User talk:Wavelength

/What links here (29 September 2008) (165 pages) – /Archive 1 (99 kilobytes) (64 sections) (created 29 September 2008)

IMHO though

re: I missed one detail. If I had mentioned to you that I had already provided (at the bottom of Talk:Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership) a link to the archived discussion, then you probably would not have deemed it necessary to provide a link at the top. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL... IMHO, any false link should be fixed when archived... otherwise wastes folks time, n'est pas? Among other things, one cannot safely assume (the hubric pov) that someone passing by will read to the bottom... or predict when they will traverse the link... which they cannot see... (yet). Ooops! <g>Think on it. Cheers! // FrankB 16:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Desynchronization

Hi, I followed the link out to Desynchronization from your recent edit to LHC, and the article is just so devoid of content that I proposed it for deletion. If you (or somebody you know) can beef it up, that would be great (I think 5 days is the nominal period before an admin might delete it), but it has been there for 4 years as an orphan with nothing to offer, so I think it needs to go if it can't be improved. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my recent link to it was from Special relativity. Anyway, maybe Special relativity and Desynchronization can be merged if the latter is not expanded. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy table

Hi,

Just to let you know, I've removed the link you placed to the table, basically for the reasons I detail in my edit summary - the table is not in mainspace, it's not regularly maintained, there's no sources and it currently reads like original research. I think it's of moderate use to wikipedia editors, but I don't think the readers are done a service linking to the page as it is now. However, as I am not the boss of wikipedia, I could be wrong. If it were sourced and put in mainspace then I could see it being useful, but ultimately I see it as something that should be redundant to one of the mainspace pages already extant (and perhaps is, I'd have to dig). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki globe

Hi! As I'm not sure that you are checking the language ref. desk everyday, I leave my message here. As for the ja, I think the balance of ウ and ィof this image is very good. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is on my watchlist and I check it every day or almost every day. Katakana#Table of katakana shows a dakuten on ウ in this combination. (The adverbial phrase "every day" is spelled as two words. The one-word form is an adjective.) -- Wavelength (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor English and thank you for pointing it out. ヴィ is used for v sound like Visconti/ヴィスコンティ and ウィ is used for w sound like Windows/ウィンドウズ. I happened to find that image at the ja Village pump and the last one in the section is the one I showed you. BTW, your user name in ja is 波長. Oda Mari (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all the information. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WP essay FPO

Hi Wavelength. I'm going to yank the link to the essay Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions, which has been cast by the authors as "FPO", a corollary to WP:NPOV. IMO, it's not an adequately developed essay to merit a link. Further, Wikipedia:FPO currently is a shortcut to [Wikipedia:Featured portals]. Hope that's OK with you. WP:FPO could of course be redesignated in the future if there's an adequately developed FPO essay to shortcut to, one that enjoys some consensus-- but plainly it's not there yet. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A lack of links promotes a lack of awareness, and a lack of awareness promotes a lack of development.

Linking promotes awareness, and awareness promotes development.

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But, IMO, this sort of development is not generally expected to be fostered by linking from WP:NPOV, a core content policy page, to a completely undeveloped and very debatable essay, as was the case in this instance. I left intact the link you inserted from WP:NPOV to WP:FRINGE, a well developed guideline page. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your recent contributions

Wavelength, I had to revert one of your See also links, and I came over here to look at your contributions. I'm surprised. I'm really not the expert on these things, but this looks like a case of WP:POINT to me (specifically, point 6). Can we talk this out over at WP:ANI? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, I am surprised by your message. I have been working through Wikipedia:List of base pages in the Wikipedia namespace, to bring more attention to as many pages as possible (especially, orphaned pages, whether or not they are tagged as such). I actually thought that my efforts would be appreciated.

I checked your contributions, and it seems that you are referring to my editing Wikipedia:Explain jargon by adding a link to Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms. I was not trying to illustrate a point. According to WP:POINT, point 6 is: "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community". Maybe I have misinterpreted policy. If that is the case, please explain it to me (as clearly as you can) so that I interpret it correctly. In what way was adding that link inappropriate?

(By the way, are you an administrator? Your link to WP:ANI seems to suggest that you are, but I could find no indication of that on your user page.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, which is why I'm bringing up WP:ANI. You're making rapid additions to policy and guidelines pages, and as one of the guys who keeps track of these things, it's frustrating when one person creates so much work for everyone else, but I'm really not the guy to be making the call whether it's "too much". All I can tell you is, it's frustrating. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you find it frustrating, I apologize. I am guessing that "so much work for everyone else" refers to reverting my changes (or, at least, examining them). Can you see my perspective in anticipating people thinking, "Oh, I am glad that someone brought that page to my attention. I did not even know that it existed."?

On some (but not all) occasions when I have added links to these pages on article pages, they have been reverted with the explanation that the links were not to other article pages.

One reason for my proceeding rapidly from A to Z is to avoid forgetting related pages which I have already seen, when I see other related pages later in the alphabet.

In summary, I am perplexed as to how best to bring attention to those pages. Maybe I should abandon that plan.

--Wavelength (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

More information is at (permanent link) Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (section "Adding links to Wikipedia namespace pages"). -- Wavelength (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Apovolot (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens - thanks for the ref

By comparing your edits with the MOS section (WP:MOS#Hyphens, section 3, point 4) I can see they follow policy, and are a good illustration of the point. Now if I just felt comfortable so many other places, where I think a hyphen is _needed_.

BTW: How are you finding the -ly situations? Shenme (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I followed Special Pages to Pages with the most revisions, and, starting with number 1, I opened one page after another, and searched on each page for "ly-". Most occurrences required correction; on one page, I encountered "family-friendly" (where "family" is a noun which happens to end with "ly") and that hyphenation does not require correction. I chose those pages (including many in which I have very little interest in the topic) to maximize attention to this mistake which is running rampant on Wikipedia, on the Internet in general, and in print media. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See also: (temporary link) Talk:Hyphen#Adverbs and/or (permanent link) Talk:Hyphen (section 20 "Adverbs")

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. The question of English usage is more complex than you appear to allow for, and differs between the national varieties of English. You are being disruptive and unhelpful, although I appreciate your taking care over family-friendly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You have just changed the wording of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, section 3, point 4. Unfortunately, you did not provide any source to support your view. I followed the link which you provided in your message, in addition to subsequent links, and I was unsuccessful in my search for such support. Which national varieties of English have which differences regarding whether or not to use a hyphen after an -ly adverb? What support is there for the view that they have those differences?

-- Wavelength (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your change (to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, section 3, point 4) has been reverted.

I have checked the first 200 pages listed at Pages with the most revisions.

I have checked the pages listed at Wikipedia:Most frequently edited pages (permanent link: here), as far as Dwight Howard, with a rank of 1942.

I bypassed about four pages because of their subject matter.

On some pages, I found occurrences of "ly-" where I was not sure of what to do, so I left them unchanged for now, but corrected occurrences that were straightforward if I found them on the same page.

Eventually, I reasoned that someone seeing my corrections to some occurrences might conclude (not necessarily correctly) that my not correcting other occurrences on the same page was an endorsement of those other occurrences. Therefore, when I found pages with occurrences causing me uncertainty, I eventually tended to bypass such pages altogether.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[I wikified the word "reverted". -- Wavelength (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)]

Your edit to the Golf article

Wavelength, I was busy rewriting the the types of shots section in the Golf article as you made your edit. So for convenience sake on my end, I undid, and subsequently redid your edit of a misused hyphen. I figured I should give you a heads up. Happy editing, Eaglebreath (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy visit

Wavelength, I'm just dropping in to say hello, and to let you know that I appreciate your recent work at WP:MOS, and especially its talkpage. Discussion there is perennially difficult. Editors have a hard time adjusing to the task at MOS, which is not the same as at normal articles. This matter of prescriptiveness is such a confusion, and so politically mixed up! It needn't be, of course: if people would only step back and make a fresh appraisal of MOS in its context. They should reflect on the kind of work that is useful there, and the critique of MOS's role that is essential from outside, but not helpful if carried on relentlessly from within.

I do what I can, but sometimes it's most productive to hold off and let others take on a "tour of duty".

Good to see you also at the language reference desk. Myself, I am not committed to zealous work there. But I contribute in depth and detail where I find I can.

Best wishes to you.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation. I appreciate your work too. When I started my little project to remove incorrectly placed hyphens, I neither anticipated nor wished that I would be involved in a long discussion about the guideline. Generally, I find it to be more difficult and more time-consuming to prepare thoughtful messages than to perform simple editing tasks. That is why I prefer to stay with the latter. However, it happens from time to time that the usual "business" of editing is interrupted by a "court case" because someone else has a different "view" of how things should be. When that happens, I prefer to have interchanges with editors who discuss disagreements with straightforwardness, rather than with those who selectively dodge comments and questions, practice self-contradiction, and carry on filibustering. Such a waste prevents Wikipedia from being as good as it can otherwise be.

I do not know how much or for how long I will be contributing at the language reference desk. If I provide only one or more links in answer to a question, and maybe a brief comment, I hope that the questioner accepts that as better than nothing. I am preparing myself to become more involved in translating articles.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Barn star of Bethlehem

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		to Wavelength for diligence above and beyond. When I see that Barn Star of Bethlehem above the shed, I'll think of you! shiny one. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this kudos. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello! My name is Gopal81 and I would like to nominate you for adminship. According to your edit history, it seems you are not already an administrator. If, however, you do not wish not become an admin, you can decline by leaving a message on my talk page requesting so. And before I forget:

Thank you for considering me for the position of an administrator. However, I do not wish to become one at this time. Also, I do not wish to do so during the next twelve months.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your questions about MOS and hyphens

Wavelength, best wishes to you for the season.

As I foreshadowed, I have now stopped editing WP:MOS and discussing at WT:MOS. I think you can see why. Recent developments make the prospect of useful dialogue that respects Wikipedia norms even more remote. But I will respond here to the questions you pose. (Note Dank55's refactoring to make a new section starting at your questions. For clarity and independence in major headings, especially in archiving, the heading would be better as "== The original problems with -ly adverbs (specific and general) ==". I advise making that change.)

Now: "Specifically, if I were now to correct again the hyphenated expression in Electric guitar#Sound and effects, paragraph 4, to 'specially designed sound cards', would I have the support of the Manual of Style?" The short answer is yes. And no long answer is necessary! Our guideline and examples certainly cover the case you mention.

As for removing the "under discussion" tag, there are no strong precedents for when to do it. I was waiting for the section to be archived first, but that was delayed by new additions to the section. I think discussion has effectively stopped, and I advise removing the tag. If it resumes, the tag can easily be re-applied for the duration of new discussion.

Feel free to contact me, at my talkpage or by email, if you would like to pursue anything in which we have a mutual interest. You are a translator? I am. Which languages do you prefer to work with?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for answering my questions. I intentionally posted those questions before the preceding subsections were archived, with the purpose of maximizing attention to the problems. Maybe that was a wrong decision on my part.
• The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style is at the intersection of two relative "anarchies". Firstly, English has no official language regulator. Secondly, Jimmy Wales has (to a large extent) left it to Wikipedians to work things out together, to the best of their collective abilities. In each case, there is more freedom (than otherwise) to make individual choices, and perhaps more likelihood of disagreeing with the choices made by others. Your decision not to waste more time in editing WP:MOS and in discussing at WT:MOS reminds me of the decisions of others not to waste more time in contributing to Wikipedia. I hope that those two pages will become more attractive "workplaces" for you in the near future.
• Yes, I am a translator, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but in neither case to any large extent, so far. I prefer to work with the languages indicated in the language userboxes on my userpage, and approximately in the order of their being listed, which is also approximately the order of my proficiency in them. I did not include a userbox for Simple English because I have not had enough experience with it to give myself a rating.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My experience with Wikipedia is in accord with your analysis. For me, it is not so much a matter of what is congenial (though MOS has not been congenial) as of what is feasible. There are inevitable limits to what can be achieved at the MOSpages, because there is no clear brief from the community that MOS is supposed to serve, and no centralised discussion that could steer us to such a goal. Not only do editors come in with varying competence and insight into their own competence (which we could cope with, as we do everywhere in the project), there are not sufficient boundaries within which to work, or to appeal to so that discussion will be orderly, productive, and enduringly consensual. (For a start, there is no system for establishing and recording well-founded consensus decisions.) These things matter more at MOS than elsewhere. And then, attempts to fix these higher-level problems, or even to raise them systematically, are greeted with suspicion and perhaps accusations of anti-Wikipedian motives. The wonder is this: we do have a pretty good set of guidelines at WP:MOS, unique on the Web as far I can determine. The worry is this: it cannot endure as a respected resource, or much improve, without a change of protocols. I'm pessimistic, so far.

As for the anarchy of English itself, that is more familiar and even more inevitable. Style guides proliferate despite it, or indeed because of it. The task such anarchy sets for all style guides is exciting and of great linguistic interest: psychological and sociological interest, also.

I do some translating from Romance languages (mainly French) into English. We could compare notes sometime if you like.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk regulars

Hello, Wavelength. I added your signature to this list. I hope that's alright. Happy Holidays! ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)