User talk:Boppet

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

Welcome!

Hello, Boppet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Laurinavicius (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Using other wikis as a reference[edit]

We appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, but please do not use other wikis like RationalWiki as a reference. Doing so compromises the reliability of articles and is against Wikipedia policies. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Concurrency article[edit]

Just to let you know, the usual best practice when an edit is reverted is not to restore it, as that's edit warring. Under the auspices of our WP:BRD paradigm, when a Bold edit has been Reverted, the next step is to Discuss it, not restore it. I objected to revising the first sentence of the article away from using "concurrency" because that is the title of the article. Also, your edit gave larger prominence to "multiplex", which has been judged to be a neologism. Imzadi 1979  03:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I had not realized that you were undoing my work even as I was writing it. I had assumed that instead I had created conflicts myself between two different versions of the page that I'd had open.
I agree that the term "multiplex" is inappropriate, and would be happy to see it removed. After spending over 40 years working as a traffic engineer in the UK and USA, I prefer to use the terminology adopted by state departments of transportation, which I have tried to add.
Currently I'm not sure if your goal is to keep the fan site as a fan site, or to seek inputs from other voices. I believe that the Caltrans term "concurrencies" (which is not even a word in most English dictionaries) is an unsatisfactory way to describe "concurrent highway numbering", a concept that could be less ambiguous and therefore more widely understood. Would you consider changing the title of the article to this more descriptive phrase, or do you prefer to defend what was previously written by an obvious hobbyist, come what may?
Boppet (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Concurrency is in the dictionary, and as recently discussed at the recent deletion nomination, there were at least five sources that apply the term to the concept. "Concurrency" is the noun form, while "concurrent" is the adjective and "concurrently" is the adverb, so they're essentially the same. I've yet to see any source use the term "concurrent highway numbering", and absent such a source I don't think the term can be inserted into the article, let alone replace "concurrency" as the title. As for the "fansite" claim, that was posted by the nominator of that deletion discussion, and I agree with it in terms of cleaning up some of the content lower in the article, but not the terminology. "Multiplex", "duplex", etc, should remain though in the form of the brief mention that is there because that is a term that is in use, even if it's not exactly the best term to use. That's why its mention is qualified with the link to roadgeek. Imzadi 1979  04:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, please choose your verbiage better in the future. Calling me "the reverter-in-chief" is an insult I don't take lightly for simply objecting to the insertion and re-insertion of "controversial" content. (That's "controversial" in the sense that there is a disagreement over it, i.e. we disagree about it and can rationally discuss it.) I will grant you a pass, but please comment on content, not editors. To do otherwise is a personal attack, which is sanctionable under our policies. Imzadi 1979  04:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Imzadi, I didn't mean to offend you. I was frustrated after spending time trying to improve an article that is potentially important and yet in need of plenty of help, and then doing the work over a second time in the honest belief that I'd screwed up, only to find it was being undone by someone even faster than I could try in good faith to help out.
I was very interested to see the link you gave me to the debate on deleting this article. Having worked with over 30 US state DOTs in the past three decades, (in part) developing public info systems that are heavily impacted by "concurrency" without ever having heard the term is ... a little bit disturbing, may I say? But I guess my knowledge as a practitioner is less important than how many Google Search results can be found, so perhaps I should go away and let you guys decide what you want to call things.
Good luck with your editing, Imzadi. It seems to be pretty hard to make contributions to the Open Source world these days without being part of the in-crowd, so I guess I should go and get dinner instead. Cheers, Peter Boppet (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Traffic message channel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eureka. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Boppet. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi Boppet! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 22:25, Sunday, April 2, 2017 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge