User talk:Dreftymac/Archive 2

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

Cheers from Jack[edit]

Hi, dreftymac (sorry, I just haven't got whatever it takes to put the 2 dots in; I hope you don't mind - although, curiously, I do seem to have whatever it takes to write this excuse, which takes 104 key strokes. Weird).

Thanks for your message, and for your compliments.

I could quibble that you didn't go quite as far as Robert Schumann when he said of Frederic Chopin, "Hats off, gentlemen, a genius!" - but that's for others to judge (as they surely will), not moi. Cheers JackofOz 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your appology and help to me.

I will find the answers thats ok. I couldn't check the answers in my textbook cause I couldn't afford it. I will visit the library again tomorrow. thanks.

Hi, you are welcome. Just remember that the answers you get on here are sometimes flat out wrong, and even if they are "correct" it may not be the specific answer your instructor is looking for. Also, make sure you look at the Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Best wishes in your endeavors. dr.ef.tymac 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Excited delirium[edit]

It looks like we agree that every line in the article should be well referenced. I think it is balanced, and has references to both pro and anti sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, one caveat though. Recently a user made some some (I'll be charitable) "officious contributions" to the article. I tagged the article to let that user know his (her?) concerns had been acknowledged. Although that user has yet to articulate a clear rationale in support of his actions, I am willing to let the article momentarily stay tagged for NPOV to give that user a chance to clearly state what his concerns are and demonstrate good faith. On balance, however, generally I agree with your rationale and conclusions. dr.ef.tymac 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am all done.
I am just so woren out trying to find evidence when all of these MD's change their minds over the years, and since I have no access to any of the knowledge base of the Americian Psychiatric Association. I was diagnosed with ADD when I was a kid. Grew out of that, like all kids do. Then in middle school the teachers called me gifted. Then in High School, high school was a joke. College, was boring, no parties around the UMKC campus at all, or non that I was invited to.
So, right now I need help translating a piece of legislation written in Arabic, but I am clueless on Arabic script.

Nice Icons[edit]

Those are some nice icons on your to-do list. Better than some of the others I have seen out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, just so it's clear, I didn't make any of them, and anyone can use them as they are freely available to all WP users. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your comment! dr.ef.tymac 00:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and science/pseudoscience[edit]

Thanks for your reply. Left a reply on Wikipedia talk:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Dreftymac. I think 16 minutes (!) is hardly sufficient time to allow for objections to a proposal. I see no evidence that Lewis has agreed to this, or even that he's seen your proposal yet. I'm not saying undo it - let's wait to see what Lewis or others have to say - but in future I'd prefer you to allow a considerably longer time than 16 minutes before taking such an action. Otherwise, it amounts to the unauthorised removal or amendment of another editor's posts, which is contrary to the Ref Desk Guidelines. Cheers -- JackofOz 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Kudos for being bold, but I don't believe that particular exchange was anywhere near as bad as some of the other self-indulgent speculation on the Ref Desk. So while I, personally, don't have an issue with such removals, in the current climate a crappendectomy was inevitably going to result in a shitstorm of indignancy (what a lovely image that conjours). Rockpocket 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'll concur that my timing was, in retrospect, a tad hasty, and probably sub-optimal given the current climate. I respect that both of you have an established perspective on the proceedings, (and the relevant participants), so I readily defer to the credibility and reasonableness of your conclusions. Anyway, it appears someone has already done the revert, obviating the need (and opportunity) for me to revert my own proposed edits. I will consider myself well-advised, and refrain from such modifications in the future. Thanks for your responses. dr.ef.tymac 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well said. Sadly, what would be seen as an innocuous good faith edit in most corners of the project, in the crazy world of the Ref Desk is generally treated as an another salvo in a war of good vs evil. The good thing is that if you do remove something that is considered controversial, you don't have to worry about reverting it yourself, someone will do it for you. The bad thing is that everything you do will be considered controversial.
Of course, in deleting anything you have now joined the dark side (or perhaps the light side, depending on your perspective). Either way, it might be a good idea to have your lightsabre at the ready. Rockpocket 06:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

dr.ef.tymac, thanks for being reasonable. There are, incidentally, some things which you can undo unilaterally on the Ref Desk, but they must meet the much higher standard of "disruption", meaning they prevent the Ref Desk from continuing to operate. Somebody blanking out the entire page would qualify, for example. StuRat 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, StuRat, although to be candid, it is likely that you and I have significantly differing (although perhaps equally plausible) interpretations on these matters in general ... for example, I am assuming you do not dispute that an intentional and flagrant violation of WP:LIVING would justify immediate unilateral corrective action.
Nevertheless, a less-aware and possibly tendentious contributor could argue that, under the "standard of disruption" you've formulated here, a barely noticeable and unobtrusive aspersion against a semi-famous individual would be just fine, since the only tangible threat to the continued operation of the RefDesk would not materialize unless and until someone actually discovered it and managed to sucessfully sue the Wikimedia foundation possibly months or even years after the initial infraction.
Admittedly, this is an extreme and over-simplified example, and is in no way intended to unfavorably characterize any of your several published viewpoints related to RefDesk guidelines that I've so far had the opportunity to read. The point is simply this: I consider there to be some room for justifiable unilateral action that cannot be exhaustively enumerated through a series of ex-ante formulations and rules of thumb; the clear-cut extreme cases are rarely the ones that truly test our consistency, dilligence and character. How much room there is may be the sticking point on which reasonable people will simply have to differ.
Having said that, however, I will re-emphasize that I do concur with your actions in this particular situation, as well as the supporting rationale that you provided in the edit summary. Both were appropriate and defensible under a good-faith reading of established authority, even though I may disagree on some of the nuances and side-issues.
If the process and the final outcome are fair to all interested parties, that alone speaks volumes. dr.ef.tymac 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


It looks to me like the other policy you quote encourages redirects from synonyms. I have no problem with this, and have edited accordingly. This was not clear in your previous version. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I was actually in the middle of a reword to address the issue as well. I will go ahead and post it, since I think it addresses the need for clarification but also preserves the spirit of what we are both apparently aiming for. If you have concerns with it, let me know on the NPOV talk page. Thanks for helping prevent that potential ambiguity. dr.ef.tymac 23:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi there. I like your definition in the latest opening statement of the Article, "A fact is something which can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation" --Good, that's understandable to the general reader & less complicated than my effort. But, following that statement you reinstitutated the statement " In "philosophy" ....etc" Shouldn't that statement be deleted from the opening definition and (in some form) included under the subheading 'In Philosophy" ? Also, the editor prior to your edit, Peterdjones, deleted(and the deletion was continued) of my words in the opening definition " In common useage "fact' is a perception derived from the individuals beliefs". I suggest that it is important for this qualification to be included in the opening definition because it displays a common misuse of the word "fact". For example, a person may say to me "women drivers are worse than men, that's a fact" whereas what they mean is that in their perception women drivers are worse. Happy to talk with you. BestGeoffrey Wickham 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geoffrey Wickham, thanks for your follow-up and also for your comments. I appreciate your help and efforts to improve the article: Fact.
Unless I am misinterpreting you, my only recent edit to the article was to clarify the initial definition, and not to re-institute or remove any of the other wording.
I don't have any problems with the basic points you are making here, although I can see how (on an article such as this one) other editors might take dramatic steps to try to adjust the wording. My suggestion would be to start a discussion thread (if you haven't already) on the article talk page, I will take a look there as soon as I can, to see if I can be of any further help in moving the content forward and addressing the issues you mention. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: Ok. I've taken a look and I've refreshed my recollection of the points you had made in discussion already. I think this calls for more adjustments and discussion to be made on the talk page of the article, for now anyway, instead of here. Thanks for keeping me posted. dr.ef.tymac 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello and compliments on your great work on "Fact". Envy your capability of precise expression. Having had my 'stir' to get the ball rolling I'll tackle another subject; all the best to you.Geoffrey Wickham 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Geoffrey Wickham, and thanks for the comments and kind remarks. I hope you will continue to keep tabs on this article at least periodically, since it's the kind of subject that is easily neglected, and definitely benefits from the kind of recommendations that you initiated recently. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello there, User:Dreftymac. Hope you dont mind me posting here some things which would only clutter up Talk:Fact, which is cluttered enough already. I will try to keep it short.
  • When a suitable structure gets up, Law will only be short, if no person with particular expertise can contribute.
  • Material in the science section will be of a different character to that in philosophy.
  • Without a solid framework, anyone could keep adding anything anywhere.
  • I am new to WP (check my contribs if you care to) and eager to contribute minorly; wary (but not enough) of contentiousness that occurs.
  • Thought that I had more to say about the article - well, it grew, just like Topsy. Until I can get up-to-speed on proper style and procedure for addressing the referencing issue, among other, (and I unfortunately do not have private resources, though I can get to a Library), please let me know, if you would be so kind, if I am off-track with my work. (In any case only minor) on Talk:Newbyguesses. Cheers and Regards — User:Newbyguesses - Talk 20:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this in order? - "A dog barking" is not a fact. The statement that "A dog is barking", when made, is a statement whose truth value may be evaluated, within the rule-framework pertinent. (that is, if the statement is made to a Judge, it becomes a matter of Law, and if it is made to a philosopher, he may reply as: "Which dog barked, and to what issue was the dog's comment germane?") - Does this sort of reasoning, here, not on Talk:Fact help in forwarding the article? I hope so. Regards – Newbyguesses - Talk 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Newbyguesses, It is difficult to fully answer your questions because the terminology is different depending on how you approach the matter, and different people have different ways of thinking about it (this is a common problem for WP articles on "fundamental" terms and concepts in English). So far the article structure seems decent, if not perfect. I might expand the "Law" section later if time permits, but there are already other main articles that deal with the legal concepts, and those need a lot of work as well, so it's a difficult matter of balancing time and priorities.
I think your ideas for contributions sound generally reasonable, but I think the quality of the article really depends on substantiation from reliable sources, so a trip to the library is definitely a good thing. Also, it does help a lot if you can practice working with citations and formatting on a Sandbox page ... also, you may want to take a look at some of the content at WP:STYLE.
Thanks a lot for your contributions and efforts to help improve Wikipedia. All sincere efforts to help make progress are definitely welcome. Best wishes. dr.ef.tymac 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

right track[edit]

This is definately on the right track, in my mind.[1] Vassyana 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Do you know how I can convert a PNG image to SVG with Inkscape? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Anthony5429 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthony5429, all you have to do is choose
  file :: export :: PNG format
from within inkscape (your exact menu may vary). (See also inkscape help "Shift+Ctrl+ to PNG"). HTH. dr.ef.tymac 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but I think you misunderstood me. I am wondering how to convert PNG to SVG not SVG to PNG... --Anthony5429 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my apologies I was a tad distracted when I responded to you. The conversion you are after is not going to be easy (as far as I know) because you are attempting to convert a rasterized image to vector. This requires specialized software and is not always 100% accurate. See for example (
Also, you might try asking your question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing ... the Reference Desk for computing and software. The people there may have some suggestions that I haven't thought of.
My apologies again for not answering your question correctly the first time. That'll teach me to try to watch a movie while posting to my talk page! XD. dr.ef.tymac 20:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's some more Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_March_24#.png_to_.svg_help. dr.ef.tymac 20:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fast Food[edit]

I wanted to compliment your edit on Fast food I saw today. I would also like to invite you to join the WikiProject Food and Drink as you are obviously a food editor. I would love to see your mind working on other articles associated with the project. Hope to hear from you soon.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Thanks for your comments and suggestion. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 06:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful and useful diagram[edit]

Thank you for the image Image:TempEngXslt015.svg. It's beautiful, and helpful in explaining the concept. And it's SVG! It exemplifies good design. 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Law of Attraction[edit]

I've just read your reply to this, and enjoyed it so much that I decided to walk into your house. You clearly have great magnetic powers! Clio the Muse 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! Clio! What a delight to see you. If I had known you were in the neighborhood, I would have at least tidied up a bit and prepared a sumptuous feast. Perhaps my honored guest will accept some donated Kidney beans? :) dr.ef.tymac 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind the mess-just let me at those kidneys! Do you, by chance, have a nice chianti? Clio the Muse 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Language technology[edit]

I agree, and have upgraded your tag to AFD. It's one of a similar batch, and there are COI issues. Gordonofcartoon 15:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Redrafting of "A simple formulation"[edit]

I've moved this to the talk page, so we can polish the wording and get feedback before putting it on the policy page. I hope this is OK. Tim Vickers 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its fine. dr.ef.tymac 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit/merge resolution request[edit]

Hello, I'm a newbie here so thought I would ask for your tried an true advice. I've just recently authored an article Orca (Jaws boat) and unfortunately have had several objections made hereto, including a proposed merger with parent article Jaws (film). I've made every possible point in reference as to why this article should not be merged, and having not had any tangible and substatiated arguement set forth by other editors other than an insistance that article be merged, I would like to know (in your opinion) when it would be deemed fit to remove merger suggestion header and footers from said article and parent article so that said article can exist without further objection or potential objection. Also, any help you could provide in resolving what looks to be a postential edit war and possible bias toward a newbie would be appreciated. In short I would like to see this article remain as a stand alone piece but want to do this following correct Wikipedia procedure for which I still have a learning curve. Thanks in advance Fred-stine 11:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred-stine, please take a look at the discussion page for Orca (Jaws boat). I will leave some comments there that may be of some help. It's definitely a benefit when contributors make an effort to discuss and resolve matters productively. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add a reason for citations missing[edit]

On Talk:Plain text. Said: Rursus 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do. (comment left Talk:Plain_text#Citations.3F) dr.ef.tymac 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


I started to draft an article on Patent Ambiguity, and wanted to link it to Ambiguity, but I guess my efforts were not helpful. Do you think that an article on Patent Ambiguity would be useful? Bearian 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The support for a separate article or section on this concept would seem to be slim, at least as far as I can see. I am not familiar with any (common law) jurisdiction in which this concept is sufficiently prominent to warrant independent treatment. Also, for general audience readers, those who are not lawyers or law students, the concept is very likely to be confused with intellectual property, which is an entirely separate area as I am sure you know.
It's possible that it could be useful, but it would definitely require thorough substantiation, preferably from a treatise or one or more journal articles. dr.ef.tymac 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V opinion request[edit]

Hi there, do you have an opinion on which of these formulations of a paragraph in this policy is preferable? Tim Vickers 23:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I left a comment on the talk page. It's an uphill journey to take on this kind of issue, hats off to you for your efforts in this area. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 02:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I've tried a slight rewording to deal with this concern, what do you think? Link. All the best Tim Vickers 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering this is a critical and central aspect of WP policy, the rewording seems like a good balance between the different "sides" we have to consider here. Seems appropriate to me anyway. dr.ef.tymac 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental problem[edit]

Well said. /Blaxthos 03:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced[edit]

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I appreciate it is hard to judge what will be contentious and what will not be contentious, but when it comes to policy pages it is generally best to discuss and build a consensus on the talk page before making changes. Not only that, but if the changes are reverted, then it becomes clearer that the changes are disputed and that a consensus will need to be demonstrated and that an agreement will be needed before amending the policy. Please don't edit war on our policy pages. Our policy pages really shouldn't be protected, especially not for long periods of time, it can prove disruptive to the project and that's not good. Yes, it can be annoying that the policy doesn't read to your satisfaction at a particular instance, but your actions will last longer and be less disruptive if you discuss and build a consensus, or come to some sort of an agreement first. Given the recent history of Wikipedia:Verifiability I am of the opinion that rather than protecting the page it is now time to consider issuing blocks to prevent our policy pages being disrupted in this manner. If established users cannot get their heads together and settle disagreements amicably on these cornerstones of the project, what example does that set the rest of our users. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and if that means a page exists in the wrong version for an hour or a day, so be it. Where this impacts upon the wider encyclopedia, for example where someone amends policy forcibly to prove points in an ongoing debate, then the appropriate action is to raise the matter at the admin's noticeboard to seek a neutral consensus on the issue. Please consider this a friendly pointer; we're all working towards the same goal. Happy editing and good luck with the discussion. Steve block Talk 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for taking the message in the spirit it was intended. My intention was not to go into too detailed a reading of the page history but rather politely remind contributors of practises they may perhaps have forgotten. It seems that all participants were well aware of the practises and that therefore my message did not apply and was perhaps at worst somewhat misunderstood to the point of causing offence. If this was the case with your good self, please accept my unreserved apology. However, given the recent history of the page in question I felt it an effort worth trying. Good day, best regards to you, and best wishes in your ongoing participation with Wikipedia as well. Steve block Talk 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Comment (computer programming)[edit]

The article Comment (computer programming) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold.Symbol wait.svg It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Comment (computer programming) for things needed to be addressed. Giggy UCP 03:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg - Article passed! Giggy UCP 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Splendid. Thanks for the review and many helpful remarks. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 04:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Ever since I read Sluzzelin's words this morning I have been feeling really guilty; I now feel even worse after reading your gracious response. I simply thought you wanted an objective analysis of the credibility of a passage of text, something you considered to be a problem. I did not realise that you were the author! I now feel so ashamed; I would not willingly hurt or offend you for anything. I can be blunt and direct in criticism, and am fairly relentless in my academic life. But the shark has the heart of a bunny: she hates to wound people she knows. And she feels that she 'knows' you; she certainly has respect for your thoughtful contributions on the Humanities Desk on matters of which she knows nothing. Please forgive me for being so woundingly blunt. Love and peace from Anastasia and from Clio the Muse 23:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! Please don't stress it :) Your objectivity is welcome. Your generosity and tireless participation are more than commendable. Your terrifying jaws are but a gleaming reticulated array of cataclysmic beauty. Surely there was and is no need for an apology. Indeed, your direct answer was entirely appropriate -- in this instance, even ridicule was appropriate :). Any seafaring soul who does not remember, honor and respect the swift and unrelenting among the unseen depths shall surely not remain for long!
Besides, sharks get their own theme music! What's not to love about that? ... With gratitude, dr.ef.tymac 02:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Boomerangued back to the inductor of this string of regrets. Now I sense guilt - I didn't wish to make anyone feel bad, just thought it was worth another shot to get some referenced input for the article. My edit-summarized "Come on!" was directed at least as much at the dr. whom I didn't wish to see giving up on history. Interestingly, the German word for food booth, de:Imbissstand, interlinks to Take-out. I wikilinked them respectively in one improvable way or another. Apologies to Clio, and best wishes to both! ---Sluzzelin talk 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for cleaning up Folksonomy definition. Dkrukovsky 12:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for leaving your comment. dr.ef.tymac 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm looking at WP:NPOV where you have recently tagged a paragraph as needing copy editing [2]. Can you give an idea what copy editing you have in mind, or what it's to address, and I'll have a look at it further? Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit rather than try to recapitulate what my thoughts were at the time. Hopefully the basic rationale is apparent: try to make the text a bit more direct and accessible to potentially unfamiliar readers. Feel free to add/modify/delete/fold/mutilate whatever you wish if you feel the edit requires additional attention. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia articles[edit]

Note: Other Wikipedia articles may not be used as sources needs to somewhere, it used to be in WP:Citing sources, but was mysteriously removed and now the article is protected. Seemed to me that WP:V sources was a good place to put it, if not permanently, then at least temporarily. I've received several questions about it...and we do not want editors to start running around adding Wikipedia articles as citations for other Wikipedia articles. Incest at best... Dreadstar 18:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but the problem is serious enough to open a discussion thread, (which I have done) before just randomly inserting it back into WP:V. If there was a legitimate reason why this was removed that needs to be uncovered before we drop it back in.
As a side note, I basically agree with the point, I'm just making sure we do our Due dilligence before plopping it back in, hope you understand. dr.ef.tymac 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I opened a thread on the Wikipedia:Citing sources talk page. I looked at the history of the editor that removed it and looked at the talk page discussions at the time...doesn't appear to have been removed by consensus. Dreadstar 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the user who removed it, just popped in out of the blue on that guideline. It's a significant enought change to warrant a temporary addition to WP:V, and to tell the truth, I think it should be menetioned in both the Policy and the Guideline. Fairly significant, this prohibition is. Dreadstar 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Very strange. Glad you caught this, good job. dr.ef.tymac 19:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


That discussion has grown far too much in a few hours of sleep and work, so I'm lost out of it now. I just wanted to respond to you personally on your last comment to me. What you said the last time makes more sense. Before it just was saying "let's find all the times this occurred", which I took to mean that you were looking for justification to remove the page, by saying that "all these people have problems with it". I agree, we need something to show that there has been concern in the past, because, frankly, I get tired of the same discussion once a month.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's something to think about. It probably wouldn't work though, if only they could harness all that energy into some kind of perpetual motion machine or something. ;-P.
Anyway, thanks for your original reply and the added feedback. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 06:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably wouldn't because people will see it and most likely just say "yeah, well I want to voice mine away, no matter how redundant". Which is there right, I guess. Thanks for clarifying what you were talking about, or at least providing a separate idea of what it could be used for. Sorry for the delay, didn't think about you replying to your own page. Anyway, happy editing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability case specifics[edit]

Note: please see User:Dreftymac/Docs/ArticleDebates001, if you are looking for the content that was moved here. The content has been moved again to the documents section, in order to preserve space. dr.ef.tymac 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

I answered your question, just 9 minutes after your neutral !vote :) sorry for not having replied earlier. Melsaran 17:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for you to apologize, no harm done. Thanks for answering the question, and best wishes in your efforts. dr.ef.tymac 22:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

XML.svg Usage[edit]

This is to let you know that I am currently using this photo:
As an illustration on my blog ( I've indicated in the post that this is a Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution-ShareAlike licensed image and have included the text: "Image by Dr. E.F. Tymac. This image used under license. (See". If this isn't sufficient, or for other reasons you would prefer I not use the photo in this manner, please feel free contact me. --MrNonchalant 06:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for leaving a note, and best wishes with your efforts on your blog. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 19:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged revisions[edit]

Hi, I took a look at this proposal, (saw it somewhere). It looks good, and if even moderately successful will further improve WP's articles and image, AFAI-. (Now, it does only apply to mainspace, not to projectspace?) Well, wait and see how the implementation goes, I suppose. Thanks for the post of yours which alerted me to this exciting new feature. Cheers — Newbyguesses - Talk 06:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to go participate on the talk page and weigh in with your viewpoints. dr.ef.tymac 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Essay move[edit]

As discussed on the village pump last week, I'm starting to move essays to people's userspace if they haven't been edited by others (not counting typo fixes etc). Since there's a lot of pages in CAT:E, I'd appreciate some help. Other people suggested deleting some of the worse essays, or adding {{merge}} tags as appropriate; I'll leave that up to people's discretion. >Radiant< 11:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Writing as a "fan" (or "detractor")[edit]

Thanks for your note. To offer a bit of an explanation in return: From time to time I just get tired of all what I personally perceive to be cruft, and the people who produce it and their well-intentioned "enablers". But this is just a temporary crisis of faith. I'll get over it. I also know that I have a tendency to be impatient when I'm enthusiastic about an idea of mine, but experience taught me that sometimes there's more merit to people's objections than I first thought possible. Sometimes people react better to a more relaxed second-round approach. We'll see; consensus may or may not change. Regards, —AldeBaer 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your request for deleted content[edit]

Regarding your request at Deletion review, the content you seek is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger 3. It was never deleted, you just didn't have the "Wikipedia" bit in the link. Cheers!--Chaser - T 22:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Microformat[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Microformat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 2 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Semantic wiki[edit]

I am not very familiar with the difference between RDF and Semantic_MediaWiki, i guesss i don't understand rdf. The thing which seemed attractive is the relative ease at which semantic data can be incorporated into wikipedia, and how it would disrupt things too much: from :

Consider the Wikipedia article on Berlin. This article contains many links to other articles, such as "Germany," "European Union," and "United States." However, the link to "Germany" has a special meaning: it was put there since Berlin is the capital of Germany. To make this knowledge available to computer programs, one would like to "tag" the link


in the article text, identifying it as a link that describes a "capital property." With Semantic MediaWiki, this is done by putting the property name and :: in front of the link inside the brackets, thus:

[[capital of::Germany]].

In the article, this text still is displayed as a simple hyperlink to "Germany." The additional text "capital of" is the name of the property that classifies the link to Germany. As in the case of categories, the name of the property is arbitrary, but you should try to use re-use properties that already appear elsewhere. Chendy 08:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For not only taking the time to tell, but also to show. All Killer, No Filler: The Anthology and I are both the better for your kindness. :) Moonriddengirl 00:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, it can make me a little nervous when I say something should be "easy to do" ... but then I don't actually try to do it myself. Some acts of kindness can double as a "keep own foot out of mouth" insurance policy. *heh* Thanks a lot for your feedback and for ... *gasp* ... my first-ever barn-star-thingy?! I humbly bow in gratitude of this heartwarming delight. :) Regards. dr.ef.tymac 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's the least I can do. :D Making columns has been a huge burden in those articles where I've run into the need. When I saw the list of contributors to All Killer, No Filler: The Anthology, I groaned loudly enough to scare my dog. :) Mind you, I'll probably never again encounter another album with over 130 contributors, but, if I do, I'll be spared that ugly <br/> business thanks to you. :) --Moonriddengirl 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Microformat[edit]

The article Microformat you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg, see Talk:Microformat for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 04:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help[edit]

Thanks for your help on getting the example script image on the AutoIt page. I am still finding my way around the wikimedia syntax and we seem to have got there in the end :)

Brian Hunter
No problemo, thank you for adding a good image to help round out the content. Cheers! dr.ef.tymac 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Keykitlogo.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Keykitlogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Regular expression examples[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Regular expression examples, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular expression examples. Thank you.


Can you upload this pictures to "Wikimedia Commons"? I want to use this picture to the Hebrew Wikipedia. Agbad from the Hebrew Wikipedia 20:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to do it. I have else idea to the problem. Thanks! Agbad from the Hebrew Wikipedia 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)