User talk:Mike Schwartz

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

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions to Rice University and other pages. When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page.


Happy editing, LUDRAMAN | T 17:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally saw [/read] this today. More later... if time permits. Mike Schwartz 18:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I decided to add a personal subpage sandbox page - at User talk:Mike Schwartz/subpage/sandbox ; (is this going to work?) Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

useful links[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Special_page "see also":

Guide to referencing[edit]

Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.

--Mike Schwartz (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

deleted old section [from 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)][edit]

[archived it first - "sorta"]

Haim Yosef Zadok[edit]

Hi. Thanks for spotting that syntax error. Also, if you see an obvious thing like that in the future, feel free to be bold and fix it yourself. Worse comes to worst, it can always be reverted per WP:BRD. Cheers. -- Nudve (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

umm, OK. I guess if I change "grant granting" to "begin granting", then someone can still tweak it (fix it) (repair it) later, "if" appropriate. ["such as", to change it to just "grant"] Thank you. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

thanks for pointing the error. i actually deleted that reference, and put in a new one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryhuman (talkcontribs) 21:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

re: oops[edit]

i imagine the change was made by 'veryhuman' b/c he has both the before and after part. No idea what went on there. At any rate, I put the citation back. Lihaas (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

idea for an edit, but first: any comments?[edit]

Note for someone (CALR?) (should it be copied / moved to the User talk page User_talk:CALR? -- or perhaps to the Talk:Mathematics "discussion" page?) (Actually, replying / answering here would seem OK to me...) This sentence:

Finally, information theory is concerned with the amount of data that can be 
stored on a given medium, and hence concepts such as compression and entropy.

appears to have been introduced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics&diff=65060026&oldid=65058680 My suggestion is: to change

and hence concepts such as

to [something like]

and hence deals with concepts such as 

Sorry if I have made a mistake here by failing to "Be Bold" and just go and do the edit first ("and ask questions later"). Today I was inclined to err on the side of being cautious (and also maybe apologetic - - "just in case"). Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[archive of] "road not taken" diatribe[edit]

I was going to put this on the Talk page for Wayne_Dolcefino, but it seemed so long, and the possible comments so unlikely to be surprising, that I just decided to "Be Bold" and make the edit. However, having put some time in to writing this, I didn't want to get rid of it completely. So, for your reading enjoyment, here it is:

ambiguity (also, missing period)[edit]

In the article, Wayne_Dolcefino, this sentence: "A $5.5 million verdict for libel (Sylvester Turner v. KTRK Television; 1996) was subsequently overturned by a court of appeals and upheld by the Texas Supreme Court" appears. For one thing, it has a missing period at the end; but while we are fixing that, I would also suggest that we resolve the ambiguity. What does

"[...] and upheld by the Texas Supreme Court" 

mean? By the default rules that are simply grammatical rules, the subject of the sentence ("$5.5 million verdict for libel") would also be the default, at least, for the antecedent of the ("implied") [zero-words-long] pronoun that is the suject for the verb "upheld" (as well as for the verb "was overturned", earlier, which is the main verb of that sentence). So (if you got through all that and are still awake here), that would imply that it means

"[...] and it [the $5.5 million verdict for libel] was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court." 

But I mean, come on, I don't think that is what was intended. I am not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem to fit in very well with the context (the paragraph it occurs in). It is preceded by a sentence saying "Dolcefino and his employer have been the target of various lawsuits.". That would normally require some word such as "however", if the writer were intentionally going on to discuss a case where "Dolcefino and his employer" had ended up [when all the smoke cleared] actually losing a given case.

So it is pretty likely that the intent of

"[...] and upheld by the Texas Supreme Court" 

was to tell us that the overturning -- that is, the action by the appeals court -- was later "upheld" by the Texas Supreme Court. But in that case, say that! Say what it "should" say. For example, say

"[...] whose decision was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court." 

Make it unambiguous -- even though the "context" analysis (see above) is already possible, and (with some logic) could serve to indicate to us what it [probably] "should" say. IMHO this is a good general principle of the careful use of language - write what you mean, clearly, so that no Wayne Dolcefino-style investigative sleuthing is needed to determine what was meant. Before I fix this, does anyone have any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandal[edit]

Resolved: (Hence, deleting "talkback")

Note: deleted {{talkback|Arakunem}}

OK - thank you. (do I reply here, or on your talk page?) I guess, the vandalism that I found, was "before" [the other vandalism that led to] the warning. (I didn't check the exact sequence...)
PS: While I was waiting for your reply, I found some other vandalism and reverted it; (there was a very easy one-click "un-do" link). HOWEVER, I did not know how to add a warning [yet another] (one of many!) to the talk page of the (IP address) user who had done some damage (see User_talk:63.194.36.11). Please feel free to do so, if/as appropriate.
Thanks, --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
> Thanks for the info. [...]
(reply dated "21:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)")
(time-reversal paradox, probably due to diff. time zones...)
OK, thank you.
I guess I should now delete that "{{talkback|Arakunem}}", above -- (right?)
(or will it "self destruct"?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Former Country[edit]

Hi Mike,

I left Wikipedia a few months ago and only saw your message after an email led me back to the site. So before I go again, some quick answers to your questions:

  • year_start / year_end - these variables must be separate from the date and must be entered without wikilinking. As it says in the instructions, these variables are responsible for the placement of the article into a range of categories (e.g. "1806 disestablishments"). Entering these years in any other way breaks the code.
  • viewing old versions of the template in action - when you view an old version of a page, it uses the current versions of any templates involved. To view the page with the older version of the template, you must save an earlier version of the template somewhere else and then modify the old version of the article so that it refers to the modified template. A messy job.

Good luck. 52 Pickup (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK!, thank you. very helpful information. nice of you to reply.
(and I was patient, so NO PROBLEM, about the delay).
PS: does << "I left Wikipedia a few months ago" >> mean that
you used to be some kind of official staffer at Wikipedia?
just wondering... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Practical Kabbalah[edit]

Hi, I only just found your discussion about this on Malcolm Schosa's talk page. I don't believe there's any need to pay special attention to the book, since it will be obvious to any reader that the article is not about a book. Hopefully the author of "Practical Kabbalah" has made it sufficiently clear that his book is not about magic, because he's using a phrase with a pre-established meaning as his book title, and if that's not the meaning he intends, he should really have done his homework a little better. But I don't believe it's a problem either way, since readers of either the article or the book will very quickly realise what the differences are. And when it comes down to it, we don't even know if the book is notable, so I don't think we need to make any reference to it at all.

And no, I don't think you're a spammer. Cheers! Fuzzypeg 04:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, well then what should I do now? Did you see the "added" section "User_talk:Malcolm_Schosha#Can_the_phrase_.22Practical_Kabbalah.22_actually_be_used_in_different_ways.3F"?
Update 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC): I think the above has been archived, and hence is now at User_talk:Malcolm_Schosha/Archive_2#Can_the_phrase_.22Practical_Kabbalah.22_actually_be_used_in_different_ways.3F thanks... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And if so, did you read the "Q and A" that it points to? ( it is under "Visitor Comments: 2" at the external web page http://www.kabbalaonline.org/Safedteachings/otherkab/Keys_to_True_Prophecy.asp ). Now I think that, regardless if that book may have limited notability, still that "Q and A" suggests that there is more than one way of using that phrase. I am not an expert on this subject matter -- nor on language. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
What you could consider doing, if it interests you, is to write an article about Rabbi Laibl Wolf. In that context all of his books could be mentioned and discussed. He seems to be quite notable, and I think that such an article would meet Wikipedia guidelines. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. What you added appeared to me as an attempt to promote a book.
If you write the article, try to build it as much as possible on secondary sources, i.e. published assessments written by others, and not on primary sources from Reb Wolf. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rice University[edit]

I just made some major changes to the Rice University article to remove extraneous fluff about traditions and add more important content about academics, research, and organization. Please check in and review it! Madcoverboy (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

handy links[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
((http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ExpandTemplates&input=%22%7B%7Btc%7D%7D%22))

Template:Infobox_Writer
Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page
Help:Edit_summary
Joe Buck's "2008" page
Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization

section updated: --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Austin Bay[edit]

Thanks. As I mention on the talk page updating the incoming links is a bit of an obsession. If you move a page then you should at least be willing to fix the thing as well. On a couple of occasions when someone has done a page move that left behind 20+ double redirects or links to a disambiguation I moved the page back and told them to clean it. Seems to annoy people when you tell them to clean things up. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

re: suggestion for tool enhancement[edit]

I noticed at http://pathos.ca/tools/etymologyreader/index.php?example=1 that it does not expand the character string "equiv." to "equivalent". Most readers probably do understand the meaning of both of those strings, so perhaps it would not be a "big" improvement. So I am just suggesting that you consider that feature -- and you decide whether to actually "add" that feature. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion; it should substitute it now. —Pathoschild 19:49:24, 01 February 2009 (UTC)
THANK YOU! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

re: [the AfD] Israel Sports Radio[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mike Schwartz. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that it has been archived, the "revised" link is (more like): Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_17#Israel_Sports_Radio
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Uziel[edit]

I did fine work 3 1/2 years ago, did I not? The guideline WP:DAB used to specifically exclude lists of surnames and given names. but now it has been somewhat simplified, and no longer spells out how to handle these. But I think the comment still holds true. I moved the entry for Uziel Gal to the "See also" section. I don't see any value in asking a question in comments on this kind of article page, and signing an edit to an article page is never done. If there were two or more notable people with that given name, you could create a page for "Uziel (given name)", but for now this has all the bases covered. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 23:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: living-or-DEAD-tude of link, may depend upon user privileges[edit]

Hey Mike, that message about permissions is a bit misleading: it has nothing to do with user privileges, at least not at Wikipedia. Rather, the Stanford Daily website has completely redesigned a few times since that link was added to the article, so the link broke and their website isn't very clear about what happened. I've updated the link – err, revived it. Thanks for your contribution to the article! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh OK, thanks! I figured that it was not anything to do with a given user's level of Wikipedia user privileges -- I just thought that maybe readers of the Stanford Daily might have some access that "non" subscribers (like me!) do not have. It sounds like it is more of a case of, that the new URL points to the same data that the old URL used to point to -- which is probably a well-known running joke in the world of dead links. Thanks for updating the URL in footnote number [1] (and removing the dead link tag). I guess that, "also" having footnote number [2] there, now, will not hurt. :-) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. The "future" part sounds likely: website redesigns seem like a yearly ritual at the Daily. :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool, WebCite sounds like a good idea. Wikipedia uses UTC time for most things, so the dates are correct. Actually, I don't think the accessdate and archivedate are a big deal in this case, because the text of the original article isn't likely to change (just the surroundings). Thanks for your diligence! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Case closed! ...for anyone who might be reading this without knowing the "history" of it, (and perhaps getting confused) (and perhaps wanting to understand more), ... it might help to click through to User talk:Mxn/2012#erstwhile dead link (revived once, by Mxn) now dead again -- (I think) -- and maybe "also", to some of the links "from" there, to yet other places. (If this is "TMI", then just say "no" to doing all that clicking!)
Resolved
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of revision control software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMS (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) 11:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Did you even read what I wrote? It was on a discussion page. I said (in part) that maybe that disambiguation page CMS ** should ** have an entry (!) for the DEC VAX/VMS product "CMS", which (apparently) now runs under "OpenVMS".
By the way, since the comment I am replying to, seems to be from a robot who has no e-mail address (does it even have a "Talk:" page?), I do not know where to send this reply! So I am just posting it on my OWN "Talk:" page, as an indented (using colons) "REPLY".
I am not expecting the robot to be made so smart that it could "read what I wrote" (see above) and realize that I *did* know that I was creating a link to a disambiguation page. I guess maybe I should post this (or a link to this) at the "Talk:" page, talk) (right?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your edit, article space is not the place for references to disambiguation pages or unsourced comments. I realize that you included a link, but your use of the word "apparently" ("now apparently OpenVMS instead") is inappropriate, since a statement about a change of name should cite a reliable source. It is policy to avoid embedded links, and also unless there is a Wikipedia article for DIGITAL Code Management System, it shouldn't be in the list. Take a look at the selection criteria for list articles as well as, especially, the comment in the wikicode of the article which explicitly states "PLEASE DO NOT ADD PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES TO THIS LIST". If the product is verifiably notable, feel free to create an article for it (with citations of course; even just a stub to get started) and link to that. Thanks. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
OK. My mistake. [1], I did not see that "comment in the wikicode of the article which explicitly states "PLEASE DO NOT ADD PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES TO THIS LIST". Also, [2] I am not sure whether DEC CMS is "notable" enough to have its own article -- (if it is, then it might be "primarily" an article of History more than of business or of computer science.) At this point I do not have time to start a new article (even a stub) -- especially when it might well be appropriate to become the topic of an AFD or even "speedy" deletion [episode]. So (bottom line) you (meaning, anyone) are welcome to "un-do" my edit, if appropriate. I am not sure I understand why a certain list "has" to be limited to only things which "WHICH [...] HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES"... but that conversation, or consensus building, or voting, or whatever, might have already happened, somehow, when I was not involved. Whatever... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries. I already undid your edit which is why I commented in the first place to explain. That hidden comment was at the top of the page and should have been more conspicuous, and probably should point editors to the talk page for clarification (like the hidden comments on FL Studio). Also to clarify, there is no reason that I know of why a list can't include items which are not notable enough for their own article, but my opinion is that this article is primarily for notable products. That certainly could change were an editor such as yourself willing to take the time to formulate other criteria for inclusion and find appropriate sources, however I'm not sure that would be entirely useful in this case. Anyway, just wanted to leave a friendly note here so it didn't seem like I was stepping on your toes in addition to the bot already annoying you. There is also the possibility of a list specifically of items not notable enough for their own entry (I have not seen one of these as far as I know, yet the policy I mentioned references this). This part is a good explanation:

Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

Happy editing! If I can be of any more help just let me know. —danhash (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I think keeping things cordial is a good idea (even when optional) (and even when unnecessary to reassure the "owner" of a given "Talk:" page that there is no intent to insult anyone; because, in principle, there could be other readers of that page, too -- besides the "owner" of the ["Talk:"] page); and even if some misunderstanding is unlikely, it is probably good to "leave a friendly note" [somewhere] just in case.
As far as visibility (during editing) of such [hidden] comments in the wikicode of an article, I have an idea. I do not know where to post it, but maybe you could forward it (or, forward a link to this "Talk:" page section) which will contains my idea, (see the sub-section below) and this "Talk:" page section already answers the question about why there might be a need for my idea.

"Idea" for a technical feature[edit]

First, some background: When I clicked on a link which you provided (above) that said: your edit it took me to the DIFF page for my edit. OK, I can see what the changes were. However, apparently this is a situation in which every editor who is making (or even considering making) a change to a certain article, should be made aware of a certain request, -- that request up at the top; the one that is contained in that "ALL CAPS" hidden comment. (("PLEASE DO NOT ADD PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES TO THIS LIST")). My idea is a suggestion for a technical feature, which might help to achieve that "goal" -- (that is, the "goal" of making every editor [...] aware of a certain request).
So, here is my idea. Maybe we could invent some kind of wiki mark-up code, that would be ignored by all readers -- (human and robot) -- except for the DIFF engine. Then this mark-up code (or special "comment", or whatever) could be added to, or applied to, stuff like that "ALL CAPS" request up at the top of the article List_of_revision_control_software, that says: "PLEASE DO NOT ADD PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES TO THIS LIST". Actually, the idea of using a comment in the wikicode, is already an example of putting in something that is to be read only by certain readers (human editors, in this case) and ignored by others (it gets ignored by [most] robots) (right?). So my suggestion is, some kind of comment -- (OR, maybe a "<tag>" or something) -- that would be ignored by ALL readers except for the DIFF engine. The intent would be, to display (show) the desired "request" text -- such as, "PLEASE DO NOT ADD [...] TO THIS LIST" as being present in both the OLD and NEW versions of the article being DIFF'ed. This would then (probably) alert many (or most) editors while they are doing their editing -- and before they decide whether to click "[Save page]" or "[Cancel]".
Now, of course, there is no guarantee that the editor will ever do a diff, either "during" editing (as I always do) -- (often, many times during ONE edit) -- or "after" editing (as I usually do) (typically once, after completing an edit). However, I think the chances are better that the request would be seen, if it were shown on the screen (as a section of wiki-text that was NOT changed) every time someone looked at a DIFF of a given page.
Now, what kind of "technical feature" would [implementing] this idea be? Would it be a code change to the MediaWiki software? I am not sure; but I am confident that, those in charge (such as, apparently, the person who wrote that "ALL CAPS" request up at the top of the wiki-text of an article) (and, of course, the people who keep the technical infrastructure working -- which "might" include some of the "robot author / maintainer / explainer / documentor" people!) (sound familiar? anyone?) can figure that out. I am confident that, if the idea is a good idea, (and the "tech" people might even have some ways to make it better), then the code to implement it, can be figured out somehow.
By the way (this little tweak is sorta [mostly] "non-technical":) in implementing this "idea", it might be appropriate to impose a 140-character limit, or something like that. We probably do not want someone doing a one-line edit to be shown a "tome" of reading material every time he/she looks at the DIFF. ("stuff that stayed the same" [during this edit] "reading material", that is.) But, 140 characters is enough space to easily mention a certain section on the "Talk:" page (in case the reader, of DIFFor, might not already know about that section on the "Talk:" page), or -- more likely -- to mention [the existence of] a certain "ALL CAPS" request up at the top of the wiki-text of the article. But usually, that (mentioning the existence of something) would not even be needed. It would be needed only when the relevant "ALL CAPS" request was more than 140 characters -- and my guess is, that most of the time, the "ALL CAPS" request would actually fit just fine within 140 characters.
Just a suggestion. Thanks for your patience (especially if you've read all the way down to this part!) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
What you're suggesting sounds very much like an edit notice. For an example, go to List of Puerto Ricans and click "edit". Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 02:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The page that I edited, (List of revision control software) has an "ALL CAPS" comment -- [that I failed to notice!] --that says (something like) <!-- PLEASE DO NOT ADD PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES TO THIS LIST --> ...and apparently the "intention" there, was something that could have been accomplished better by using an edit notice. By the way, your choice of an example (of an edit notice) was a good example.
It appears that, the editor who put in the "ALL CAPS" comment, failed to notice that an edit notice would have been a better way to alert editors like me, to the existence of a certain rule or custom that was supposed to be observed there.
Plenty of ignorance to go around. I was ignorant of the rule or custom that was supposed to be observed there, and the editor who put in the "ALL CAPS" comment, was ignorant of the existence of (such a thing as) an edit notice, -- or maybe ignorant of the fact that an edit notice would have worked better to do what was intended there.
Thanks for telling me about this.
By the way, is there any custom for what the limit is, on the number of colons? We are up to seven [colons]... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There is not custom for limits when indenting with colons, just add {{outdent}} or {{undent}} when you think it is getting hard to read or edit.
Sometimes you just have to make your edit notice a little more noticeable just for people who have difficulty seeing it. See List of food companies for a bolder example that, at last, appears to have made the inclusion criteria for that list very obvious to all editors. Astronaut (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
See WP:Indentation for a little more info on talk page indentation; however, as Astronaut said and as far as I know, there isn't a "rule" for the amount of indentation before using using {{outdent}}. It depends a lot on your screen resolution how a long talk page discussion shows up and how readable it is. As far as your idea for a comment to show up on every diff, along the same lines as your thinking you could simply add all caps comments in problem areas (i.e. areas which are commonly spammed/vandalized) so that any diff involving changes to those areas will show the hidden comment (since diffs show a certain amount of context before and after a changed area). Looking at the source for List of food companies is a good example, although even those multiple huge comments don't always show up (like in this diff). I think we should have a standard edit notice template, like the (admittedly unperfect) edit intros we have for biographies of living persons ({{BLP editintro}}). Click edit at the top of Adam Lazzara for an example. Unfortunately, well meaning editors such as you and I are unable to create edit notices for articles ourselves; only administrators and account creators have that technical ability. See my request at the Administrators' noticeboard for an example of a request for admin creation of an edit notice. If you'd like, you can create an edit notice for your own talk page by creating User talk:Mike Schwartz/Editnotice (feel free to look at my user talk editnotice for an example, or just click edit or "new section" on my talk page). Of note is the fact that edit intros, like what {{BLP editintro}} is used for, are not shown when editing a section, only when editing the whole page, whereas edit notices always show when editing a page (more info here). —danhash (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(undent) Mike, I think you're right that many contributors are ignorant about edit notices – though they've only been around since late 2008, and perhaps haven't fully permeated wiki-culture yet. They're very useful, as it's much better if we can make editors, especially new editors, aware of page-specific conventions before they make they edit, as getting reverted can be highly discouraging to new editors, and Wikipedia needs to do what it can to boost editor retention. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep! (also -- thanks (Adrian J. Hunter) for going back to the left margin.)
Also, thanks to Astronaut and danhash for your inputs, or feedback, or whatever it is called.
By the way, IMHO the topic of the DIGITAL Code Management System -- an old DEC (now part of HP) product called CMS might well be notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. I mean, even some "technology" oriented products (e.g. the Concorde) are still notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, even if/when they become part of the annals of history; so even if DEC CMS is history, it might well (still) be notable. <anecdote>(Even cross-word puzzles usually use the past tense, -- or something like that -- when giving a clue for a 3-letter word starting with "SS" and ending with "T".)</anecdote>
The old the DIGITAL Code Management System ran under the VAX/VMS OS; -- and it probably still does, if anyone is still using VAX/VMS rather than upgrading to its successor, which is called OpenVMS. (By the way: I think that was not exactly a "name change"; -- more like, OpenVMS "inherited" some, but not all, DNA from its "ancestor" VAX/VMS).
...in any event, even if DEC CMS is notable enough for its own article, I am not up to starting it now (even as a stub) (but if you want to, then by all means, [feel free to] "go for it" -- an external link is provided above). ...and since it has to have its own article, in order to be in that list (List of revision control software), I guess it is not eligible for that list, "at this time".
so, "case closed" as far as that list is concerned. ("at this time".) But there might well be oceans of room for improvement, in getting the use of edit notices to be better understood and (hence) more widespread, and in general making it more automatic, (and efficient, and with a minimum of "cognitive dissonance") that an editor will either
* already know, or
* will be "told" (notified) automatically,
when there is something that he/she needs to know. May it come to pass, speedily, in our day. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Peter Henrici (mathematician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lynn (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) 08:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply from Mike S.[edit]

See above. IMHO the person M. Stuart Lynn is notable enough (see the link that says he was the editor in chief of CACM back in the early 1970s) to have his own wikipedia article; but I am too lazy to start it, as a new article. I would be happy to contribute to it, once someone else starts it. I realize that this "REPLY" is in response to a bot-generated message, . . . but once I write this, it will be on a page that -- in principle -- "might" also be read by human persons, in the future. Howdy, all you earthlings! ("if any"!) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Judea Pearl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to ACM
Peter Henrici (mathematician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lynn
Resolved

--Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Nexus 7, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (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) 13:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved: ("case closed")
...Thanks for notifying me, about that! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

P vs NP[edit]

For the past decade, about once a month some obscure scientist from some obscure university has claimed to have settled P vs NP—none of them has managed to get their proofs published in an academic journal (see e.g., http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm or http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2009/01/so-you-think-you-settled-p-verus-np.html). Please do not include mentions of such claimed proofs to the article as it is neither interesting information nor encouraged per WP:FRINGE. —Ruud 23:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that information. I guess I thought that, since there was a post on the internet from Moshe Vardi which had a link to http://kafcsn.org.ua/lang/en-us/anatoly-d-plotnikov-professor-department-computer-systems-and-networks-east-ukrainian-national-university-solved-the-problem-p-vs-np.html , that everything was kosher (on the level) ("not BOGUS"). That "kafcsn.org.ua" web page does have a link to http://thescipub.com/abstract/10.3844/jcssp.2012.1036.1040 ... and I just accepted that this periodical ("Journal of Computer Science") (does it really exist?) was a valid academic journal. I just looked at http://thescipub.com/jcs.toc and, even there (not just on the "kafcsn.org.ua" web page), I did notice that the quality of the translation (to English from some other language) seemed to be inferior. Eventually I reminded myself that -- fairly recently! -- July 2012 -- Moshe Vardi wrote an "Editor's Letter" in Communications of the ACM, entitled "Predatory Scholarly Publishing". (see http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/7/151235-predatory-scholarly-publishing/ ). Actually, the fulltext or PDF versions of that might require an ACM account [password]; but all you need to know is that this "Editor's Letter" about "Predatory Scholarly Publishing", has a link to http://scholarlyoa.com/ -- and as far as I know, http://scholarlyoa.com/ does not require ANY account [password] -- and it is sufficient to give a hint as to what serious issues the "Editor's Letter" about "Predatory Scholarly Publishing" was addressing. (right?)
It was not until I read your entry here (the paragraph by Ruud at the top of this section, -- explaining what has been happening about once a month for the past decade), that it occurred to me that perhaps Moshe Vardi himself had posted the link for some kind of humorous reasons -- perhaps like an "April Fool's" joke. I had even commented on-line about the poor quality of the translations, and anyone can read [the original post, and] my comments, at https://www.facebook.com/moshe.vardi.1/posts/369945646419552 -- (although a facebook account [password] is probably required, for that.) It is also possible that the explanation is something else -- something I still have not thought of, yet. Thank you for your patience. Please humor me, if appropriate. I really thought that some real news had happened recently. Maybe not! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In the sandbox???[edit]

Why are you putting Simson Garfinkel's page in your sandbox? 69.143.180.9 (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the "simple" (short) answer to your question, is given very clearly by the "edit" comments here; but here (below) I will try to provide an explanation that indicates more clearly why I did what I did -- including why I failed to [know to] blank my sandbox page, after I had completed my little "experiment".
("1") I had edited Simson Garfinkel's page, -- that is, the article page Simson Garfinkel; and ("2") after that, I noticed that footnote number [6] was messed up in some way (in some way that I did not -- and still do not -- understand completely/well); and ("3") I sorta "suspected" that a double underscore ((in the "name" field of a "ref" tag -- probably the "ref" tag for that exact footnote -- footnote number [6])) -- which I had just added -- was causing the problem with footnote number [6], and [I "suspected"] that I could fix the problem by just changing that double underscore to a single underscore; and ("4") I thought it might require multiple (several) "experimental" edits in order to confirm or refute that suspicion, and that I might have to [break down and] modify or extend my "idea" to fix the problem; so ("5") rather than muddy the waters of the history of the actual "article space" page Simson Garfinkel, (by using it as a staging area for doing one or more "experimental" edits) I thought that it would be better to confirm (or at least "investigate") my tentative "theory" by doing all of the "experimental" edits -- (however many it might take) -- in a sandbox page, rather than in the actual "article space" page Simson Garfinkel. ("6") It then turned out that n=1 -- that is, it turned out that the number of "experimental" edits that had to be done, was only one; but I didn't know that until after the decision whether to use a sandbox page for the "experimental" edits, had already been made and acted upon. Also, ("7") It was not until now (while composing this answer to your question) that I "found out" (by looking at the history page, for my little sandbox page) that there were some rules that were getting violated (e.g. see WP:USERNOCAT) (aka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERNOCAT#Categorizing_user_pages ) by the fact that the big copy of the whole entire article -- (including a bunch of "categories", which I had not touched, and which I may not understand very well) -- was "remaining" in my sandbox page. Now, of course -- (had I known!) -- I could have easily avoided running afoul of those rules, by just doing (making sure to do) a "delete" afterwards -- that is, by just blanking my sandbox page, after I had completed my "experiment". ("8") I think I have now stopped violating those rules that I did not know about and that I did not understand very well (e.g. see WP:USERNOCAT). I did not completely blank my little sandbox page, ((ahem, there does seem to be some robot or other "editor" who gets upset when someone blanks that sandbox page) (maybe only when it is done by someone OTHER THAN the owner of that sandbox page?)) but I did get rid of just about everything, except an infobox -- (which "I hope" will be pretty harmless) -- and a short explanation, which refers any readers to THIS talk page, if they want "TMI" -- (if they want more details).
I hope this answers your question. The reason the above stuff starts out with "First of all", is that my original plan was going to be, to ALSO have a "Second of all", asking [something like], "Who cares what is on [in] MY sandbox page?" However, now [see item ("7") above], I know some stuff that I did not know before, which sorta answers that question. (So "Never Mind!" [that question]).  :-) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Your sandbox page now shows up when someone does a search for Simson Garfinkel. That's confusing to users (it was confusing to me). It would be best if you eliminate the content now that your experiment is over.69.143.180.9 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, now I think it has been remedied. Thank you for that suggestion re what "would be best". I had already erased all of the "category" stuff, -- which is what I thought was running afoul of some "RULES" that I was (previously) unfamiliar with. I had (unfortunately) left in the "infobox" -- but now I have gotten rid of that, too.
Now, all that is remaining in that "sandbox page" is a little explanation, saying [quote:]

This sandbox page was used for an experiment, that has now been concluded. For more details (e.g., of why, and why I did not blank the page [myself] sooner), see my talk page. Thank you! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

. I hope that will be harmless.
THANK YOU! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure whom (if anyone) to "notify" ... about a certain situation[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

(Is there someone who should be notified about this?) Please see : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica#1911encyclopedia.org_says_.22This_site_is_no_longer_available..22 Thanks! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You have already notified the relevant WikiProject. If you know of templates that link to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/, those should be fixed, so leaving a note on their talk pages would be nice. However, Template:Cite EB1911 links to another copy of the 1911 EB, so that doesn't seem to be much of an issue. Huon (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning -- (it's a new one -- at least, to me)[edit]

Recently I tried to save a certain edit (in article space), and I got a WARNING like the one shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Abusefilter-warning-archiveis#Edit_request_on_15_November_2013.E2.80.8E [1]

That was (iirc) the first time I had ever seen that warning. (I was trying to add "or http://archive.today/Y00Gd" to (the "see also" part of) the "Note" in footnote [3] of this version of the article about Hiloni).

I guess there is some more information available at a place [2] (an RFC?) that is pointed to by a link from inside the WARNING shown at [1]. That is, the place [2] is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.is_RFC .

Now, most of this stuff is NEW to me. I haven't read the RFC (yet), and I've only read part of the info at [1].

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trinoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CERT. 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) 08:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

THANKS for the heads up! I made two edits today ... one to fix this, but first, I made an edit to fix a red link that was caused by a [perhaps] well-intentioned, but misguided edit, done "as of 23:04, 22 January 2014". And (as mentioned in an edit comment), that misguided edit can be seen HERE. That fix was higher priority (and it was a tiny change -- only a SINGLE transposition of 2 letters), so I did it first.
There were also some other intervening edits, between my edit yesterday (which introduced a new footnote, which contained a hyperlink that failed to bypass a disambiguation page), and my last edit today (which fixed the new footnote, to now bypass the disambiguation page); however, all intervening edits -- in fact, ALL edits in the last year that were not not mine, were either edits by robots, or edits [mostly from IP addresses] that were inserting -- (or fixing!) -- vandalism or other "misguided" OOPS'es.
Resolved: "Case closed."
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Clint Bolick Typo[edit]

Hey Mike - thanks for the heads-up on this typo. I'm hoping to get some time to add some references to the Clint Bolick article, and to update the Institute for Justice page with recent developments there. Have a good one - James James Cage (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)