User talk:Adavidb/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Political positions of Sarah Palin

Thanks for your words of encouragement on my talk page. I enjoy cleaning up old POV magnets, but it can be some work! :-) Hopefully, ill have Sarah Palin and related articles back to something sane and encyclopedic in a year or so. Bonewah (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Computational overhead

Hey Adabidb,

I spent about four hours editing this article in many many ways, simplifying the English, reorganizing, and all sorts. So I am sorry if I got a link wrong refs are the bane of my editing. If you have any advice on getting them right first time I should be glad to hear them. SimonTrew (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I had to link together lots of different articles some written (I assume) by academics who have never done a reference in their life it took me at least an hour just to check references. Not in this article so much as other related ones. Sometimes I miss. There was no feedback on the discussion pages so I just thought, be bold. Sorry I am not perfect. SimonTrew (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (a bit peeved)
Thanks for your work at improving the article. My inclusion of the notice at the top is so future editors know that source citations are still needed. We can't rely on other Wikipedia articles alone and need to use outside reliable sources. This can certainly be a bother, and the list of citation templates has been helpful for me when identifying sources, which I often find with Google. The best sources are from well-respected newspapers, magazines, etc. I can understand your being peeved, though didn't intend to discourage you from editing. —ADavidB 06:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I always get the ref templates wrong, I have kinda accepted it as fact, not because of laziness but it is very hard to check them on a preview, etc. I check all the links and blah blah blah and still somehow I cock it up, but at least then it is 90% right which is better than 10% right, someone else can come along and fix the minor bits I've missed (if I haven't already myself).
I do have a lot of reliable sources (computing books, philosophy, mathematics, language, etc.) but not sure any are suitable for here. My task the night was just knock the thing into shape, and come back later (if no-one else does) and try to patch up the references (which are no worse than they were before).
I imagine some admins/editors think changing the page straight away is bad form. In practice, I have found with the rather esoteric subjects I tend to edit, putting something on discussion (which generally I do), well you might as well ask the cat. But as soon as you put it on main you get people taking an interest.
The real sod was Computational complexity theory you may wish to cast an eye over that as I am sure, though it took a lot of work, I will have made lots of small slips.
Thank you sincerely also for your contribution to Wikipedia. SimonTrew (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you have references. The more verifiable they are the better, but add what you believe are reliable. The templates I mentioned before can help. Use as much "copy and paste" as possible and put one of them between a pair of <ref></ref> tags, and fill in the title, author, and other applicable info. I'd suggest using "show preview" to see if it displays a superscripted [#] properly, and then leave any remaining corrections for later. I visited the theory article you mentioned and made some minor corrections. —ADavidB 12:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Computational complexity theory Thanks for your corrections, that's really great. After about four hours of editing I was kinda falling asleep and you can't see the meat for the potatoes. The Wikipedia guidelines say to put it in a discussion or a sandbox, but in practice until you actually publish it nobody bothers to do anything about it. (The guidelines also say Be Bold!). Thanks a lot for clearing it up. It almost makes sense now. I still think it is too heavy for NP completeness (which has its own article)-- I started a discussion topic on that, with little hope of success. SimonTrew (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Sandboxes seem mostly for individual experimentation before putting something in a 'real' article. You can also use 'Show preview' a lot until it's right (though need to add something like a {{Reflist}} template temporarily, to see the references when editing an individual section). Discussion can help sometimes and, given enough waiting time without a response, can also be considered a license for doing it your way (within reason). —ADavidB 19:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

George Washington Entry

Hey, sorry about the duplicates. I just joined, and I'm doing the best I can to read all the rules.

Thanks for the correction. Comder (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and welcome! —ADavidB 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The 7th DC Meetup

Please be advised that a proposed Meetup/DC 7 is being discussed here. WE need your help to figure out some of the details! You are being sent this notice because you previously expressed interest in such meetups. If you no longer wish to receive such notices, then please leave your user name here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi. Are you still a "maybe" for the meetup? bd2412 T 00:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

More Sarah Palin you might be interested in.

You expressed some interest in Political positions of Sarah Palin, you might also find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies of Sarah Palin to be interesting. Thanks! Bonewah (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Updating the link in Churches of Christ

Thanks for updating the link for that Gospel Herald article. I intended to (actually thought I had), but got so caught up in getting the citation right, that I didn't copy the new URL in. EastTN (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was pretty sure of your intention and expectation, based on the edit summary. —ADavidB 03:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Location change (and reservations made) for DC meetup

We originally considered TGI Friday's in Foggy Bottom as the meetup location, however I stopped by TGI Friday's this evening to make reservations. I was less than impressed. They apparently don't take reservations, except perhaps if you call 24 hours ahead of time. The staff was not so helpful, and the menu has hardly anything vegetarian which is an issue for some people.

So, I checked out the Bertucci's pizza/Italian place across the street (21st & I St NW). Their staff couldn't have been more helpful, think it will be fairly quiet so we will be able to hear each other, and is a very suitable place for us. So, reservations are made for Bertucci's at 5pm on Saturday. I hope you can make it to the meetup. --Aude (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your assistance in correctly formatting the "References" section in the Matt Blunt article. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. —ADavidB 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Commas

Please see The Chicago manual of Style 6.47, read chapter 6 more generally, and think about the logic of commas. —SlamDiego←T 06:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your indirect point – that commas are used to set off the individual elements in place-names that are run into the text – is acknowledged. —ADavidB 12:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You feel free to edit/delete

I did not see an link to email you so I hope saying thank you on here is okay. --Trackn (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the place for such communication. You're welcome! —ADavidB 19:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I normally don't have to proof my own work. I will start looking at it a little better (laugh), thanks for the cleanup --Trackn (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome again. Sorry if it made you feel like someone was looking over your shoulder. ;-) —ADavidB 02:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I did not take it in a negative way or think you were looking over my shoulder. I appreciate the grammar and spelling check. Can you send me an email? I did not see a link to send you one. --Trackn (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)