User talk:William Allen Simpson: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Abbreviation; Categories; Disambiguation; Geography; History; Mass edits; Other; Religion; Templates; User Tedernst; User Tobias Conradi; Years; ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:50, 8 July 2006

See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. Likewise, whenever I begin a message section on your Talk page, I will watch the page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity.

Deletion review of Infidel userbox

I've moved this debate on to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. David | Talk 14:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I forgot about the subpage.

--William Allen Simpson 14:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For cleaning up the Holding Cell. I hadcompeltely forgotten about it. Circeus 15:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)

Hi William, in this edit you said "the example is used consistently in several guidelines", I cannot find any other uses of this in other guidelines or, more importantly, any consensus that this is the prefered way to link to places. It is certainly contrary to how places are linked to in featured articles, and googling Wikipedia for "Rome, Italy" I could only find articles linked in the method before you changed the guideline.

In fact, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format it says to do the opposite to your change, and on the talk page I could not see any support for your changed style, other than references to it being in the MOS, but that was only because you added it as far as I can tell. Martin 17:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the middle of my day, shouldn't be looking in, but the short answer off the top of my head is you didn't look very hard or well. Try Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic.

For years, nearly all links in US and Canada used the full contextual link, instead of the annoying piped overlinking, until some folks using AWB started changing them en masse. Also, the ancient world articles still use contextual links. Fortunately, the AWB abusers don't (yet) seem to recognize them automatically.

Arguably, that project wouldn't even exist had not the original contextual links been used in the past. After my 2006-01-31 documentation of long existing consensus, that project was nearly entirely re-written by Quarl on 2006-02-07 (one week later).

That project has repeatedly been cited for being contrary to existing guidelines. More than half of its Talk archive is in opposition to the project. And you apparently ignored the very first section on its Talk this year just after the massive re-write, with comments copied from WP:AN/I by SPUI, Golbez, Howcheng, Kaldari, and I versus Quarl.

Finally, as I've mentioned in the past, AWB is responsible for quantitatively more damage than any single vandal. Please be rid of that annoying piped overlinking feature.

--William Allen Simpson 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB has got nothing to do with this, I am tired of your false claims, the only changes AWB makes to links are very simple things like [[Dog|dog]] to [[dog]], which as you can see reduces excess piping, any other changes must have made manually.

If you look harder you will see plenty of articles that use link like "Rome, Italy", as this has been the de facto standard, way before AWB was even created.

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic is about the specific case of disambiguation, whereas Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) says link to "Rome, Italy" rather than "[[Rome, Italy|Rome]], [[Italy]]" which is regardless of whether it is a disambiguation.

Again, I see no agreement anywhere with your changes, I still await links to the "several guidelines" that use the given example, I can also see common practice is not to do it the way your change supposes. Please answer these points specifically. Martin 21:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I didn't ignore the first section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Location Format, I read the whole thing, you have clearly ignored most of that page, as you will see there is obviously no consensus, in fact there is a fairly even split between opinions. Martin 11:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have now linked to agreement expressed by at least 8 editors, while adding you to Quarl and MrD9 makes 3, that you "see no agreement" is an odd form of blindness. The correct form is "[[Rome, Italy]]", regardless of whether it is a disambiguation.

Furthermore, many thousands of city and town pages by many hundreds of different editors use(d) the form (paging 500 changes at a time):

Plenty of evidence that your assertion is incorrect.

As to AWB, your constant refrain is that "any other changes must have made manually." [sic] You've written this regarding geographic links, and date links, and more topics than I can remember. All that the rest of us actually know is the edit summary says: "(... using AWB)". This was happening at the rate of 5 edits per ~~second~~ minute (at the contributions link just cited), covering over 400 hundred city and town pages (of the 500 links cited), and you can page through many hours and days, thousands at a time. That these are done manually is just hogwash!

There is so much evidence that AWB has been abused that in the real world it would be deemed an attractive nuisance.

--William Allen Simpson 12:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you totally misunderstand, AWB is semi-automatic, so these changes can be done manually at a fast rate, in fact I don't believe it would be possible to code something to do what you have asserted, as there are far too mant variations in the format and potential for false positives. The date de-linking was done using some kind of regular expression, so that was much faster still, but when it became clear that was controversial I stopped the users doing it from using the software.

Citing examples is ridiculous, I could also give thousands.

And also, how do you calculate 8 to 3?, fuddle, android79, quarl, kaldari, MrD9 and myself, verses SPUI, howcheng, yourself and DLJessup, that is clearly not 8 v 3, a few of the other comments are unclear. So if you look more closely it it obvious there is no consensus, plus most of those comments do not support in any way an addition to the style guidelines. I still await links to the "several guidelines" that use the given example. Martin 14:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Where did "5 edits a second" come from? That is totally impossible. Martin 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my error, the cite shows per minute. Corrected. Your other assertions are not supported by the evidence on the record.

--William Allen Simpson 22:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you have concluded from the discussion that there is a consensus for your addition to the MOS, it seems plainly obvious to me that this is grossly incorrect. I still await links to the "several guidelines" that use the given example, though I am starting to think that they don't exist. Martin 01:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the issue up at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Links_to_places, the responses agree that your change was wrong. Martin 01:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

AWB is not the "problem" and is not causing it. Editors use the AWB tool to help accomplish what they have already been doing in a more efficient manner. AWB does not cause or push editors into using a different style of editing than they were using previously.

AWB does not have a feature that creates the "annoying" piped links that you mention. In fact, it can help do the opposite.

AWB users are making quite a large number of contributions to Wikipedia as a whole and the style issue that concerns you is not an AWB one, it is an editor one. AWB is not the issue.

Also, I think that is it worth mentioning that the use of AWB in the comment line does not mean that the user is only using AWB. For example, I use AWB but also often use it in conjuntion with jEdit, GNU Aspell, and various macros to tie those software applications together.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-08 14:10

Polish voivodships

Your move of all of them to new names was a major one. I made a brief mention of it on Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board to see what others think about it. Feel free to comment. Balcer 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you have not provided any source information for this name change. I myself doubt any of these are "official titles in English" as the capitalization and word order are not standard English at all, and these terms have no precedent in prior use. Unless you can provide strong evidence of official insistence on these titles, they will be reverted. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you didn't bother to read the relevant information at:

--William Allen Simpson 01:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the two Polish government links support your strange non-English/non-Polish naming convention. Kusma (討論) 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Administrative Division of Poland 2006" very clearly has that pairing in that order (term adjective), with hundreds of examples, as previously described (over a period of weeks) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland.

The current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Term of ShortName states:

When the place has an official English form that includes a "Term of", or the native language usually has a prefix descriptor, then that form of the term should be used in articles.

Examples: District of Columbia, Province of Rome

A redirect page should be added to catch and repair references in suffix form.

Redirects are cheap.

Wikipedia:No original research is policy.

--William Allen Simpson 01:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see precisely zero versions of "Voivodship slaskie" or any similar English-Polish mixture. The names used are all "Wojewodztko slaskie" etc., Polish only. The link you cite "solves" the problem by not providing any English name for individual voivodships, and provides no support for your version of the names. Kusma (討論) 01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I see an introductory sentence, a lot of explanation, and an entire table: "Voivodship (Województwo)", "Counties (Powiat)", and "Communes (Gmina)". Perhaps you could explain how Łódź Voivodship (Polish noun, English Term, wrong capitalization), Śląsk Voivodship (Polish variant of Silesian language, English Term, wrong capitalization), or Świętokrzyskie Voivodship (Polish adjective, English Term, wrong capitalization) is supported by the guideline? Or the official Polish?

There is no "English name" for the voivodships, and some of the current made-up names are laughable. "We're Wikipedia, and we just make it up as we go along." Disgusting.

There exist some translations or equivalents in English for general regions that may not exactly match. I tried to fix that, too, in the separate template.

But at least I learned something from you, that there were Erdős categories, and added mine to my User page.

--William Allen Simpson 02:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of geographic names is not like mathematics. It will always be messy and somewhat arbitrary. I am sorry if that disgusts you. The fact remains that neither of the documents you cited contains the precise, exact formulation like "Voivodship slaskie" used in a valid sentence. Please present some examples of such usage in official documents, and then we can continue this discussion. Also, please remember that official government translators are also fallible human beings who often "make it up as they go along", and don't have the final word on the subject. If their translation is demonstrated as incompetent, we are not forced to use it. Balcer 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase doesn't appear in a sentence in that document, because the document is primarily tables. For a selection in several venues:

Anyway, I've spent some 20 years working in the international standards arena, and I'm familiar with incompetent translations. However, it's not up to Wikipedians to decide whether "official government translators ... don't have the final word on the subject." As I mentioned elsewhere,

Whether (or not) "voivodship" is "hybrid" or "ugly", should the official English name change to "mabifargtiddlywop" tomorrow, then en.wikipedia will move the articles to that page title, with redirects from the older name. Redirects are cheap. Wikipedia:No original research is policy.

--William Allen Simpson 04:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am somewhat puzzled, as links 1 and 3 don't use the form you are proposing at all, as far as I can see. Besides, none of these qualify as official Polish government websites, so the official use argument does not apply. Please be more careful when selecting references to back up your claims, otherwise I will have to conclude that you are not serious, at which point my only reasonable option will be to abandon this discussion.

2. I am sure you can find some "venues" where the expression is used, but so what?. Unfortunately, after leaving the Communist Bloc as recently as 1989 and having Russian as a mandatory second language in schools before that, the number of Poles speaking English at a high level is relatively low. This means that a Polish website using English language correctly is unfortunately still the exception rather than the rule.

3. As to your last point, you are simply wrong, which can be demonstrated quickly with a notable example. The Ukrainian government has decreeded that the official English name of Ukraine's capital is Kyiv, and yet the Wikipedia article is under Kiev. Please give Talk:Kiev a quick read. There are pages and pages of discussion about the issue in the talk page archives. Balcer 05:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. All three contain "the precise, exact formulation (as you specified), and all three use one or more other variants. That's why I chose them in particular, partly to demonstrate that Poland is quite right to try to standardize, even though it may take a long time for the rest of the world to catch up. Wikipedia should be at the forefront of such efforts, not lagging behind.

2. Other than "decreeded" and other small discrepancies, your English is quite good. I appreciate that you are taking the time to improve the articles here. I'm sure that we can also find many badly done pages by folks that are 'native' English speakers, but so what?

3. This is a place for recording the decisions of the world, not for making such decisions. If the official English name is Kyiv then that's what it is, and there really isn't anything to discuss.

A lot of pointless argument takes place around here, mostly by fairly ignorant yet opinionated teenagers. Hopefully, you're not one of them.

And with that, I've got to sleep, I have another long day tomorrow.

--William Allen Simpson 05:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category questions ...

I have a few of questions about categories and wasn't sure who I should ask.

Do you know how I can tell how long a category has been empty? I can tell from the history when it was blanked, but really that's not the same thing, since category membership is really a property of the individual articles, and not of the categories themselves. It becomes an issue because for speedy delete its supposed to be empty for four days, and I just find them on the uncategorized categories list and don't know for sure how long they have been empty.
On a related note, is there any way to tell what a category used to contain? I'd like to restore Category:Persian deities.
I'm somewhat concerned about Category: Filipino writers; it was emptied and orphaned before a cfm, and I don't think thats appropriate.
Do you know who I would ask about refreshing the uncategorized categories list? I think its mostly done and I'm beginning to lose track of which ones I've done already.
What would you think of splitting the current speedy rename list into two parts, one for rename, and one for delete?
I have to say I'm quite pleased with speedy delete ... I've had things vanish before I even get around to listing them!

Thanks in advance for your help -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, there's no history of the contents.
no, again.
I agree it wasn't appropriate, and there are several administrators that I'd toss off the *pedia for violating process, but the teen gangs around here routinely get away with it.

--William Allen Simpson 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes: A New Proposal

Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // ^The True _Sora 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Vote They are attempting to close the +cat AGAIN, please vote to KEEP. SirIsaacBrock 10:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you change, move or delete anything I post at the Vote I will report it as vandalism. SirIsaacBrock 16:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT subvert the discussion. --William Allen Simpson 16:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great

Why u are deleting the categories Category:Macedonian monarchs and Category:Greek Macedonians? --Hectorian 02:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't include super-categories (or sub-categories), see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories

--William Allen Simpson 03:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go on 'eliminating supra-categories', without responding to my comment on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 21...--Hectorian 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(clean up using AWB)

You just did this to a pile of pages on my watchlist, and for the life of me, I cannot see what you "fixed"!?!? For example:

Don't just move blank lines and spaces around. They don't make an actual change to the layout or display.

--William Allen Simpson 13:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. They don't make changes to layout when you view it, but when you edit it, it all looks nicer and tidier. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. For example, you removed blank lines after section headers (contrary to standard Mediawiki software practice), blanks at the end of lines (pointless), and capitalized the word "category" (useless).

Also, you are banging away at the server at 5-10 seconds per edit, a major no-no! Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use:

Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.
Avoid making extremely minor edits such as only adding or removing some white space or moving a stub tag. The Spaces section in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style Headings guideline contains details on different acceptable spacing options in and around section headings.

AWB is only for cleanup when you are doing some other substantive work on a page, not a "cleanup" tool.

--William Allen Simpson 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used as a cleanup tool. I will look in to what you suggested though, thanks. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, stop using it as a "cleanup" tool. And stop using it at a high rate of speed, especially during the busiest time of day.

--William Allen Simpson 14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop talking that, it is not WP:Civil. I have not used it for an hour or two now I believe. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insist on moving the discussion to my Talk, instead of following Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable, and my notice (at top), I'll just reply here.

I've asked that you be removed from AWB approval for failing to follow the rules.

--William Allen Simpson 14:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am dissapointed in your action. I hope you learn to communite better with Wikipedians in future. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No factions of belief

I'm a bit busy over the next couple of weeks, but if you feel this is a good idea, I encourage you to refactor this and make a fresh start under a title like Wikipedia:User groups. I think, based on the comments, it would work best as a guideline.--Eloquence * 08:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military people of France

Hello. Regarding your proposal on WP:CFDS: there is a debate currently going on in WP:MILHIST's Talk page regarding a proposed recategorization. It would be great if you could drop by the page and let us know what you think. Regards - Andrés C. 14:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Macedonians

Well, I've tried to straighten it out; let me know what you think. Septentrionalis 02:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natives of ...

Hi, In relation to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_23#Natives_to_People, I understand your concerns that some people abuse Wikipedia as forum to play out ethnic disputes. Just a quick question, though, which I've asked but you haven't answered: are you going to propose a similar name change for the categories included in the following: Category:Irish people by county, Category:English people by county, Category:French people by place, Category:German_people_by_state, Category:Swiss_people_by_canton, and Category:Italian people by region? They all of use the pattern Natives of .....--Damac 12:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic etc categories

I dp not intend to do anything wrong, so what is 'vote stacking'? This could be an unhealthy act or just name calling. I have no idea of the opinion of the editor to whom I noted? The editor might have agreed with me or not and I did not ask him to agree with me. Thanks Hmains 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I've been mostly swamped by life and work, so I couldn't (and still haven't been able to, really) close any cfd discussions. :/ Syrthiss 11:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"out of process AfD tag" on single letter double digit page

It was in fact not meant for the redirect page. I fail to see the need to have the page, and I'd like to know why you decided it was out of process when it is in fact my decision as a WP user to start an AfD. MSJapan 04:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then apparently you didn't read the actual Wikipedia:Deletion policy instructions for AfD, nor the speedy keep by administrator Kusma. (Coincidentally, we were both working on the problem from different sides.)

--William Allen Simpson 00:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of all single-letter-double-digit combinations

I have deleted this cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:List of all single-letter-double-digit combinations. I believe you had mistakenly created the list in the wrong namespace and then moved it. If my deletion was wrong and there is a good reason you believe the redirect should stay, drop me a line and I'll restore it. (Typically, such redirects do get deleted at WP:RFD though). Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 15:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore. All these tables were originally in main space, but after AfD&CfD discussion were moved en mass to Wikipedia space. The redirects were deliberately left because they are used in the List of reference tables, and in the several AfD, CfD, and TfD discussions. They probably should be {{R unprintworthy}}.

--William Allen Simpson 00:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the redirect. Kusma (討論) 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#List_of_all_single-letter-single-digit_combinations_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:List_of_all_single-letter-single-digit_combinations ... The reason why there is a significant problem right now is that some of the lists were moved into Wikipedia namespace and some where not (such as, in the latter group, List of all two-letter combinations). I would advocate, as my support for moving List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations into the Wikipedia namespace is consistent with, all the related lists where the meaning of the list is focused on description of a word/symbol artifact itself rather than having any relation to the meaning of the word/symbol artifact into the Wikipedia namespace. Another solution is one created for Wiktionary, the creation of an 'Appendix' class of pages in Wikipedia that is in the main article space but is clearly distinct from the main encyclopedia content, something like the role that the gazatteer and tables of weights and measures and unit conversions have in large format dictionaries. I don't recall if I'd mentioned the Wiktionary Appendices before ... see Wiktionary:Appendix:Contents. Has this matter of the lists of x-character words been discussed at the Village Pump before, do you recall? I have not frequented the Pump, but recent happenings and trends at WP:AN/I suggest I should perhaps change that habit. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Wikipedia Requested Move, List of all two-letter combinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was moved to Wikipedia:List of all two-letter combinations (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:List of all two-letter combinations|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and promptly moved back by Docu (talk · contribs). I'm sure he has his reasons.
I'm not familiar with the Wiktionary Appendices. There is no reason that cannot be done here as well. "Namespaces" are arbitrary, infinite, and easy to add (technically). The only ones reserved are (Main), Template, and Category. There's entirely too much emphasis on "namespace" integrity. It's all data. Bits are bits are bits. So, I'd support a new Appendix namespace.
I don't recall any recent Pump discussion, but almost all of them have been AfD once or twice each. So, there's plenty of discussion. (I only look at the Pump once a week or so, and usually only policy and technical.) I rarely watch AN/I. Is there something recent?

--William Allen Simpson 00:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Portal: space idea is novel to me, I'd never heard it mentioned before. Wouuld you find that acceptable?

The other possibility mentioned on my Talk was a proposed new Appendix: space, similar to that at Wiktionary. This is where Wiktionary moved their Appendix:List of two-letter combinations in December 2005.

I've asked for feedback from Docu (the creator) and Kusma, too.

--William Allen Simpson 11:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hiya, I was perusing some of the Province/Voivodship debates, and saw your name there. Then when I dug in deeper, I saw that you're in Michigan, and have an interest in U.S. politics. I was delighted to see this, as I'm actually working on an article which requires some research into Michigan political/newspaper archives, and I've been having some trouble with this as I'm in Missouri. Would you be able to offer assistance? I'll also see what I can do about getting more eyes into the Voivodship debates. --Elonka 19:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any Good Explaination?

Hi! Why do you think it proper to just toss someone's work away? Have you got so much free time that you feel empowered somehow to disrespect anothers good faith efforts? Template talk: see also is NOT what people see if they use {{see also}} to see usage instructions. {{main}} had such, why not an seldom seen like see also. More importantly, why bother? Do you need to run up your edit count or something really important? Please do grow up a bit. Sincerely disgusted, // FrankB 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you revert or cut? See: User_talk:CBDunkerson#Mystery_Manifestation. The template is now categorizing a displayed category... perhaps it had all day. I don't know. But since you fiddled, we get this conumdrum... and about a fifty-minute loss to my productivity. // FrankB 00:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already demonstrated that your userbox en-∞ is inaccurate (and certainly the only thing "godlike" is your arrogance), I'm not sure that you are due an "explaination" [sic]. Perhaps you could read the history and the talk, where you might note that I was the person that programmed the template.
Of course, Template:See also (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) isn't seldom seen, it's long been an integral part of the guidelines, that I maintained in the old Wikipedia:Section (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Section|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as recently merged to Wikipedia:Guide to layout (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Guide to layout|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Usage is always supposed to be on the Talk page, as edits to heavily used templates cause database thrashing. The problem isn't as bad as it used to be, now that the update queue is implemented, but I still only make changes to major templates during slack time.
As to edit count, I wonder why I'd need or want more?
Reading your diatribe at CBDunkerson (talk · contribs), he's already explained that "space colon category" isn't the same as "colon category". The wikimarkup is technically "[[:", and adding a space between the brackets and colon isn't proper syntax. This has nothing to do with {{see also}} itself, and my revert of your ill-advised changes had no effect on your error in usage. Stop blaming others for your own ignorance.
As to your productivity, why do you value it more than ours?

--William Allen Simpson 01:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My arrogance? Because of a joke user box. Hah! But thanks for the lesson. When I get a moment, I'll do away with that one. I don't know of what diatribe you're refering, as my points to Conrad were on topic. I'm new to templates, and he's been kind enough to hold my hand. I think if I were abusing his time, he'd let me know by email as we're conversing there as well.

Re-read your remarks above for arrogance... (1) is obviously a personal attack, and off point so far I'd need GPS to find your page. Last time I looked, being edited unmercifully was part of wikip, and no one owns anything, even original authors. You'll note I didn't bother reverting... against my practices. I happen to think YOU should do that pennance for discourtesy, if nothing else. Did you bother questioning or even informing me of the revert? Case settled. Verdict: disrespect of anothers time, and your subconscious obviously knows, or you wouldn't have gotten rude on top of it.

Apologies for lashing out about growing up... but I get honest and blunt when ticked-off by nonsensical editing. The usage note there is far superior for the newbies I also try to sheppard as part of the welcoming committeee, or occasional template users such as myself. I swear there are some editors who do nothing but unnecessarily undo what others took time to put together... so you hit a hot button. Hopefully you truly aren't one of those.

Btw-Iteriots Tool was OOC that week, based on your contribs in the most recent screen I viewed, you certainly aren't doing much recent expansion or categorization and organization work. Embedding usage in the visible page is an old programming means of self-documentation, and I'm an old programmer who believes firmly in good useful documentation. I don't see the sense of forcing someone to access a seperate talk page where such usage is obfusticated in all sorts of other potential discussion (e.g. succession and succession box). Perhaps there's an equivilent to {{tl|pagename}} that would allow one to single link check the references on usage, but if so, I am ignorant of it. If not, being able to access the usage without trashing an overly abused history and browser stack is suboptimal to the way I edit and build—I'm usually editing five or six related pages for links at once and backing up to the first gets problematic enough as it is! The proper material on the talk is discussions about the edits made to a template, imho, not the usage. Frankly, the whole template 'usage' system write-ups I've seen are overall damn poor for the new user—it assumes one knows far too much about the consruction of templates and focuses poorly if at all on the end-users needs in plain English. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I've got to get back to real life. // FrankB 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You are a true friend. BD2412 T 17:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

letter combinations

Category:Lists of four-character combinations, etc. are not disambiguation pages? --0x845FED 08:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the category and templates were decided at CfD and TfD some months ago, and discussed ad nauseum.

--William Allen Simpson 09:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read some of it, but the various discussions seem to be in many difference places, and it's not clear to me what the final conclusion was, or whether pages under the category should be formatted based on the WP:MOSDAB guidelines. --0x845FED 09:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, where things that were once clear are constantly muddied. The main differences are the templates (2CC, 3CC, 4CC), and the frequent use of explanatory links. Abbreviation pages are encyclopedic and need links, while disambiguation pages are non-encylopedic, essentially multiple redirects. Don't waste a lot of time formatting disambiguation pages -- in an ideal world, they would never be seen.

--William Allen Simpson 09:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal space ~ Appendix

last message in thread at User talk:Ceyockey

The concept behind the Portal and Appendix options are essentially the same: setting aside a space that's closely linked to and abides by the policies of Main Article space but which has its own character and content focus and guidelines, that content still sitting inside the remit of the encyclopedia. With that in mind, I think either is ok. The advantage of the Portal option is that there is a template already available; the disadvantage is that the use might meet with a bit of resistance as the remit of Portal space is bent ever so slightly to accomodate this new content — my small understanding of Portals is that they are organizational zones for encyclopedia content, which is not what this new Portal would be about exactly as it would encapsulate content of its own given my notion of the intended use right now (which isn't set in stone). The advantage of the Appendix option is that it brings a whole new section to the encyclopedia, which is also one of its disadvantages; another disadvantage is that it is more prone to spiral in scope beyond the present intended purpose ... which could also be an advantage. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An award!

The Working Man's Barnstar

For your unending new day updates to WP:CFD after we lost the bot. For all you do, this star is for you. Syrthiss 12:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you abusing me?

You are being very insulting on categories for deletion. Can't you just trust the strength of your arguments, instead of insulting people who are doing their best to help improve Wikipedia? Chicheley 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeated the abuse a third time. So I forgot for a minute that U.S. Baptists are divided into two main streams (but I have read about it before). What's the odds that you are a lot more ignorant about my country than I am about yours William from South Carolina, USA? Five hundred-to-one on maybe? Chicheley 02:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing. Need to hone your poor research skills. Amazingly bad, as I'm using my actual name, and there are well over 100,000 references to me on the 'Net.

Since there is no hint of "country" (nor expertise) on your User page, an incompetent oddsmaker as well.

Clearly, you didn't even read the Baptist article before creating useless sub-categories. We really don't need folks creating categories that aren't knowledgable about the subject area. That's not an improvement.

And we certainly don't need to divide/duplicate every category by country. That reflects a very "old world" myopia. Remember, each U.S. state is the legal equivalent of (and often larger than) an "old world" country. It's particularly meaningless for categories (such as Baptists) that are inherently transnational in scope and have no organization by country.

And while I'm responding to your personal attack here, there was no "abuse" at CfD. Indeed, you were not mentioned at all. Do not confuse factual accuracy with a personal attack.

--William Allen Simpson 12:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you are technically correct does not justify your attitude. You don't own this project, we are all working together. Misunderstandings can be handeled in a civilized manner, with both parties being treated respectfully. You don't seem to have much respect for anyone other than yourself. Cacophony 18:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Ambassadors

Hi, I noticed that you removed the category Category:United States Ambassadors to the Republic of China from several articles. You did not explain your reasons for having done so, and there is no apparent reason why the categories should have been removed. Moreover, the categories were not deleted, as they should have been if they were to be depopulated (although I don't think there's a good reason to delete them.) Regards, Paul 02:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, in the future you will read edit summaries. And I see that you have found the CfD, and commented there. Your creation of the category was and is contrary to prior consensus.

--William Allen Simpson 11:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD:Names of European cities in different languages

I notice you've contributed in the past to Names of European cities in different languages and its successor pages. There are proposals to delete these articles and the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages might interest you. AjaxSmack 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roleplaying vs Role-playing quick follow-up

Thanks for looking into the Roleplaying/Role-playing topic. I agree with the decision to keep the categories as is since there wasn't full consensus. You had implied yesterday that you had some questions, but since that page is locked I summed up the discussion on the related category page at Category_talk:Role-playing_games#Spelling:_Roleplaying.

Just to answer one of the questions you mentioned, I got a lot of my information from the web from some of the gaming company sites, such as the Wizards of the Coast site and [ the City of Heroes Roleplaying Game web site]. Amazon.com also has a lot of listings of books with both "Roleplaying" and "Role-playing" in their title and description. For example, if you search for Chaosium on Amazon, you'll notice "Call of Cthulu: Horror Roleplaying..." and "Basic Roleplaying: The Chaosium System (2003 edition)", but when you look at earlier editions they spelled it "Basic Role-Playing System". One exception I noticed is the "Everquest Role-Playing Game" from 2002, but otherwise current tabletop game titles appear to use the other spelling.

Also, FYI, you mentioned in one of your comments a few games from 10, 15 or 20 years ago like AD&D and GURPS 3rd edition and previous editions of Chaosium Basic Role-Playing System. You are correct that they used to spell the word that way, but the point I was posing is that currently most games appear to be using the other spelling. So the pattern seems to be shifting. The question of why is interesting, and I don't know the answer.

Anyway, just wanted to reply here since I couldn't do it on the locked page. Later! Dugwiki 18:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVRU note wording

I created a new version for the relatively new Userbox debates, making the text more concise and generic. I'd like to do the same here. --William Allen Simpson 15:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your above comment was nearly lost until I started tweaking the template again. Thanks for your suggestion, I made changes to Template:DRVNote based on your Template:DRVU note. Thanks! --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fringe physics

Please be careful when listing categories for emptying and deletion by bots. The decision of this CfD was to Keep, and merge a few of the articles to Pseudoscience. The decision was not to merge everything to Pseudoscience. Since the Fringe physics/Pseudoscience distinction is highly contentious, this has upset quite a few editors. --Philosophus ^T 00:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Reviewing my closing, I forgot to put the NO BOTS on the closing instruction, and Cydebot (talk · contribs) moved them all automatically. I'm not quite used to having that bot around.... Here's a list of the ones it moved.

--William Allen Simpson 01:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your email

title: Wikipedia e-mail - re: template:Category redirect2. Thanks // FrankB 19:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sai Kung

Re [1] - I'm interested to know if "empty" was an appropriate reason for deletion of this particular category. As I've mentioned, the user who nominated the category improperly depopulated the category before the nomination. The proper way is to preserve it as it was until decided by the community. — Insta ntnood 18:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was tally the votes, check that it was properly tagged on nomination, and check the contents. There was no opposition to the nomination. The items that are in a category are not "preserved", you'd have to put them back yourself. Interested folks had 8 days to repopulate it. It was still empty. And you didn't indicate keep, either.

--William Allen Simpson 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should never be depopulated immediately before CfR, CfM or CfD nominations. I've explicitly indicated my reservation, yet user:Minghong was not coming back to answer. It wasn't too good to say oppose before she/he answers, but my reservation was clear. — Insta ntnood 22:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly indicated I prefer the original category be kept (if some materials of the original category cannot be fit into the new one), or be turned a categoryredirect. It was obviously a vote against the nomination. — Insta ntnood 06:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Zelda Categories

As someone who has previously voted or commented at the recent CfD discussion about the naming of Legend of Zelda categories, I thought I would let you know that I have started a new discussion in an attempt to reach a consensus. The current position of having 2 sets of categories serving the exact same purpose is unsustainable, and we need to reach a consensus on which set should be removed. If you have previously voted on this proposal, I would ask you to reconsider your vote, and ask yourself whether you are willing to give a little ground in order to reach a compromise. This is a generic message I am leaving for everyone who took part in the previous discussion. Thank you for your time. Road Wizard 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trinidad and Tobago-British people

I can't seem to find the entry for the CFD. Guettarda 04:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because it's more than 8 days old, past due, and therefore not on the page anymore. I'm sure an administrator will get around to closing it soon, but there's been a bit of a backlog. I cannot close it because I'm the nominator.

--William Allen Simpson 04:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

categories for discussion

very good and thoughtful work in making this change. Thanks Hmains 16:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Freemasons

I see no problem with your reversion of my edits here. I was just trying to clean up the Wikipedians by organization category. The Wikipedian Freemasons category has no members and has been replaced by Freemason Wikipedians. By adding back the "by Organization" category, you are just adding clutter. It makes little difference in the long run since this outdated category is up for deletion anyway. Rklawton 15:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, please don't alter categories while the discussion is in progress.

--William Allen Simpson 13:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. I wasn't aware there was a discussion in progress. Cheers, Rklawton 14:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 366: / Line 366: @@
 ::And while I'm responding to your personal attack here, there was no "abuse" at CfD.  Indeed, you were not mentioned at all.  Do not confuse factual accuracy with a personal attack.
 :::--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 12:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
+::::Just because you are technically correct does not justify your attitude.  You don't own this project, we are all working together.  Misunderstandings can be handeled in a civilized manner, with both parties being treated respectfully.  You don't seem to have much respect for anyone other than yourself.  [[User:Cacophony|Cacophony]] 18:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 ==U.S. Ambassadors==