go to Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) or Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) and comment on the merger proposal there put forward by some of your old friends. Snocrates 05:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: D (data language specification)[edit]

I originally wrote the following:

Hi Mckaysalisbury,

I understand you created the D (data language specification) page, and I'd like to point out what may be a minor inaccuracy. In the "Implementations" section, you wrote "All would be considered 'Industrial D's or 'Academic D's even though Rel calls their language 'Tutorial D'."

Rel's language is a faithful implementation (plus some extensions) of 'Tutorial D', the "Academic D" used to illustrate examples in CJ Date's "An Introduction to Database Systems" text, and fully specified in CJ Date & Hugh Darwen's "The Third Manifesto". So, while Rel's language is indeed an "Academic D", it is also accurate to describe it as an implementation of "Tutorial D". - DaveVoorhis

In response, on my user page you wrote:

"First, note the new change I made to the section, Rel, Opus, and Alphora all have Industrial Ds, they are not academic Ds. Maybe that clears up the confusion?"

"Maybe it could be said more clearly, but here's the facts:

  1. Academic Ds are Ds used for academia, not for real use.
  2. industrial Ds are used in the industry, i.e. in real DBMSs.
  3. Tutorial D is made for academia, not for the industry
  4. Tutorial D is an academic D (1,3)
  5. Rel's language is based on Tutorial D.
  6. Rel is used for a real DBMS in the industry
  7. Though Rel's language is based on Tutorial D, it is an Industrial D (2,6)

Does that make sense? Am I mistaken somewhere? McKay 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)"

I'm afraid the above may leave Rel in (at least, and at worst) a somewhat ambiguous category, and at best it is more an Academic D than an Industrial D:

  1. Academic Ds are Ds used for academia, not for real use. Rel is primarily, if not exclusively, used in academia as a lab tool for teaching relational database principles.
  2. industrial Ds are used in the industry, i.e. in real DBMSs. Rel may conceivably be used in industry, but to my knowledge it has not (yet) been used as (say) the back end of a database-driven Web site. There are no ODBC or JDBC drivers for Rel, so using it in a production fashion would (at least) require some significant custom development.
  3. Tutorial D is made for academia, not for the industry. Rel's language is an implementation of a significant subset of Tutorial D, plus some extensions.
  4. Tutorial D is an academic D (1,3) Agreed.
  5. Rel's language is based on Tutorial D. Agreed, but it is also an implementation of Tutorial D, i.e., Tutorial D examples from Date and Darwen's books can be typed into it and executed.
  6. Rel is used for a real DBMS in the industry. To my knowledge, as of this writing it has only been used in the teaching industry! :)
  7. Though Rel's language is based on Tutorial D, it is an Industrial D (2,6)

Therefore, unless the definition of Academic D requires that it not be executable and/or any executable D is inherently an Industrial D, I would argue, on the basis of the above, that Rel is an Academic D based on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6! Dave Voorhis


You wrote:

Hmm, I understand what you're saying, I guess I'll be more explicit. It's kinda a simplification to say academic vs non-academic. What I meant to say is that When D&D started talking about Tutorial D, they created a grammar, and talked about it from an academic perspective. Their Tutorial D is academic, and not industrial. They didn't create a compliler that could understand Tutorial D, it was purely a language discussion. So, I would say that beacuse Rel is intended to be used on databases, even if only for academic purposes. Does that make sense? Do you Agree? In their discussion of Tutorial D, they specifically state that it isn't industrial because in order for it to be useful (as a language) it would probably need some additional functionality added (like file I/O, sockets...). Adding such functionality would make it an Industrial D. Does Rel have any non-relational pieces (not to say it isn't truly relational, but that it has some capabilities outside of DBMS needs)? McKay 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So, in other words, you're taking an "Academic D" to mean one that is not implemented? Yes?

I've always taken an Academic D to be one intended for teaching purposes -- rather production DBMS purposes -- whether executable or not. Rel was conceptually intended to be an executable Academic D.

Rel does not implement file I/O, sockets, security, log-in mechanisms or any other typical DBMS facilities beyond those needed to support the use of Rel in teaching situations, such as mechanisms for backing up and restoring the database. It has a facility that allows native Java code to be executed within Rel -- which could presumably be used to add file I/O, sockets, etc. -- but this is designed mainly to support defining more built-in types (DATE, MONEY, etc.) and to facilitate adding useful operators like those for math and string manipulation. Again, at present this is primarily intended to support academic applications rather than practical, production-oriented ones.

I guess my real problem is with the sentence "All would be considered 'Industrial D's even though Rel calls their language 'Tutorial D'." First, Rel doesn't just "call their language 'Tutorial D'". The language is Tutorial D, though it is a subset thereof with certain extensions -- much as certain implementations of C++ that don't include templates but do include run-time type information are still called C++. Second, the tone of the sentence seems to imply that calling Rel's language 'Tutorial D' is somehow in error because it's an industrial D, and not an academic D. I think it would be more accurate to replace the sentence with something like, "All would be considered 'Industrial D's, though Rel may also be considered an 'Academic D', as its language is an implementation of an extended subset of 'Tutorial D'". Dave Voorhis


You wrote:

Okay, so I can't find the term "academic D" anywhere. We should remove it from wikipedia.

I agree. As I recall, the term has appeared on The Third Manifesto email mailing list, but the archives aren't directly linkable so it couldn't serve as a citation. Even "industrial D" is a term of fairly limited use, though it has been bounced about on the same mailing list, but it's not been formally or rigorously defined. Depending on context, it could mean any implementation of a D for any purpose, or it could mean only a D intended for production DBMS use. Similarly, "academic D" could mean an unimplemented D for illustration purposes, or an implemented D for educational purposes.

I don't know what to call the opposite of an Industrial D though. The only comparison in the literature is that "Tutorial D" is the opposite of an "Industrial D". So personally, I think implementing Tutorial D is silly, and confusing to the industry. Tutorial D was meant for showing the industry that SQL was bad, and that there are other better ways of doing it.

According to Date & Darwen, "The Third Manifesto" was primarily written to address what they believe to be ill-considered attempts to reconcile object oriented and relational technologies. Tutorial D then serves as an illustration of their abstract D language specification. In Date's "An Introduction to Database Systems", it was mainly intended as an unambiguous illustration of relational database concepts. While "The Third Manifesto" does explicitly mention the flaws of SQL (and provides numerous references to support their position), the purpose of "Tutorial D" is not to highlight the flaws of SQL, it is to illustrate the concepts of "The Third Manifesto." In fact, the beginning of Chapter 5 (where Tutorial D is introduced) in the first edition of "The Third Manifesto" states:

Tutorial D is a computationally complete programming language with fully integrated database functionality. It is deliberately not meant to be industrial strength; rather, it is a "toy" language, whose primary purpose is to serve as a teaching vehicle [emphasis mine] (in fact, of course, it is intended to serve as a basis for illustrating and explaining the ideas of The Third Manifesto [emphasis mine] specifically).

As such, I'm not sure I understand your objection to implementing it; nor, I suppose, would the universities that use it for teaching relational fundamentals, nor would Hugh Darwen, who advocates Rel in the 3rd edition of "The Third Manifesto". However, that's not the point here, as the goal is factual reportage for encyclopaedic purposes, rather than opinion, bias and/or editorial commentary.

...

All would be considered "Industrial D"s even though Rel has implemented Tutorial D. I think is wrong. Because:

  1. Tutorial D shouldn't be implemented (personal preference, this isn't a major point) As that is a personal preference, it is immaterial for encyclopaedic purposes.
  2. Your language isn't perfectly Tutorial D (though I admit I don't understand everything about what's going on. It doesn't need to be. No SQL DBMS vendor produces an implementation of a query language that adheres perfectly to any published SQL standard, but every SQL DBMS vendor would refer to their language as "SQL". Indeed, that is true of virtually every implemented programming language. Almost all have extensions and variations, but are still essentially recognisable as SQL, C++, C, etc. Arguably, Rel is closer to a "true" implementation of Tutorial D than some of the SQL implementations are to the SQL standard.

...

On the other hand, if you really dislike such a statement because you think that the current statement implies a POV, then that's fine, and I would propose the following change: All would be considered "Industrial D"s. Less information, but, no POV problems (as far as I'm aware). Does that put us on the same page at all?

I would consider that acceptable. However, the phrase "[Rel's] language is an implementation of an extended subset of 'Tutorial D'" would be accurate for encyclopaedic purposes, as the Rel home page describes both the extensions and restrictions of the implementation. Presumably that would serve as a reasonable citation, and therefore a basis for using the phrase. However, if you insist on leaving it as "All would be considered 'Industrial D's", then I have no problem with that. Dave Voorhis —Preceding comment was added at 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Overrated[edit]

Circle-style-warning.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Overrated, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overrated. Thank you. -- Atamasama 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Booster Juice[edit]

Hello Mckaysalisbury; thanks for your contributions in following up on non-notable articles, this is very important work and this area has a huge backlog. However, I wanted to clarify the policy a little based on your handling of Booster Juice. Apparently at some point in it's history it did not assert its notability, and was tagged for that. However, the version you prodded said that the company had over 120 locations in Canada, 10 in the US and several in the Middle East as well. That is a notable company by any standards. When someone removed the prod, which any editor can do for any reason, you reverted it because they did not list a reason, and then you changed the prod reason to the article only having one source. If you read the policy at WP:PROD an editor is not to required (though strongly encouraged) to supply a reason for removing a prod tag; the minute a prod is contested, you should either accept it or post it the article at AfD - you can't re-prod an article. Also, lack of references isn't a reason to delete an article anywhere. These were without a doubt honest mistakes, and I am sure you are a conscientious contributor, but in the future, try to keep a little closer to policy when nominating articles (or anything else) for deletion.--Esprit15d(۝۞) 13:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

from Adrian, newcomer[edit]

Hi,

this is Adrian, by chance do you know where i can get live instructions on wikipedia, technicalities especially? Do Utah wikipedians meet sometimes? Thank you. Adrian Comollo (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message. I am glad that you are willing to help me with technical advice. See you soon. Adrian Comollo 15:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Can someone translate ??[edit]

I need a little bit help with translation. Maybe someone can help me little bit, I think its Māori language but Im not sure. Or maybe you can advise me some translation page. English would be nice. Text: `` Cioiov ocoiiof vcoc? Oovco vcrvvrv lv...`` Or live it here, I will check page again for a while ! Big thanks ! Polenaisteasi@hot.ee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.122.72 (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


BAMF[edit]

A dab should disambiguate things with the same title by providing links to those articles. BAMF contained two uses, neither of which was a link to anything. One was "Bad ass mother fucker" the other was "a brand of shampoo". Well, if someone were to write an article about "Bad ass mother fucker" and someone were to write one about that shampoo brand, then a dab would be appropriate. I won't say that either article could be written in a way that it would be kept, but they might. Until then, BAMF doesn't really need to exist - if you want it as a redirect to Bamf, you may create that yourself but that might just exacerbate the problem you describe. Let me know. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • If you want to create an article for BAMF and use it to contain nothing more than the quoted term above and a see also to Bamf, I guess that it'd do no harm - it's non-standard but I don't feel so strongly - I won't delete it again if you create it now that I know there is some value to having it. I came across it in RC & short page patrolling and normally you need to dab articles so I whacked it. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

from Adrian[edit]

Hi, thank you for your message. I have a question for you, is it acceptable to put links to good quality youtube videos, to provide additional info to an article? Thank you,Adrian Comollo 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A little advice, please[edit]

Hello McKay, i would like to know your opinion about a picture that a friend of mine took of himself, to place on his bio on wikipedia. He sent it to me on email. Can i say on Commons that it is my own work? Otherwise i do not see on Commons a place where i can explain this situation. Can you please tell me how to proceed? Thank you, Adrian Comollo (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

From Adrian[edit]

Hi, thank you for your advice. If i have well understood, my friend has to declare in an email to me that he have given me the permission to use his picture in public domain. This is not difficult. But, do i have to send his email to an administrator as a proof of evidence or i have to state somewhere that i have this email? Sorry, but i have still many things to learn about wiki rules. Adrian Comollo (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

An advice from you, please[edit]

Hi McKay; Thank you for your previous help. I am trying to get info from the village pump but no answers yet. I am wondering if you know something about procedures in case of cancellation. An article of a friend of mine in Italy has been proposed for cancellation (religious topic), and he was contacting people in his field to get their opinion and eventually their vote. He has been labeled with vandalism! Do you know if this is the case also here or it is a specific Italian situation? Thank you much for your help. Adrian Comollo (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Technomancer Press[edit]

The article has been restored at User:Mckaysalisbury/Technomancer Press for you to try to overcome the problems at AFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

From Adrian[edit]

Hi Mckay, thank you for your quicj reply. Actually, it occurred to me. They sent me a "yellow card" because i sent some messages to expert people while my article was under "votation' for cancellation in the Italian wikipedia. I was aking them their opinion. Now it is already cancelled. I could send it to you if you really want to check into it. It was a biography of a clergy person. It is not a big deal. What bothered me its was their unkind behaviour. I checked the rules you sent me, and actually they apply to that situation. So thank you. Adrian Comollo (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Black hole electron[edit]

Hi Mckay; The equations in the Black hole electron article would be much easier to read if they were properly typeset. My skill level in this area is not very good; otherwise, I would have fixed this earlier. Edit correction (just for the article, not for Talk) may not be a big task for one who has the right skill. Would you have any interest in doing this upgrade? DonJStevens (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:IAU planet debate[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:IAU planet debate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Utah Wikipedia Meetup[edit]

Interested in attending a Utah Wikipedia Meetup?

If you are interested in a Utah meetup, please visit Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Utah and voice your interest.
Not in the Utah area? Check out other meetups around the world!

--Admrb♉ltz (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC) via AWB

Mars Desert Research Station[edit]

Hello.

I'm wondering whether you have access to the H.T.Odum Greenhouse photos at http://desert.marssociety.org/fs02/1114/index.asp

It would be good to include these on Wikipedia for the Mars Desert Research Station and the H.T.Odum entry also.

I haven't been able to get anyone from the Research Station to undertake a public license declaration.

Kind Regards Sholto Maud (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


    • Cheers for your response. Pictures of the living machine would be cool! :) Sholto Maud (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of David Mann (painter)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated David Mann (painter), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mann (painter). 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.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination). --Gwern (contribs) 11:19 4 August 2010 (GMT) 11:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

The current you may not have heard of it, but some version of you has, given its !vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (3rd nomination). --Gwern (contribs) 16:05 4 August 2010 (GMT)

Nomination of The Joel Test for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Joel Test is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Joel Test until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —me_and 12:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Flying into Love‎[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Flying into Love‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Backbone.js, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flow and BitTorrent (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) 11:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted[edit]

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

National Mall[edit]

Regarding your comment in Talk:National Mall. Several earlier comments on that Talk page addressed similar issues. I therefore moved your comment to the first section on the page, which contained most of the earlier comments. I responded to your comment in that section. Corker1 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Dataphor for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dataphor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dataphor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of D4 (programming language) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article D4 (programming language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D4 (programming language) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Murder Bay[edit]

I hope you are creating a Murder Bay article for submission to the Halloween edition of "Did You Know". (There is also a discussion of Murder Bay in the articles Federal Triangle, Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site, Department of Labor Building, William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, and Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium.) - Tim1965 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Murder Bay[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Murder Bay at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Mall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Square (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) 11:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Microsoft Surface 2) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Microsoft Surface 2, Mckaysalisbury!

Wikipedia editor Codename Lisa just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Article was not notable enough. Merged into Microsoft Surface.

To reply, leave a comment on Codename Lisa's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mckaysalisbury. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
Message added 00:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dataphor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DDL, DML and DB2 (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) 11:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)