Jump to content

User talk:Jnc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mark Richards (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 10 March 2005 (→‎<small>New Stuff</small>). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old stuff moved to:


Inactive Stuff

Do come by again:

Hi -- sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place, but the site is so different from when I used to contribute regularly. Thanks for the kind words. I do pop in now and again to see how things are going, but try to limit my time because I tend to get emotionally invested in things I put a lot of work into, and would rather put that effort into working on the new classes I'm teaching and on new research for publication. Cheers! JHK 01:41, 1 Jan 2005

Hi Again -- just thought I'd let you know that I did have a go at some editing, but the damned software crashed after I'd spent over an hour working on a drastic rewrite to Feudalism (for flow, mostly, but also to make it more coherent in including Zain's incomprehensible understanding of what Wikipedia is and isn't -- check out the talk page. It's having to deal with a tendency of the agenda-driven to break up articles into disjointed blocks so that their insertions make more sense that makes me despair and really lose all joy in an enterprise like this. JHK 23:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfD help:

Thanks Noel for the help with Bolivarian revolution... its undeleted now Happy New Year! 21.43 1st Jan 2005 (utc) user:max rspct

Re:Rfd:

Oh thats fine, I don't care, I was more confused as to why it survived all this time. Thanks for taking care of it. K1Bond007 05:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Reply notification:

Hi! I've replied at User talk:Matt Crypto. — Matt Crypto 00:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN:

No complaint. I'm all for aggressive archiving. In the circumstances, though, with the issue apparently not dead, I figured it was best that I restore the prior discussion for context rather than start a new section. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Humboldt:

Thanks for fixing this. I have been changing quite a few of the links from Humboldt University to go directly to Humboldt University of Berlin. However, it may have been simpler just to retain Humboldt University as a redirect to Humboldt University of Berlin, with a disambiguation notice on top. There are probably very few references to Humboldt State University.

Anyway, I noticed that there are many links to University of Berlin, which now redirects to Universities of Berlin. I disambiguated the only two pages linking directly to Universities of Berlin (Henry Bruce, 2nd Baron Aberdare and Rudolph Schoenheimer). Some of the post-WWII-references may refer to one of the other universities, but I'd bet most of the links to the University of Berlin also should go to the Friedrich Wilhelm/Humboldt University. Alas, I suppose these links will be fixed with time. BTW, I have noticed that the pages concerning the University of Paris are also a mess needing some merging and moving. / Tupsharru 13:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bush vandal:

Heya, could you have a look at Dick Cheney and consider reverting the Bush vandal's edit there? (Unless you want to stay out of this because you've already blocked him and want to remain impartial, but I don't think that's necessary here). --fvw* 18:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Thanks on TfD/CfD:

Thanks for helping on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. It's in a bit of a back log, just needing someone to perform the deletions.

For Template:DVD cover and Template:D, consensus was to delete those ([1] & [2]). The suggestion to redirect "DVD cover" was placed later, and "D" has too many alternate templates it could be used as a redirect for. The "Holding area" is what we use for marking those that came out of discussion in favor of straight-up deletion. Thanks again. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Hold on, Template:D isn't going to be linked to Template:Delete now? There was a strong majority for that redirect on TFD. --fvw* 23:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

There seems to be some recent concern over the bot (NetBot) that I use to help cleanup TFD/CFD and other maintenance things. Could I ask for you to comment on it at Wikipedia talk:Bots#New uses? It truly is a beneficial tool, and I doubt I could help with all the tasks I do without it. -- Netoholic @ 15:49, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

CfD:

Thanks for your help at CfD! Everything that you did was absolutely fine. (Actually, it was more than fine, it was great.) I'm the only one who seems to really clean up that page regularly (there are some administrators who help sporadically and some non-administrators who help with clean up but can't delete), and I've been out of town, so the backlog is getting excessive. My hope is to eventually get it caught up. Any further help would be much appreciated. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm one of the administrators that deletes empty categories. :) I tend to not clean up the article until I've deleted everything that needs it. Your cleanup was helpful, and today, pretty much followed behind my deletes by only minutes.  :) Thanks. --ssd 02:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Genghis Khan:

Genghis Khan:

Around the age of 16, Genghis banged fifty five virgins and had many kids that were beheaded.

BANGED??? 206.53.17.162 00:27, 12 Jan 2005

Thanx for your assistance on my botched RfD:

--Silverback 13:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced comment on WT:AN:

Nope, it was a response to "inappropriate images (pedophilia, pornography, etc)"; My point was there's nothing inherently wrong with uploading pornography. --fvw* 15:09, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I didn't really intend to start a discussion, just trying to make sure examples used are clear... --fvw* 15:38, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

WT:AN archiving:

Re: the sections I dumped from the administrator's noticeboard, I wasn't planning on archiving them as they seemed to be everyday occurrences rather than notable happenings. I'm feeling a little deletionist at present. silsor 00:47, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

WP:RfD:

Oops, must have edit-conflicted myself and not payed attention. Thanks! --fvw* 12:18, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

RfA:

Thanks for your note regarding my last RfA request. I don't plan on self-nominating again too soon, I plan on waiting to see if someone else nominates me. In any case I think I should wait at least a month: while no real time limits seem to exist a month seems to be a reasonable minimum to me. User:Anárion/sig 08:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Reading re Ollieplatt:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Matters_currently_in_Arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Evidence

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Proposed_decision

Note that Ollieplatt has been deemed likely to be Libertas and about a dozen other user IDs by several Wikipedia developers who have presented technical evidence. The evidence page cites numerous examples of Ollieplatt engaging in disruptive editing and violations of wikipedia policies. The proposed decisions range up to a one year ban.

— Davenbelle 22:18, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Open proxies:

Heya, you took an interest in the open proxy discussion on WP:AN, could you perhaps give your opinion on Wikipedia talk:Bots#OpenProxyBlockerBot? Thanks. --fvw* 23:37, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page:

I'm just dropping you a note to let you know that I'm removing your threatening and abusive comments from my talk page. Also, if you bothered to read the section in question, you will notice that I was not the one who "brought the matter to our attention." --Viriditas | Talk 13:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYI...calmly discussing a policy issue is not "spamming" (feel free to read the link). I can't speak for OneGuy or his comments, but I'm not sure why you think polite discussion is flaming. In any case, the issue is being addressed by a number of users in a constructive fashion at this time (Jmabel in particular). --Viriditas | Talk 13:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American):

Hi Jnc.

I received a comment on my talk page about an RfD tag on Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American). I don't think I've added such a tag and couldn't find it in that page's history. I guess it's vaguely possible that I did it by accident or even forgot doing it. In any case, while I dislike the ad-hoc pronunciation "system" very much I don't have a reason to get rid of that page. — Hippietrail 12:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoops:

Sorry, didn't see the talk page discussion. I've reverted myself, thanks! -Frazzydee|✍ 20:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Historical revisionism:

This is a heads up about your ID appearing on a page you may not know about, Talk:Historical revisionism. I sent user:Stbalbach an email in which I mentioned your contribution in the Dresden talk page about Evans's analysis on Irving. He choose to publish the Email. If I had thought he would publish it I would not have sent it, it was bad judgement on my side. I am sorry for any inconvenience I have inadvertently caused you. Philip Baird Shearer 09:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect problem:

Thanks for the help on my redirect problem --Mikerussell 05:17, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Spion Kop:

Hi Noel, yes I understand where you coming from but Spion Kop is a bastardised spelling of the word and means nothing, where as Spioenkop is the correct name of the hill which is afrikaans for "spy hill". There is no such place as Spion Kop in South Africa. Sorry to put it this way but I feel that it should be re-directed. --Jcw69 15:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IPs and ISPs:

As the owner of my ISP,the only way I would be forced to get another IP address would be if I switched upstream providers.The 12.144.5.2 address belongs to only one server and that's the one I do my Wikipeding from 99.9% of the time.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

umlauts:

Here is another on: See history and talk of Battle of Hurtgen Forest. Sigh! Philip Baird Shearer 01:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A man of letters. Now that you have pointed it out, yes I can see a funny side, but it was unintentional my spelling is really bad. Thank goodness there are so many people who enjoy doing copy edits on the artices! I usually run most of it through a spelling checker but sometimes if I am in a hurry I'll edit what I have just written on the page one last time before saving it and bang spelling errors. In this case every one was umlout (including the title). After Yooden posted his reply I realized I had made a mistake and corrected them. But I missed that one. Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you nailed down "Battle of Hurtgen Forest". I did the same for Albert Forster half a day earlier. A case of "great minds think alike" or "fools seldem differ". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN:

It's cool. Archive away :) Actually, I'm thinking we need to split the page into two pages... - Ta bu shi da yu 06:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mate, just do it. You'll have my support, and I started that page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes you've just gotta do it :-) I'll put that bit back. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... I wouldn't do it on most pages, but the admin page is staffed by a reasonable bunch of users hand-picked from the community. Someone might get annoyed, but it's nothing that can't be resolved. Noone is going to keep battling with me. This had to get done, so I just had to do it! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ya, I know that :-) But, I've found that after the heat has gone grudges haven't been kept. That's what I've found as a rule. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR:

Wow. That was fast. Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only one minor thing... I included a hidden template so that reports will look more uniform. Could you take a look at the page again? Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Up to you really. I didn't even know those actions existed. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can explain how localurl: works. It's quite simple. {{SERVER}} you already know, this reports back //en.wikipedia.org on this particular server. What localurl: does is tack on the /w/index.php? stuff. It also changes depending on the namespace, and whether your linking to an article or to a namespace. It allows one pipe, which is to allow someone to set an action, or something else. It basically does &(passed text). You can look at my User page for the same link you put up. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For even more of the wacky use, look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/Today -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fiddling with WP:AN:

Should I ever decide to "Fiddle" with WP:AN, I'll be sure to drop you a line. Please consider my most recent edit a "post." From the WP:AN page:

However, any user of Wikipedia may post here. We're not an elite club, just normal editors with some additional technical means and responsibilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

However, since you appear to be familiar with the page, can you tell me if the section in question was mis-archived, or simply lost in the shuffle during all the housecleaning over the past 24 hours? Thanks -Rob 209.86.1.198 03:17, 3 Feb 2005

You are correct, and the oversight was mine. I'm still getting used to the new locations of things. Thank you for such prompt replies, and I apologise if I caused any inconvenience. -Rob 209.86.1.198 03:31, 3 Feb 2005

---

Reversions on WP:AN/3RR:

Hi. Emax was blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. He continued to use different IP adresses to evade this block, so I reverted his contributions and also blocked the IP adresses. His block has now expired, and all related IP adresses are also unblocked. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio poll:

Hi. There is a poll going on at Talk:Autofellatio. We'd appreciate your vote. —Cantus…☎ 04:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Argh! and Aargh!:

There was a request to merge Argh! and Aargh! so I formed Argh! and aargh! copied the text from Argh! to it and redirected the original articles to the new one. In retrostpect I should have move Argh! to the new name and created a new Argh! to redirect. How do I fix it now? RJFJR 03:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Argh! is a proper noun but I thought the policy was lower case words after the first in titles. I'll have to go look for the standard. Thank you. RJFJR 04:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing this. It looks much nicer with the capitalization change (especially in category esoteric languages). I appreciate it. RJFJR 13:50, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Revert/question:

Hello. I just reverted your change to the admin notice board, due to an edit conflict. Unfortunately, the edit conflict screen doesn't show edit summaries, so I didn't see your reason and assumed that it was accidentally lost. Could you direct me to the correct subpage for reporting 3RR breaches? - Jakew 16:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR:

Don't worry about it -- these things happen all the time, and are easy to fix. I appreciate your message, but really, it wasn't necessary, Slrubenstein 18:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:NYCS Broadway-Seventh north express:

Thanks for deleting this. —msh210 14:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my glitch:

Hi - thanks for fixing my deletion of the template on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I was trying ro figure out what I did wrong and how to get it back, and viola there it was :-) - sorry 'bout that. -Vsmith 01:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN: apologies:

(William M. Connolley 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You wrote: Please sign&date all postings on WP:AN. Sorry. I forgot.

My change was a complete mistake, I didn't even realize the page was being transcluded :| -- Netoholic @ 01:02, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Category:BMT Fourth Avenue Line stations:

Thanks for trying to fix Category:BMT Fourth Avenue Line stations; unfortunately the category is now shown inside itself. As for the what links here error, I've seen that before - I moved New York Subway to New York City Subway a while ago, and the database was really lagged; when everything fixed itself, nothing was shown as linking to the old page. --SPUI (talk) 02:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re: WP:AN:

There is no need to use such a rude language to make your point. I have moved my message to, hopefully, the right section. —Cantus…☎ 04:58, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and WP:AN:

OK, will do. It just made it a lot easier to find all her material when it was under one section! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... good idea, but I'm done with it now :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism:

I am not "recreating" the article. This is a new one, about an existing term. Please feel free to dispute my behavior at the appropriate conflict resolution place, following the policies. Mikkalai 19:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Noel, I didn't realize Mikkalai was an admin. What can I do about him abusing his power in this way? There was a very clear consensus about Jewish ethnocentrism via two votes already (VfD and VfU) and now he's trying to engineer a third to deal with the title only (sigh). SlimVirgin 19:55, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
I thought there was a special process, or special page, for admins abusing their power. Also, has he abused his powers? I'm totally confused as to what has happened here. I thought Andy L had deleted the page after the VfD. Did Mikkalai have to use a special admin power to recreate it, or can anyone recreate a deleted title? Sorry to trouble you with this, but I lack the knowledge to be able to work out what has happened and what should happen now. SlimVirgin 20:03, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Noel. SlimVirgin 20:09, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories:

Can you tell me how I can improve the policy so you'll change your mind? Or let me know behind your reasons for opposing it? Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The requirement was changed to strongly recommended, and changed to polite notification -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please look it over again. Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism logs:

It may interest you to view this: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism/Logs as your name appeared in the log. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rastafari:

I don't understand why that proposal is "Language correctness run amok"; Squeakifox's appeal might have been based on a sense of fairness rather than a proper understanding of naming conventions, but looking at usage supports the view. I looked around, both at academic publications (theses and dissertations) and at Google and it seems that Rastafari is more widely used than Rastafarianism, with Rastafarians as the people. (see Talk:Rastafarianism#Looking_at_the_data). Thanks Guettarda 01:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I:

Yes, it was me - I hadn't realised I was logged out at the time - an easy mistake given that I was breaking into half a dozen different accounts at the time:) Kind regards, jguk 18:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Active Stuff

Akhenaten Aten

Hi Noel, you asked about my removal of "Aten's cult was the target of considerable official hostility after that." from the bottom of Akhenaten. I felt it was not only superfluous (covered by "the Aten cult he had founded almost immediately fell out of favor." earlier in the para) but rather weak given abandonment of Akhetaten, Tutankhaten's name change etc. And the sentence disrupted the flow of the paragraph about how Aten fell out of favour.

And though there's more to be said about Smenkhare, Tutankhamun and Ay's attitudes to the Amun and Aten cults (eg Smenkhare may have intensified persecution of Amunism; Tutankhamun and Ay may have been Atenists who reverted to Amun only for public show), I didn't want to go into the (murky) details. Rd232 11:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protocol

Hello. I don't really have any ideas on the computer-related protocol pages. Apparently protocol comes from a Greek phrase meaning first leaf and refers to the first draft of a treaty. What I had thought of as the primary meaning was the ettiquete of diplomacy, but apparently that's not the original meaning. Maybe a protocol disambiguation page should have one line that points, not to protocol (treaty) but simply to treaty, with an explanation that that's one of the meanings of the word. Treaties are of course products of dimplomacy, so maybe protocol (diplomacy) is ambiguous. But even so I suspect protocol (diplomacy) is far more likely to be construed as being about the ettiquette of formal diplomatic encounters than about treaties, so for now I'd go with that. If experts in that field join Wikipedia, then maybe we'll do better. How 'bout something like this:

Protocol is derived from the Greek words προτο-, meaning first, and κολλα, meaning glue, and originally meant the first leaf of a bound volume.

Michael Hardy 01:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Two State Solution

Noel, thank you for working on this page. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Unfortunately some inaccuracies remains.

The Peel Commission and 1947 Partition Plan proposed "internationalized" zones to go with the Jewish and Muslim zones. The international zones would have accomplished two goals: side step the issue of who gets Jerusalem, and place Jerusalem and some quantity of territory under the control of European (Christian) countries. The Christians being the only Abrahamic religion without a significant population in the area. (A demographic situation that continues to develop as Muslim Arabs attack Christian Arabs (http://www.cathnews.com/news/404/37.php). These zones were strenously rejected by the Jews and Muslims. The internationalization of the zones is a key element that should be reflected in the article.

The form of a two state solution is not clear, neither is it clear what land areas it will encompass. Jordan itself is 60%+ Palestinian and may find itself drawn in a "solution". This text:

Territories that Israel captured in the West Bank and Gaza during the Six-Day War would become a new Palestinian state. Their Palestinian Arab inhabitants, as well as Arabs in the world-wide Palestinian exodus, would be given citizenship by the new state. Arab citizens of present-day Israel would likely have the choice of staying with Israel, or becoming citizens of the new Palestine.

Should be removed or augmented with other envisioned outcomes.

It appears that President Bush will allow a two state solution that places significant Jewish population centers located in areas captured in the Six Day War to become part of Israel. The outcome is far from clear at this point. Depending upon the Palestinian Authority's decision and effectiveness in fighting terrorism, the fence may over time become a de facto and perhaps even a de jure border. It is not impossible that a three state solution could arise Gaza/Hamas, Israel, and some portion of the West Bank PLO.

So much is unclear. The uncertainity should be reflected in the article rather than the current "a two state solution will look like this". Lance6Wins 22:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Here are your comments and my reply from my user page.

I'm afraid that is not realistic in my case. I am engaged in a huge project to make the United Kingdom menu a complete set of all relevant articles, or as near as I can get it. I have made thousands of edits in a month - largely doing other people's work for them. I consider this to be a very valuable project, but I am not prepared to make it even more time consuming. I note what my edits are when they are sensitive. Philip 23:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I usually tick the "minor edit" box for minor edits. I may have forgotten a few times because I am fallible like anyone else. I do provide good edit summaries where appropriate; in fact I have made 23 in the last 24 hours. On numerous occasions I have had to prune them to make them fit within the 30 word or so limit. I think I am actually well above average among Wikipedians in this regards. "Minor edit" really is enough of a description for a minor edit, and the page you linked to merely says that providing further details for minor edits would be, "nice even then". Well I agree, but I don't have infinite time, and I am hardly alone in not doing it - and I am making more edits than almost anyone at the moment, so I have more time to lose.
I will try extra hard to make sure that I never omit to follow these practices, but I am not going to change them. Philip 03:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

gzpl

I see. Sorry, I may be out of my element here. And, I didn't make the connection between your statement on my talkpage, and on AN. I just thought your 'not being interested in fairness' was a bit harsh: I am interested in it as a means of building a (balanced, non-cabalistic) 'pedia. But I see you haven't done anything wrong. You just seem to be very annoyed at gzpl, and while he does seem rv-happy, he is only defending himself against pretty harsh accusations on AN, and I must say I still don't see why people seem to blame him more than his opponents. So, no offense to you, and I should probably just stay away from all this. dab (ᛏ) 15:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sure. I apologize for accusing you of "taking action" after you said on my talk page that you did not. My bad. Concerning gzpl, I am just a bit disturbed that he may be a comparatively innocent victim of bullying. Of course he does get into revert wars regularly (while you and I don't), but as I said, judged from what I have seen, he is not any worse than his opponents (but that's just from a superficial scan of the dispute). dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

African American

I usually prefer to respond as you do -- on the poster's talk page. But if someone doesn't yet have a page set up, then I respond on mine.

Actually, I wasn't "sticking up" for RickK. I don't know him, have never (to my recollection) had an exchange w/him. Just thanking him for restoring the talk threads for AA. That other guy's a real jerk.

"Some" isn't necessary, because you're speaking of African Americans as a collective. The same is true for the use of "and" instead of "or." What about in my case, as I can "claim" all three? The use of "or" would not be appropriate. You're speaking of the whole, them as a collective group, with members among them who belong to a particular subset. (Ever taken a logics class? Simple, finite math.) deeceevoice 17:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but in an article devoted to African Americans, we are, indeed speaking of the group as a collective -- and not of individuals. When you say "or," that means one, but not two, or two, but not three. Yet, there are many African Americans who fit all three categories -- so, the more appropriate word is "and," speaking of the collective. Among African Americans collectively, there are all three heritages represented (no either/or implied -- just a whole characterizing a whole). An exercise in basic logic: "There are red, orange and purple balls in the boxes." Does that mean that every, single box has at least one of each color? One might assume that -- but no, not necessarily. But it does mean that in the boxes, regarded all together, there are balls of all three colors there? Yep. As I said, if one approaches the statement based simply on what it says (not what one might erroneously infer), it is completely correct. Well, enough of that! (I hated logics class.) deeceevoice 19:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I went back and deleted "Many," because that confuses the issue; the sentence is more correct without it. Perhaps you see my point now? Anyway, I think you're probably as bored with this by now as I am! :-p deeceevoice 19:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How to comment on a specific contrib on a talk page

This is to explain my reformatting of two of your contribs on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard.
(In progress. While it looks like you're probably off-line, i'm not going to rush this & make a mess of it; this prelim is to let you know i think you deserve an explanation & will provide it fairly promptly.)
--Jerzy(t) 00:04, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure i understand what you had in mind: each of the two times, you were commenting on contribs by A that B (and perhaps others) had already commented on, and not commenting on B's comment. So you put your comment directly under A's, and indented it further than B's in order to avoid the impression that B was commenting on your comment.
There's a lot of logic to that, but it's a bad idea for a number of reasons.

  1. If others follow your logic, and in turn want to comment on the same contrib you did, the first of them should post above your comment, still further indented. The second should post above both of you, yet further indented. There are times when its hard to avoid indenting far enough that the column gets indecently narrow, but the situation we are discussing is not one of them: What is normal on WP is that the first person (B) to respond to A indents, and everyone else commenting on A's contrib indents to the same extent B did, following the last person who responded to A. And no matter how many multiple responses a single contrib gets, that doesn't push unnecessarily far to the right.
  2. Those commenting on A's contrib usually have read all the earlier contribs before framing their own comment, lest they waste time being repetitive, and that's a good thing. It's also a good thing if the later readers read those responses in order: then when they read C's, D's, and your contribs, they've just read B's (as C, D, and you did), and don't have to waste time wondering why C, D, and you are so dullwitted as to bring up these minor points after having overlooked the major points that should be obvious to anyone whose contrib is worth reading. But if everyone formats it your way, later readers either read the comments in the reverse order of their occurrence, or go to extra trouble to go down to the end of the comments on A's contrib, and repeatedly read down and scroll back up to read the next one. (And then scroll back down over what they just read.)
  3. If some do it your way and some not (nearly all in fact don't), the only way to read the comments on A's contrib in order is to search thru the datestamps to deduce the proper order.
  4. In fact, in that mixed-method case, the effect of being the last to have used your method is the same as being the one rudest one forcing your way to the front of the line and yelling, "No, read mine first."

So i trust you'll understand why i adjusted your formating & positioning.
Thanks,
--Jerzy(t) 02:58, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Thanks for response, J,
It doesn't seem to me these cases were like what you're talking abt, but let me comment on that anyway:
The case you stated, using normal WP style

  • Any fool can see X.
And Y follows from that.
So we all should Z
--User:A
  • I've indented this to show i'm responding to what A said; specifically Z is an unsuitable response to the realities of X and Y. --User:B
  • I'm indenting this to the same level that B did, to make it clear that like B, i'm responding to A (not to B). There's no reason to consider Z, because X just isn't true. -- Anon.

The case you want to distinguish that from, using normal WP style

  • Any fool can see X.
And Y follows from that.
So we all should Z
--User:A
  • I've indented this to show i'm responding to what A said; specifically Z is an unsuitable response to the realities of X and Y. --User:B
    • I'm indenting this a level further that B did, to make it clear that unlike B, i'm not responding to A (but to B). B is right to some extent, but made an important mistake. -- Anon.

More elaborate example of WP style: I nominate Bad article for deletion, on grounds of mopery and dopery. --A

  • Delete for reason 1. --B
    • Reason 1 violates the Pauli exclusion principle. --C
      • My art teacher says it doesn't. --B
        • Art teachers rock! --D
      • My gym teacher says it doesn't, and everyone knows that gym teachers rock. --D
    • Reason 1 violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but there are better reasons than that for deleting. --E
  • Keep for reason 2. --C
  • Delete for reason 3. --D
    • D is a fool -- C.
      • I am not. --D
      • Everyone knows he is, but he still gets to vote. --A

This is always sufficient to distinguish the relationship among comments, subject to the restriction that every comment addresses at most one other comment. (Note above that D made two comments, rather than trying to make one that applied to both B's and C's comments.)
The rule sounds more complicated than it is: two comments apply to the same comment if they are both equally indented, and no comment that is less indented falls between them.
VfD debates tend to make good examples, because it's so clear that a vote is a comment on the nomination, and it's usually pretty clear that which vote or comment is being commented on; breakdowns are usually the reuslt of commetning on two comments simultaneously.

--Jerzy(t) 06:17, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Templates

Thanks for the note, and for the help with templates. I wish I could help more. I tried to get bot approval to help with clearing templates agreed to be deleted, but one admin fairly aggressively combatted it (see Wikipedia talk:Bots#NetBot request). If you can add any comments, or perhaps approach that admin in someway, that would let me do more (hopefully so that all you need to do is hit the delete key :) ). -- Netoholic @ 02:01, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Thanks for all your archiving work, it's much appreciated. silsor 15:33, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Use English

But the current (anti-policy) way of doing things is completely counter-productive, and is hurting Wikipedia. When an English-speaker wants to learn about Zurich he or she types "Zurich" into Google, and us having our article on it somewhere else (using a character that no English-speaker ever uses) makes it far less likely for people to find it. That's the whole reason behind the "most common name in English" convention, which is one of the most central tenets of our naming policy. (And besides, my Oxford Manual of Style specifically says that "Zurich" is spelt in English without the umlaut.) Proteus (Talk) 22:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re: WT:AN

See my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#WT:AN. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

alert

About WP:AN/I#Vandalism alert: i'll keep an eye, archive it away to oblivion :). muriel@pt 10:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden

SlimVrgin wrote in the section Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II#More questions

1) "There are reports that civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by American aircraft, but these claims are not supported by recent work by a German historian. 5" But (5) points to Richard Evans. So who is the German historian, and why not NAME HIM OR HER IN THE SENTENCE, instead of using these silly footnotes?

I think you wrote the words she is highlighting here. Perhapse you would like to answer her or change them. Philip Baird Shearer 13:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bombing of 3RR Page

Not sure what's going on, but do assure that it's not deliberate! My setup is bogstandard XP Pro and IE6, so shouldn't have any problems. Wasn't game to apologise again in case it happened again. Skyring 13:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Respecting other people's decisions

Feel free. If you check out the standard text I leave on the talk page of people I have blocked I ask them (if they disspute the block) to appeal to other admins or the mailing list. I've had quite a few of my blocks undone (every block I have applied to an admin for example).Geni 04:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My comments on blocking wars

Hi, If you feel my comments may produce a constructive discussion, please feel free to cut and paste them someplace else. -Brian. (--BM 14:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I'm sorry for messing up your Talk page. I don't remember now what I did, but I probably didn't hit "back", since I don't do that. However, what I might have done is this: the "save" was taking so long, I used the time to reread the text and tweak it, and save again, without waiting for the first save to return. I've done this before and usually it works out fine, although occasionally I get an edit-conflict with myself by doing this. This has to be resolved by doing the edits over again. I never noticed before that this resulted in any massive duplication such as you describe. I have seen the scenario you are describing, though, and perhaps there is some kind of glitch or bug. Again, my apologies for the inconvenience. --BM 22:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Subpage redirects

Hello Noel, could you point me to the discussion or voting where it was decided to keep the old subpage redirects? I would like to inspect the old arguments before proposing any policy changes. Since it was you who added the "keep 7" to the list [3], I hope you could explain the rationale behind it. Any pros/cons I can think of:

Pros:
  1. There may be major history that needs to be kept for copyright reasons
  2. Some external websites may link to a subpage redirect
Cons:
  1. Clutters search results
  2. Clutters "What links here"
  3. Takes up (little) space in database
  4. Can encourage newbies to use subpages or create new subpage redirects
  5. Can confuse editors who happen to find a web of bogus redirects with convoluted history
Now, my opposition to Pros:
  1. Obsolete histories can be merged or moved to talk
  2. Enough time has passed since the conversion away from subpages, websites should have adapted already. Not our problem, if someone has not updated his site for years.
  3. Because redirects are cheap, deletion of them should be cheap too, since they can be recreated with minimum fuss.

I also find your interpretation of the various keep/delete rules way too rigid. The text says "avoid deletion", not "under no circumstances delete". Surely we can delete a subpage redirect, if there is a rough consensus to delete it. Policy is formulated that way in VfD every day. Problem is that there are not enough participants in RfD to override old questionable policies by voting for a new de-facto policy. Currently RfD is the backwater of Wikipedia deletion.

I guess I'll be bold and update "keep 7" to allow deletion of historyless historical artifacts and obviously temporary subpages (like /Temp), if no objections are raised. I'd appreciate your thought on this before proposing this on talk of WP:RFD. About the CSD rules, I'm not sure I'm bold enough to tweak them just like that, it seems that even insignificant changes to them cause objections from the "keep everything" crowd. jni 09:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cut and Paste moves

The only reason I did cut and paste moves is because the wikimedia software is broken; the "Move" tab is broken. If admins don't want cut and paste moves, it would be best to make non cut-and-paste moves possible. That said, the only other cut and paste move I did was to move Ted to Ted (airline)--for the same reason. The move tab was broken.

I think, when the move tab is broken, there should be a page explaining why the move tab is broken, and how to request a move in such a case.

Take care, and thank you for your comments. Samboy 21:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for updating the Ted page. I have updated the links to anything in the main encyclopedia that linked to Ted. The only things that point to Ted now are in User pages and talk pages. Samboy 08:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN

Please don't move discussions away from there. If you want to put a pointer to such a discussion somewhere else, fine, but removing stuff from there unilaterally is over the line. Noel (talk) 17:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just figured that if it were left on the noticeboard, we would end up with two parallel discussions, one on the noticeboard and one on the RfC, and it would be more productive to consolidate them. Rad Racer 17:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

You are quite right. I need to put my mouse where my mouth is. I will get to work. ;) Mark Richards 02:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Stuff

[Please add new stuff ABOVE here - just stick in a =={Title}== header before this one (which you may do in the edit window that comes up after you click on the [Edit] button next to this header). Please leave this header, etc, alone, though! Also, please sign all entries with ~~~~. Thanks! - JNC]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jnc&oldid=10989280"