User talk:Fabartus/Archive03

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

Wipe Page to create a clean edit window for comparision. Am about to Archive current talk here. FrankB 19:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Archives 15 March 2006 thru 29 April 2006 20:59 (UTC)
  • NEW Archive03. Old Contents now in Archive02: Consolidation held up by that funny IE6 browser edit problem in Arcs 01 and 02. (Firefox works, so can complete this housework!)


Other talk page archives:

...that's all folks!
The current time is: 16:12 (UTC) on August 23, 2017
"fabartus–at–comcast.net"
Click HERE To Bottom Post a New Section to my current talk page!


Contents

Exponentiation and Metric[edit]

Thanks for your message to me (Pol098 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)) criticising my changes (I see criticism as a good thing, this is not a complaint). I'm writing this response from memory of my changes without detailed checking; apologies for any errors.

  • Exponentiation

Regarding my deletion of the sentence in Exponentiation referring to Metric: my first reaction was that the sentence as written didn't make a lot of sense to me. While thinking of how to rewrite it, I came to the conclusion that the sentence wasn't relevant to exponentiation anyway (maybe relevant to something connected with powers of ten, but not the process of exponentiation). So I deleted it. My comment was maybe a bit tactless; I think of the text and the article, rather than remembering that it's the contribution of a fellow-human. From memory, I don't think I change my mind (maybe I would after a week?). I'm always mindful of the Wikipedia injunction to Be Bold!, and aware that any overblown changes of mine can be reverted or re-edited. In fact, I view my own contributions as always tentative, and don't mind being controversial.

If you feel that the link to the metric system is good, I won't take any further action if you choose to reintroduce it, but I do suggest the sentence be reworded. I do disagree with you (I say at this moment anyway), but in a perfectly civilised way. I do apologise if my comment was over the top.

What I'm writing here is probably a bit aggressive; I apologise, but it's due to my having had the most horrendous day in the last few decades, rather than any explicit intent. In fact, my editing was an escape from other matters that I should have been attending to.

  • Metric system

My intention here was to start the article with an explanation of what the metric system IS, which requires SI (the name of the current version) right at the beginning. The following paragraphs are supposed to introduce the basics (as a utilitarian encyclopaedia article), only then followed by hostorical comments. I don't say I got it right, but just explain my thinking. (I made a massive blooper denying the use of submultiples of the second which I will proceed to ignore.) I did actually check the index to see if there was a section explaining what the current metric system IS; I didn't find anything, so stuck all the material, some of which would have gone in the missing section, in the introduction. Thanks for your compliment about my writing style; I don't think it's that great, but I do try to be clear.

My general attitude to articles (which I've applied to many) is that the first sentence should describe the subject, and the rest of the introduction should give a bit more detail of what the subject is, with historical information, details, etc. in later sections. It's probably quite irrelevant, but one article that I thought badly in need of a change is the one on Pune: I skimmed through the whole article without being able to tell reliably if it is a city or a region. I added the word "city" to make it clear; if I'm wrong, presumably it'll be corrected (be bold). My thing with the metric system is similar: the introduction didn't, in my opinion, say what it was.

"In the future, please try to clearly indicate in the summary when you are making such a 'major reordering' and rewording." Yes, sorry.


My thinking with all the changes I've made is that I've made suggestions; others can see, judge, and edit. If my suggestions are considered to be bad enough that they should be removed, I usually don't follow up (unless I feel that there's been a serious misunderstanding; not so in this case).

Thanks again for your comments; I rely on feedback to know when I'm being too bold. In this case, at the moment at least, I think I still stand by the general spirit of what I did, but have no objection to it being edited.

I should probably have waited until I'm in a better frame of mind, but wanted to get this answer done ASAP.

Best wishes, Pol098 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure No Problem. I try to imagine myself as a 9-10 year old when evaluating the opening sentence or two. If the new arrangement meets that lack of experience, then my consciencious is clear, and so should yours be. I'd like something related to the naturalness of the metric system and the powers of ten, but I'm not going to revert anyone over such pettiness. Give it some thought, I'll leave it in your obviously caring hands. I added a post to one of those two talks, and did in fact, fail to get back to revert and re-revert to draw attention to the sudden change in the lead para, so you ought to look at that as there was more. Best wishes, FrankB 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello again! I've made a few changes to the metric system (and to systems of measurement). I'm not sure if, from your viewpoint, they're an improvement or a worsening. The discussion is probably of general interest, and maybe any further discussion should go in Talk for the article? BTW, I'm not in a position to help with 1632 series, sorry

Best wishes, Pol098 15:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Systems of measure and your message to me "You ruined my whole days plans!. See what you think.": Seems fine. The article was badly in need of a definition of what it was about, which I drafted; I see it's been picked up and worked on, which can only help. My first sentence, "A system of measurement is a set of units..." could be worked on; it's not just a set of units, but has rules and other things. I think my text was criticised as POV for dismissing the older sets; nothing wrong with them, but they weren't systems of measurement (there was no real need for a true system), The current systems (even fps) are clearly superior for modern requirements (and would have been superior if used in older times). But, in the final analysis, the article actually says what a system of measurement is. Good work, sorry about ruining your day, though! Maybe I'll go and annoy the people in "spiritual plane" now. Best wishes, Pol098 07:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam[edit]

Hi Fabartus. I have to admit to not knowing what you're talking about. I have made four edits to the eBook article - I have removed links to two different bookshops, and a product review page - twice. Since you mentioned constant edits, I presume you're talking about the product review article, which is plastered in (in my view) an objectionable amount of advertising, and contains content which could easily fit into the encyclopaedia. My motivation would have been this string of edits, and the guidelines at WP:EL. Perhaps you could clarify your message in light of me not being a bot. Thanks. -- Linkspamremover 20:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what you have done. You appear to have a much greater interest in this subject than me, and I'm sure your edits were in good faith. My main concern is to stop Wikipedia being abused by spammers, and that clearly doesn't apply to you. I'm a little concerned about the links which appear to link straight to books for sale, but I have only had a quick look (in passing noticing something about free books), and will review the links again later after other editors have reviewed the changes, and I have had a chance to read the article and understand the context of this publisher you seem keen to mention (and I'm sure you'll say they're very important - and I'm sure they are). Right now I have other fish to fry. I'd just ask you to keep the external links to a minimum, and if you see any spam links in any articles you are editing to remove them per these guidelines. I suggest if you want feedback on the article you post something on the article's talk page. rgds. -- Linkspamremover 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Page Move RfH Gone Awry[edit]

Helpme[edit]

Need a spelling/Type Move of eMagazines to eMagazine (singular, no redirect) to fix multiple redlinks in several articles. Mel Etitis seems to have forgot and gone to bed! :( Please erase the Section Title to the end when done! Thanks. FrankB 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

First Response[edit]

I've added a redirect from eMagazine based on the one from eMagazines. I hope this can help. Valentinian (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Second Response[edit]

I removed the {{Helpme}} template since your concerns seem to have already been addressed. Feel free to add it again if you still need help. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 00:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Follow up Query when Getting Unexpected Outcome[edit]

Thanks for responding. Am I wrong, or correct in thinking I need an Admin to affect a move. (My helper did what I could've done, N'est pas? So I guess I needed someone to also read all the words!) See: User talk:Valentinian. Sheesh! Thanks for responding too. FrankB 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Query Answer[edit]

Most registered users have the ability to move pages to nonexisting titles and to some redirect pages. Only admins can move pages to existing titles because they have the ability to delete the target page and/or merge page histories, as necessary. I'm not sure I understand what the problem was with regard to the eMagazine pages, since they redirect to Online magazine. In any case, if you need any help with complicated page moves in the future, you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves. --TantalumTelluride 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This generated the follow-up query: User talk:TantalumTelluride#Brush_Fire_Answer, the title refers somewhat to the tone of the following. (Ok, I was ans still am miffed, this should have been a simple event.) FrankB

Interjection of Over-Reaction[edit]

Fabartus, have you ever considered the even remote possibility that other editors might not agree with you, and that you could be wrong? I added a redirect because eMagazine and eZine are merely slang terms, and I consider "online magazine" to be more accurate. Hence, I chose not to move the page, particularly since the page was listed as a candidate for merging. The correct procedure, if you insist on moving it - it should be listed at WP:RM. If other editors agree with you, it will be moved. If not, it will stay.
And stop labelling people who disagree with you as "idiots" or illiterates. My IQ is around 140 just for the record, and you've violated WP:NPA. Valentinian (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Document Answer, Shortform[edit]

re: 'idiot' (Also emailed) My phrase was something like any idiot editor could have made that change... and was followed with a like myself, that makes me the object, a POV, I can live with. I didn't ask you to delete the version I wanted moved when you instead just created a second redirect as I didn't want to appear ungrateful for your attempt to help, for I am. So we didn't connect in communication exactly perfectly-- that must happen ten times a WikiWeek with all sorts of people. Deal with it.

How does that call YOU anything? More to the point, I was trying not to rain on your parade, as I was grateful that you had at least tried to help. I'd thought I'd left a clear request.

You responded, and did not read the key words MOVE, No Redirect (meaning discard the title being moved from), and ignored the sense that I just wanted compliance with the various guidelines requiring the singular over the plural of article names.

In fact, I made the initial mistake, so I'm clearly the idiot, or just human. The fact that the whole problem was that I clicked the one or two 'Trial' links which erroneously had imbedded the plural 's' instead of one of the more commonly used eMagazines form in a batch of newly composed text was not by choice, but an oversight. I frequently compose text with multiple forms of the same likely topic I'm trying to tie into. In this case, the proper article could have been one of two, that may in fact merge, and neither name is particularly formal and as informative to the casual reader as the redirect I then decided was justified... unfortunately created in the plural variant.

The whole request was to overcome the oversight. I'd asked Mel Etitis to make the move over the weekend by email, and frankly, he apparently never picked up that ball.

I'm sorry you got your feathers all ruffled. I was abusing myself, not you. I'm not going to pretend I was happy you did the simple fix, and neither should you be, but neither should you be so touchy. The context was and is clear about me that made the mess in the first place.

Have a good day. And try not to take things so personally. FrankB 15:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See Also User_talk:Valentinian#Venstre and User talk:TantalumTelluride#Tempest_over_Nada for related tidbits.
And let's hope that the end of this! FrankB 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response on my talk page. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My response Posts above and below this link FrankB

Once again, please see my response here. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Collision[edit]

Let's see if I get this right. You are User:Fabartus, but use FrankB as your signature and now someone signed up the account FrankB. The easiest solution would be for you to change your signature so no edits need to be reassigned. If you really don't want to do that, you'd have to find a developer to reassign Frank's edits to a new account (assuming he's got the younger account). - Mgm|(talk) 12:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, if you explain you used the name first, and help him find a developer, it's quite possible he's willing to change his name. Reassigning edits requires database access, something only developers have. Until edits are reassigned, he could redirect his old userpages to the new ones to keep things linked smoothly.
Apologies for the late answer. - Mgm|(talk) 12:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User Page Update[edit]

Hello, thanks for your note on my talk page. Is this what you were inviting me to do? Thanks, Johntex\talk 15:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Much obliged. Johntex\talk 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Answered 'yes' on his talk FrankB

1634: The Ram Rebellion quote[edit]

I wouldn't keep it - it may be with permission, but it's not GFDL. You can pick some smaller chunks of it to keep, and paraphrase/summarize the rest. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the problem is that we invite others to copy what's on Wikipedia because Wikipedia as a whole is under a free document license. However, we have no authority to release copyrighted material under such a license, so we violate the copyright holder's rights if we permit or encourage copying of material that is not released under such a license. It depends on the kind of permission we have received - has the author released the material into the public domain? (you can respond here, I'm watching). BD2412 T 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry I was fixing up the transfered location ... not to mention another edit open and dinner waiting.
I asked him if we could use the quote as we occasionally corespond, by sending him the link after putting it together. I can send you the emails, but I didn't mention the GFDL as I don't think it's suitable for long term use. It was a time saver for me trying to get something up. The prior book is still not covered, for example, and the first best seller (but 2nd Novel) 1633 (novel) is another stopgap far from satisfying.
I'd cc'd Mel Etitis when contacting Eric and forwarded the reply as well. As I understand it, there is some controversy as to whether an author can ever release his copyrights legally, N'est pas? The whole matter will vanish fairly soon.
If it helps, the book is currently open sourced for the first chapters on Baen's, which is how I snagged it. Print publication is next month. See 1632 series for a links in general, but Click this then click the book (or button) and you'll see the Book on line. (You have to back up into the forward). I'm going to go eat before I need you to handle my divorce.

If you email me direct I'll send you the emails.FrankB 02:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The contract for print publication may circumvent the author from releasing rights to the work under any kind of license, but the segment you quoted is prefatory, not part of the creative work. I'd still say chop it down to what would clearly be fair use, just to avoid and controversy. Cheers again! BD2412 T 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, Jim Baen would be cheering this all the way. Free Publicity is all good, and if you view the add-edit I made a few days back eBook#Marching_to_Another_Drums I documented the Baen experience, which is that book sales go up, even when they give things away. Eric himself, as the Baen 'First Librarian' is the source for some of that, various forwards, afterwords, others. I'll take another look to see if it's easy chopping up, but only as I'm both grateful and polite! Since it's currently open to all, and they aren't going to complain,... shrug. I've already got the article ont the talk:1632 series TO-DO list

Veterinarian/Veterinary Surgeon stuff[edit]

Hi Really appreciate your thoughtful and encouraging welcome message. As a newbie, I need all the help I can get. I am not certain whence came the merger proposal - that was not mine. I did make a comment that I had no objection, so long as the sense remained, but I favour a separate page (as is). I don't know where that comment has disappeared to now!

Renaming was a 'cheat'; I just started a new page.

Your brain has moved too fast for mine, with all your suggestions and helpful links - I'll try to let it sink in but, meanwhile, would appreciate help in understanding the benefits of all that stuff. Look forward to further communication ... Ballista 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ref desk/Misc.[edit]

I've responded on my talk page. Dismas|(talk) 23:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)This is a test of imaginary section #99 post

Answer(s) thread SECT: Re_Ref_desk/Misc. FrankB

List of bureaucrats[edit]

I'm not on the list because I resigned. The stress associated was getting stupid. -- Francs2000 15:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • What a quick turn around, then and here now! Best wishes. FrankB 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Things in Atlas Shrugged[edit]

What's the issue? Talk:Things in Atlas Shrugged has it right where it's supposed to be. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you'll have to be clearer. The talk page has a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Things in Atlas Shrugged, so what is the problem you were initially referring to? Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry - I'd totally missed it completely— probably trying to get back to my edit priorities. Just now waking up (only 2nd cup steaming beside me), so didn't 'comprehend your first' setting me straight. I annoted the talk in the section as I would have expected to see it. Have a great day, and sorry for jarring you with old biz! FrankB 16:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Category changing 1632 Series[edit]

Sorry if I got up your nose Frank.

My take on the discussion re Categories on the 1632 series is that the comments were more about the best form for the name, rather than agreeing with your practise of applying multiple categories. I don't quite see what you are trying to acheive by the shotgun approach. If all the articles have the same multiple categories, all that you succeed is to increase the number of internal links int the WK database. If there are subtle differences in the categories, such that they do NOT apply to all articles, the names should distinguish this more.

If the intent is to encourage more people to find out about the books by browsing categories, (good move, I just started reading 1632 as a result of this exercise), then having a series of categories all starting "1632" will simply create a block of similarly title items in a list.

As you obviously feel so possesive of these articles and categories, I will leave these alone and offer my apologies for interfering

As to only having a few edits to my ?Credit, We all have to start somewhere. Most of these changes are adding obvious categories to article in the Category:Category needed Regards --Yendor1958 10:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • My point to you was that Categories are advanced materials, and if you are somehow deleting them, you are most certainly doing so outside of policy on proper procedures.
The secondary point is the shorter name you are elimination is the one more suitable to the population of editors that weighed in on the matter in talk:1632 series; I can live with any of the three, but agree that the long one is least aethetically pleasing, though best specific name (it's not what I'd asked for from the admin I'd had move it from the old name either.
I had hoped once some more editors were drawn to the project, we could have a rehash of the topic and pick on one of the altertatives with a binding vote, and then kill off the extras.

Keeping all was never in my thoughts.FrankB

    • I seem to have preempted you, I was just trying to tidy things up. Sometimes when you see something that looks wrong, the answer is to just get on with fixing it. I'm the sort of guy who picks up other people's litter (garbage) in the street. Perhaps the answer would be for you to use the {{cfm|other category}} process to formalise the voting/discussion process.
There is clearly plenty of work in this project for you, so I will stop complicating things. Good luck and best wishes --Yendor1958 09:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Polio (poliomyelitis)[edit]

Well, yes, but "polio" was the second word of the article. Do you think just emboldening that as well as Poliomyelitis would do as well as prefixing an explanatory note does? Midgley 14:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

Hi Frank! Nice to hear from you. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keeping up with the policies[edit]

If you find out exactly how to do that let me know because I've been wondering that for a while. -- Francs2000 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I've had an idea- I'll let you know if it pans out. Can't help on the changes on pages watched side of it, but my idea should allow one to keep track of what he/she hasn't browsed. FrankB 04:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

I'm a bit unclear what you'r after, I'm afraid (but you seem to have posted a message about categories to the stub-sorting Talk page...). All Category pages have their parent categories (and they often have more than one) in the usual place, at the bottom. Have I misunderstood what you wanted? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

To Mel, and the Several Others I bothered on this brainstorm (Ahem!)

  1. Thanks -- see 'Egg on Face amendment.
  2. I apparently was missing the trees while seeing the forest. Since I'm usually in article space looking for the proper category--aside from the one's I'd created in the 1632 series-- I apparently never paged down far enough to see the mother category at the page's bottoms, or if I did see, didn't realize it's mother relationship — still thinking in 'article think' I surmise, though now in category space — so the uplink's were news to me learned in the post below.
  3. OTOH, I'd also run across a number of CATs with well documented Main Articles, or perhaps several listed on the Category. Thus fumbling for a proper category lead to the link, talk comment, and request for advice to all five of you.
  4. Again, thankyou for your time. On suggested new skin: 'Cologneblue'

I'll have to test it out. FrankB 05:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. I'm glad that that's sorted out.
  2. Looking at the link from your most recent message, I couldn't see what the "cut and paste" line was for, though.
  3. I'm afraid that I have to join with those below who suggest that you owe Katefan0 an apology — what was going on there?
    Ah, I see that you have apologised. Great. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Hi Fabartus. My first hunch is that your proposal relates more to the administration of categories than to stub sorting. Regarding stub categories, I use WP:WSS/ST to track the relationship between stub categories. Whenever I wish to see what a "normal" category is related to, I simply check the bottom of the category's page. All parent categories are listed there. I agree about the need to make (new) users more aware this information exists, but I'm afraid people will mess up the proposed system immediately. In other words, I fear users will simply add and remove categories the way they use to, without updating any information listed elsewhere on the page. I like the idea about supplying the category page with a headline something like "Main article: xyz", and I add those whenever I feel it is relevant. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. And no, I don't hold any grudges. As I see it, we simply misunderstood each other, so no hard feelings from me. :) Best regards. Valentinian (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I had a feeling you were talking about a newer edit :) I can see your idea behind the proposed system; the layout seems to be pretty fixed and is easy to understand. As I see it, the main problem would still be keeping the information updated, that one keeps nagging me. Regarding stub categories, I think it is better to stay with the WP:WSS/ST system for now. We're having enough troubles keeping the stub sorting business operating smoothly, and I'd like avoiding more work whenever WP:WSS does massive renames and the like - I expect a number of major renames to follow in the near future (e.g. the matter regarding abbreviations in stub categories) as we're trying to standardise the names of templates and categories. In the stub categories, the most important information is not the parent(s) but the children of a category, since parent categories often get very full. I added a list to Category:Politician stubs when I sorted that one, in order to keep it under some kind of control.
An editor recently suggested a new list of selected stub categories, as a companion to WP:WSS/ST, and that proposal fell on rather stony ground due to the problem of maintaining it (WP:WSS has many contributors, but much of the work is done by few people, and I think they have pretty much on their plate already). Your idea is relevant regarding ordinary categories, but I don't know if they're monitored in any similar way, like we do the stub categories. A WP:CFD page exists, so somebody must be maintaining them, and the frequent editors to that page must be able to provide you with more information. I think you should present your idea to them. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Valentinian[edit]

  • I'm a little lost with some of the esoterically fine points you're making on the Stub Sorting Project. Mostly it seems we have too many kinds, but I can see why autocategorizing things properly would be of use. Give me some feedback on whether Personal Computer Industry is clueless or not in that respect. Arrrghh! (See below NEWSFLASH!!!)
  • I'd thought I'd confessed -- ahhh, I did on the original talk posting -- that I was unsure of what made me post the idea there save perhaps the traffic the project page recieves (as I infer it). I think I'm just going to make similar edits to CAT pages and see how many monkeys come out of the woodwork and aid the effort. If others find merit, they'll copy cat me, and it's not like it has any downside functional impact. My larger concern in retrospect is the poor customer being stuck with the default skins and never seeing the category keys in the first place, nor knowing their power. I may just jin up something on that for a strawpoll on the VP. FrankB 22:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • NEWSFLASH... User talk:Katefan0 (redlinked!!!) (Arrrghhghhh@!!!! Harumph! This guy has no %#$#()*)&$$%$$#)&*... No respect for others time, I guess.)
  • What's the deal-- I was just mobilizing an effort on this very new stub and you've deleted it per WHAT GUIDELINE? Can't you read text? You also thereby create a redlink in a FAC article. Please undo your negligence. FrankB 22:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Katefano incident[edit]

Personal_Computer_Industry_deletion

User:Katefan0/Talk6#Personal_Computer_Industry_deletion (Doc this thread chronologically, but belated: FrankB 18:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple replies from BlankVerse[edit]

My large talk page warning has been templetized by another editor and can be found at Template:UWAYOR if you want to use it. That version has one snarky comment removed, and is missing the last four of my additions to the warning.

re: Keeping up with Wikipedia policy: I've decided that it is impossible except for obsessive-compulsive high school students with too much time on their hands. I've put most of the policy pages that I think are important on my Watchlist, but too much still slips through the cracks. Part of the problem is that in watching pages that way you can never really tell when they are trivial changes, useless edit wars, or substantial modifications of policy.

For example, I just found that someone has made a modification to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) that doesn't match the consensus of discussions as far as I know. I know need to research to see if this was an arbitrary edit, or whether there have been some discussions in the last few months that I missed.

Another problem is that there are way too many unwritten policies on the Wikipedia. For example, try figuring out the Wikipedia policy for naming and organizing categories. Another unwritten 'policy' that I was bitten by is that there is a very small group of people who regularly edit the US soccer team articles, and they decided among themselves without any advertising of the discussion or any documentation during or after, that every US soccer player who has US citizenship should no longer have any diacritics in their names.

re: Template:Unreferenced: This is just one of numerous templates that should be considered for-editors-only. They should be at the bottom of the article or (my preference) on the talk page only. If it is used on the article's main page, it should be a version without the box. One problem is that this template could probably added to 90% of the articles on the Wikipedia. What I use instead is the very targeted {{Citation needed}} when I see a possibly spurious statement.

The other day I had to go looking through some of the subpages under Wikipedia:Template messages because I couldn't remember the name of a template. I was surprised (but shouldn't have been) at the proliferation of templates. The entire namespace needs a drastic weed-whacking, but I have neither the time or the desire to do it myself. If someone else started the effort, I'd still probably help some. BlankVerse 22:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:What Do you Advise on this?[edit]

Please see my response. I'm sorry it's a little late. --TantalumTelluride 03:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Category tip[edit]

Just wanted to mention that if you go to the preferences page (when logged in) and then the "skin" tab and switch to "classic" skin, the category links will appear on the top of the page instead of the bottom. Other things are moved around and colors are a bit different and so on though so it might take a little getting used to, but if you prefeer the categorist listed on top of the page it's one option. --Sherool (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your very kind message[edit]

Looked like a test article to me -- certainly not encyclopedic content. If you don't want to see a redlink off a potential FAC article, then remove the bracketing. Feel free to re-create the article, as long as it's substantially different than the old one, which was nothing more than a notice that the article would eventually be created. For articles that will eventually be created, it's best to work in a sandbox article in your userspace (i.e. User:Fabartus/Sandbox, then move it to the main space when it's ready. Not before. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to recreate the article with a real article, not a link to something in your userspace (or if you want to make it a redirect to something else, that's fine too). If you feel I've been naughty then take it to WP:AN/I, otherwise please stop making empty threats. Either create a proper article, or don't. Simple, and entirely in your hands. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that you created the article in good faith; regardless, the essential problem is that it was an article with no content save a link to your sandbox. Why is this a problem? Becuase it's not complete -- if a person hits the random article button and sees nothing more than a link to your sandbox article, it's potentially confusing to very new users, and could make Wikipedia look unprofessional. So it's better to not create articles in the namespace until they're "ready for prime time," so to speak. I'm genuinely sorry if my deletion seemed harsh, but I acted in what I thought was Wikipedia's best interest. There's really no need for this level of vitriol, and I hope you'll reconsider the tenor of your comments. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If I seem vitrolic, you might see the normal tenor of my remarks to others, and take the hint as to how far out of line your bias towards out of hand deletionism is. Now stop bugging me, I'm trying to add to the project, as you should be doing, and I have no time for a lightweight like yourself. btw- the thread is on your page. Obviously 12,000 alledged edits hasn't taught you to read and comprehend much of anything. Just say 'See answer on mine if it's a rush. Otherwise, I'll check, though your attitude hardly seems to make that worth my time. FrankB 03:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
All righty then. Have a great night. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Frank, wow, please review NPA and CIV. The stub really wasn't appropriate for the main namespace and someone put a speedy delete tag on it, so Katefan0 did as it asked. I think you owe her an apology. It didn't take you long to create it (yes, I take your point about being a volunteer, but even so, and we all are), and it won't take you long to create a proper stub. Heck, I'll create one for you if it'll help to sort things out. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Kate is completely in the right here, Frank. We do not do "to be continued later" articles. Either write the article and put it up or don't. Do we have a "law" on it? Yep, we do. Articles should not consist of just links and that's exactly what your article consisted of. As for your continued complaints about Kate's lack of "contribution". First of all, it's utter nonsense. Kate has created several articles and she has also been the chief editor at Katharine Hepburn and other articles. Secondly, kate is an admin, which means that one she is expected to do such things as...delete articles that shouldn't be here, revert vandalism, enforce Wikipedia policy. Etc. Kate is one of our best admins and one of our most respected users. And you are about the 501st user to misunderstand "deletionist". Kate has done about 500 deletions in the last 6 months. That is actually low compared to alot of admins. "Deletionist" does not mean that she believes in reckless deletion. It means that she believes that we have standards and that if they aren't followed, then the article in question probably shouldn't be here. Your article would've been deleted by every admin I know...even by inclusionists. We just simply do not do a "watch here for an article coming soon" type articles. So either post the real article or go and work on it and then post it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I am also building the encyclopedia. Without users like SlimVirgin, kate and I, you'd have one hell of a hard time doing what you do, trust me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your remark to me[edit]

I have to say, I thought your remark to me at Wikipedia:Archives as sources was uncalled for: I have not met you, and don't feel I merit such treatment. You and I clearly agree on the fact that the proposed rule is dangerous--I suspect we have similar reasons for doing so, even if I was less clear and eloquent in expressing myself than you or others. I can't imagine why you felt you needed to criticize me personally and openly. I do my best to be kind and considerate of others around here, and while I don't always succeed, I certainly feel I've established a good track record. I'd like to think that I merit some kind of kindness in return for three years of service as an administrator and a well-meaning (if less-than-ideal) editor. If you want to talk about the proposed rule with me on my talk page or yours, I'd happily do so. I'd suggest to you that, in the future, this might be a more productive way of raising a question with another editor, rather than making an assumption about my knowledge and position and attacking me for it publically. Even if you are correct, both in assessing my rationale for opposing the rule and in feeling that my position is incorrect, you will be far more successful in winning me over by acting as my colleague, not my foe. Best regards, Jwrosenzweig 06:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You left a note asking me to look here for a comment from you...yet it doesn't appear one was left. I'm more than happy to talk with you, and hope you're willing to do so. Should we do so here, or am I missing a comment you've left in another place, perhaps? Jwrosenzweig 06:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Confessing a goof[edit]

  • Me eloquent! You make me blush, sir! Thanks.
  • I made a 'late night' careless mistake — I apparently missed the guy sandwiched in between us and cut out and pasted your name instead of his (presumably his was wrapping around) in the hurly burly of the edit screen. You are certainly correct in getting back to me on this!!! I'd be fuming mad, and it's to your credit your note above is so professionally written. Kudos.

Remedial Action[edit]

  • I've crossed your name out and replaced it with his, so my sincere humble apologies. As a matter of fact, I thought your comments quite good. It was his insensitivity that I thought needed chiding. I thought the 'plaintiffs problem' was a tough one-- their only sources were archival, and his comment seemed ignorant of that underlying issue. Apologies, best regards: FrankB 06:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, I'd suggest you take both these posts and put them on your page to possibly mitigate anyone that saw the original erroneous form. Do I take it correctly that you are Polish or Chezch? I am too. Granddaddy's name got chopped and mangled coming through staten Island. Looked now at your user page.

Ah- Common Ground![edit]

Please take a look at the 1632 series where I am undermanned. 1634: The Ram Rebellion is the current best discription of the general body of work. 1632 series is in the body and fender shop somewhere on my user subpages, and that 'advert' version has been fixed up w/o a final edit to some interior sections, Found it!.

See if this intrigues you, the 1632 (novel) article is another rough gem, that needs a good tone and copy edit. That would be a help, as you know the historical background fairly well from you user page! What serendipity! This series fascinates me, as you'll quickly see. Best regards, FrankB (I'm at 3:00 am, so off to bed) G'night. Hope that fix is enough. FrankB 06:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice and Advice[edit]

Well, then, apology accepted. :-) If you'll take some friendly advice, I'd still suggest taking it a bit easier on tone (I agree that the fellow you were criticizing was missing the point, but I think the phrasing made your disagreement seem too forceful), but that's no longer a matter for me to pursue out of personal grievance. Thanks for telling me I handled it well -- I try hard not to get bent out of shape here, especially as it seems to me that most of the things that upset me, like this situation, turn out to be simple misunderstandings or miscommunication.
Alas, among the many nationalities I can claim a piece of, neither Poland nor the Czech Republic are among them -- Rosenzweig is a German name meaning "Rose-branch". I'm unfamiliar with the 1632 series, and am currently only an occasional editor (when on break from teaching in the summer I have much more time to devote), but I'll give it a look when I can, and if I can be of service, I'll gladly provide it. If there are specific tasks (proofing a section, for example, or tracking down a particular detail), I tend to be better at that during the school year, as I often have only half an hour or so on those occasions when I can log in here. Post any such requests to my talk and I'll do what I can on them. Thanks, and my best to you: Jwrosenzweig 07:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick message[edit]

I apologize for the short length of this message as I am running short on time this afternoon but just wanted to thank you for your messages; no hard feelings on this end and I hope you feel the same. Have a great weekend, best · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Baby boomer[edit]

Are you still working on Baby boomer? If not, can you remove the "under construction" sign? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer-I really don't know[edit]

Cross posted from user talk:RoySmith:

re: Your query on 'Underconstruction' on Baby Boomer (s?) I've been trying to get back there all week just to check around as I'd a stack of edits crash on me with the new browser (Firefox) when I hit some errant HotKey combo that closed it down abruptly. That's no way to end an All-nighter edit session, but I was so disgusted and weary I needed to get some sack time. (Apologies on the Template, I'd forgotten using it. It gives me hope though that I was about done.) I was ticked.

In the iterim, this (article) matter below came up, and I had significant pressure to move it right along, thus the attempt to get other input as follows. I will make a point of visiting the boomer articles to see what I find and reconstruct what needs reconstructed--this evening, even next after deal with one other thing needing less examination, call it three hours tops-- I promise. I'll take the template out now, however. This looks unpromising! and Looks more promising, but browser or memory problem now!... trying to bounce me into my home page! D#%$#!!! So go ahead and remove, I'd better not try now. Anyone can edit under it and someone removed the temp header. I need to finish and close some stuff!

  • Sorry I can't be more precise, but there were about two solid hours of editing involved, and I can't be sure what I saved and what is unsettled. The last thing I did there 'For sure' was sort out redirects in Baby boom (redirect page) to Baby Boom (film) and Baby '''B'''oom, and am certain that at least was at least 95% checked.

Apologies for inadequate answer. I'm about done spamming any way, so one stop and I'll clean it up. FrankB 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Spammed to a fair number in last hour:FrankB

If I can trouble you for a little feedback[edit]

It's not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict with KIFrankB

What?????[edit]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide some sort of background. I can not discern any part of your post on my talkpage! Who are you??? KI 20:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Help with Article Split[edit]

I think I've got it right. Please check it out. Thanks for your help!

I need to split two articles. search Andy Collins and you will see two different bios for two different listed under the same name - and they need to be split. How do I do that? Or even better, could you do that for me? Thanks. Unsigned edit: User talk: Macs417 (Help with Article Split)

Arsenal of Democracy[edit]

Actually, I found the speech quite intriguing - I had not heard about it until we met. Is the term "arsenal of democracy" specific to that speech? Is it known by that term? --HappyCamper 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • w/o researching it, I can't say for sure what it was called contemporaneously, but the reference phrase was later Stolen by the City of Detroit

for their role during WW-II, presumably as the heavy industries there were all retooled for artillery, tanks, trucks, et. al. Sorry for the delay, there are a couple of newer issues on the RFC if you have time. Just see the adds to the spec section again. FrankB 03:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation to comment on Arsenal of Democracy. I've had a quick look at it, and can't really say anything useful, sorry. I tend to contribute mostly to topics I know something about; my ignorance here is total. Best wishes, Pol098 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Scared off[edit]

Hello & thanx for message - I don't do scared! Any comments on my contribs VERY welcome. Ballista 20:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Tables[edit]

How does this table look now? Sometimes the smallest details can make a table freak out. I also put a border="1" thingy in there to make the table a little easier to read. --TantalumTelluride 21:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A word[edit]

Hey. I'd just like to say that you don't need to sign your edit summaries with four tildes , only your talk page comments (your name is stored as part of the edit and the tildes don't become your name anyway).

Also, it's probably best best not to play around with layout on highly visible pages such as Help:contents without discussing it first. You can also test your ideas in a sandbox, or better yet, use your own (User:Fabartus/Sandbox). Feel free to create User:Fabartus/Sandbox2 and so on if you'll use them.

Just some friendly advice.--HereToHelp 23:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I've been trying to avoid that all night since you posted the above, and boy is habit hard to break, LOL! FrankB 03:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone yells at FrankB[edit]

In case you don't notice it on your watchlist, I've replied on my talk page as well as at Help talk:Contents, where I have joined the angry mob in yelling at you. Just kidding. Seriously, you're a unique user, and a lot of the veteran Wikipedians tend to devalue your contributions. I have seen, though, that it's users like you who keep the encyclopedia growing. Keep up the good work, and by all means feel free to slow down a little. :-) I know, I know... you have ADD. You're probably already going as slow as you possibly can. Anyway, HereToHelp has some good advice above. Use it wisely. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 03:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal[edit]

Hi Frank! Just wanted to let you know that I replied to your message on my Talk Page and I also added some feedback to the Talk Page of the Arsenal...article. Thanks for asking to have a look at it. I hope the feedback is helpful. I am familiar with WWII but not the Fireside Chats in particular but I tried to give it a thorough look-see. Best, Mademoiselle Sabina 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

re: Need to make this sortof thing work ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabartus/ 1632series_rework&diff=1632_series

or vice versa; was modeling on (&diff=48709063&oldid=47912987) — user:fabartus/1632series_rework to 1632 series

so 'suspended edit (major) to that which is there today! Can this be done? There are about 6 mn adds since I didn't finish the edit/changes; but mine was a major workover... Both are whole articles. FrankB 13:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. I've looked at User:Fabartus/1632series rework and 1632 series, and there are many differences (the former having a lot of serious problems, I'm afraid, though so has the latter), but I can't work out what you want to do with them. Could you explain further? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply want to do a diff of the 'copy (offline)' version, incorportate equivilent updates from the current 'online' article, continue on to finish my edit from there. Yes, it still had problems, not least of which was a paragraph or two that just ended mid-sentence... so I judged time was for Zzzzz's, and resume workover later. Today 'qualifies' as later. N'est pas? I can cut in the current file and revert immediately, then take a diff, but I also want the general skill to use a comparison to a sandbox version like this for the other 6+ articles now extant in the series. It's the time, long overdue to clean these up, since no one has moved in to help with the project (in now a month).

sorry for the delay back-- had to deal with a client. FrankB 13:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
A diff is a link to the difference between two versions of the same article; is that what you want? You just go into the page history, select the two versions between which you want to see the differences, and click on the "Compare selected versions" button.

(INTERLEAVED CLARIFICATION: In this case want between the 'offline' and whatever is current article online, to ready the replacement efficaciously. We are looking at major overhauls here. All the advert, POV, and tone, plus better content overall.) FrankB

The most important aspect of the articles that needs work, I think, is the PoV; they read like fan (or even marketing) material rather than dispassionate and neutral descriptions. Some of the claims are a bit far-fetched (e.g., "1632 launches a new era in writing"), but mainly it's the tone. If I get a chance I'll pitch in and help, but as I hadn't even heard of the books before you mentioned them here, I'll be restricted to style adn presentation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • See emphasis added above and re-peruse — Generally Need to assume (schedule & life in general) I can't do in one session; so want to work offline on the 'big' changes. i.e. prepare the 'new update' and contrast & comapare (versus) what is online, so I can also incorporate the relavant changes into the drastic rework. I recollect your disproval of 'Mr Tan' in his RFC replacing wholesale pages w/o incorporating interitive changes by others. The real problem is work 'windows'. If I can get an acceptable 'article state', I'll cut it into article space, but this gives me the lee-way to do a partial edit and tend to business and life without finishing at that moment. Need that flexability as my 'holiday' post-katrina, is pretty much past. Life needs to go on while accomidating wikiP, not letting WikiP dominate, as I've done this past month.
Clear? FrankB 14:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're trying to do the same thing as a diff, but comparing two different articles? If so, I suspect that it's beyond the Wikipedia software, though there are almost certainly third-party tools that would let you do it, probably freeware or shareware. I'll have a look around. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Found a workable solution[edit]

Well the rude real world intruded longer than that half-hour! Regarding your last, is SAME ARTICLE, just different place as I was in no position to finish the edit. Perhaps I should just cut in and immediately revert, then do history compare, but a single command line would be much perferred as a general technique. Note the '&diff=current' part DID WORK FINE in the cross out above. (Examin detail in an url/address window, or edit window herein).

somewhat later...
  • After some three flavored trial and error attempts...
Never mind: Got something workable Albeit, a bit more cumbersome than the ideal which would allow 'current' text & filespec address of some sort for both referenced 'Pages'; but this works (Index#'s are apparently unique (Hash-codes or) 'KEY-CODES' per 'Computer-Science' speak and thus merely index into a unique file reference in the database architecture. Or so I have to infer, being somewhat experienced in the field. <G>

Working Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1632_series&diff=current&oldid=46056677

note '46056677' is the one and only version in the offline 'Page' file 'history'— so don't even need two versions therein, since I've yet to start finishing that saved 'suspended' edit due to the otherwise busy day off WikiP.
Note also that being a 'stubborn Polack' has it's advantages, IMHO, even when my friends fail to understand at first! <G>

Report of diff given is:

Revision as of 20:15, 29 March 2006 Fabartus (Talk | contribs)... (Genesis- Suspended mid modification. Real world is calling.) ← Older edit Current revision Mel Etitis (Talk | contribs) (→1632 Launches a new era in writing - typo & more tidying)

  • Just the two we want to see... Hmmmmmmm, gulp, oops! — I didn't realize it's been nearly three weeks! I did get absorbed in lost edits on my 'normal patrol' didn't I! Whoopsie! That's the very day I downloaded Firefox, and I Don't even want to talk about how many lost edit hours that has cost me!
  1. The only remaining (semi-cumbersome) issue thus becomes altering the code number to corespond to the most recent saved edit 'off line', and changing the code reference in the comparison URL.
  2. Not perfect, but it's workable, I'll just save the base URL comparison as a Bookmark and as a 'tab' in Firefox,
  3. and the offline history as a second tab, occasionally refreshed, and modify by the new index code so obtained in a third tab... That will work fine as I want to see it in a non-edit browser window regardless for frequent reference in the ongoing edit upgrades, including another tab to the extant target article current form... that is somewhat easier to read than the diffs!
  4. My Cost is thus just one more tabbed browser window, and the 'sense' to update the history 'code' when needed before doing a subsequent compare.
  5. I'm using the Tab capability in Firefox that way now as well--e.g. for watch list, and my talk, your talk page, etc.; and it all beats dropping out of an edit preview screen when get a 'flash banner' announcing a new talk message.
  6. All I need do instead is tab & refresh my talk and/or my talk history tabs (also in another tab) and there is no problem having two tabbed Firefox browser windows open. It's the stupid 'Hotkey typo' that abruptly closes the browser that has been giving me fits. I still don't know what key combo I inadvertantly key to close it down that way! Not a good thing for the equinamity, nor the productivity!
  7. As per my email, I edit in IE6 since Firefox won't search into the edit window using CTRL-F when looking for typos. I'm not going to get sidetracked into the wikipedia editor extensions until I can discuss them with someone that is knowledgable and experienced with same, though one hopes search capability is extended in that flavor of the browser.
  1. Therefore, once one gets the 'Key number' by navigating to history, clicking on 'current version', and it pops up in the URL window.
  2. Copy the indexed KEY CODE 'suffix', pop it into the end of the 'comparsion tab url, and violá— a new comparison of the offline to the online article!
  3. Hence, it follows that once the two versions are close enough, one just 'replace edits' the offline into the article space as desired when starting this inquiry this morning (4 Me!).

So now that we're both in the know, if you know any programmer/db type people besides Interiot, I think we should forward this with a suggestion to refine it into a general path command version as a general tool. As per the email, I think user talk:Interiot off Wiki for the whole month, but I'll leave a link on his page now regardless. I'd also like to see a command line modifier that one can tack on to easily edit section 0, since I seem to be doing a lot of upgrades to MOS standards on long articles!

Thanks! FrankB 20:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In order to keep message threads together and page clutter down...[edit]

In response to your suggestions at the top of the page: I don't do a great deal of messaging on Wiki, so maybe what I've to say is either wrong or thoroughly known. To communicate with all the dialogue in one place, not in 2 or 3 (user A, user B, an article), without emailing or dropping messages "see my Talk page" etc., someone who communicates with me has told me to post in my own Talk page, which he has put in his watchlist, presumably for a few days. This seems a good idea for an active dialogue, and the page can be delisted after a few days. Pol098 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your long answer (basically that it's not such a good idea as I thought it might possibly be) - you didn't need to take the trouble. It seemed a good idea, but it was hardly likely not to have been thought of before. Best wishes, Pol098 12:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal of Democracy[edit]

You sent me an obscure/slightly decipherable message a while back with a link to Arsenal of Democracy, which you seem to have edited heavily, at least on the talk page. Does the discussion have anything to do with whether source texts count as references for textual analysis? I was involved in a discussion regarding this on the 2006 State of the Union address. Otherwise I still have no idea what you're talking about and I'm probably not interested. Should I be? KI 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Request Move of Arsenal of Democracy[edit]

(This duplcates 1st post and title on Mel's user talk page, I guess we'll clutter my page, since his is newly archived <G>)
  • Things seem to have wound down on the ad-hoc RFC. As such, I think this ought to be moved into a user subpage of the same title, preferably Sunday if you're working wiki, sooner or later if you aren't. That should give any late arrivals time, and based on the comments, it's going to take a lot of work and development going forward. Thanks. FrankB 06:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that there are any grounds for moving the article to your User name-space; do you mean that you want to copy it there? If so, just create a suitably names page and cut-and-paste the text to it. (Why do you want to do that, though?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the resounding voice of the RFC is that the article is in general not encyclopedic enough as written, and to evolve it in line with the suggestions will take a whole lot more time than I'm going to have anytime in the near future. My wikiTime is going to be a lot more constrained going forward. Among other things spring has arrived in New England, and the yard work and construction plans around here are going to take me out of the office as much as possible for the next several months.
Moving it also follows from the acknowledgement that I should have created it in a sandbox in the first place had I thought it through and planned it from the initial thought rather than having been acting in late night 'fatigued edit' mode spurred by my ADHD.
To evolve it in any one of the directions indicated is going to require a whole series of major changes, performed incrementally over time as I nail down research elements (which also will entail at least skimming several FDR biographies—no small task there!), et. al. and having the Talk available with it seems the best course as the clear consensus seems to be that it is not ready for prime time.
I even indicated said thoughts (about moving it) when I annoted the RFC questions and concerns list early last week, and specifically asked whether it should be kept as is, or moved, and not a single party has posted a note either way. Shrug.
Is there some policy or guideline I am missing about 'withdrawing it' for such an major overhaul? I have no desire to leave it hacked up and in pieces available to the world as I work through it, as it will certainly be a back-burner trial and error process and probably almost certainly entail false starts and reworks of entire sections if the major prelimary evolution is as I percieve it, my responsibility.
As I annoted in my last bottom note therein, this will involve blowing off a lot of rust and a large learning curve for me, and the suggested evolutions 'thought-wise' are all outside my general training, which means an additional learning curve and more false starts, I imagine.
In light of that litany, what do you advise? A formal WP:Afd? I'd have thought that WP:CSD guideline under section 'Articles' criteria #3', as do perhaps also 'General Criteria' #2 and #7 — taken together would suggest this is permissible, and the best and allowable course in the necessary iterim all things considered. Agreed, the fact that some others yourself included have made some edits muddies the waters of the 'General Criteria #7', and I guess a strict interpretation of #2 doesn't strictly apply as this was a deliberate first attempt, but I don't see this as violating the spirit of such give the huge volume of work it needs.
There is no definite need for haste, either way so what do you suggest? Poll some others first? Nominate for Afd-->Move, or what? FrankB 14:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If you want to, you can work on a draft of the article in your user space, but there is no need to delete the main article in the meantime. Someone else might come along and fix the article before you get a chance to do it yourself. If anyone does edit the main article while you're working on it in your user space, be sure not to erase any valuable contributions when you finally "publish" your improved article to mainspace. --TantalumTelluride 17:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest splitting the page in two. Move the list to a subpage of your user page, and use it for a better purpose. Let the actual text stay and write a bit longer. Or perhaps tag it as a stub. In any case, I think the chronology should be moved away from the article. Keep it on a separate userpage, and find something useful to do with it. :) Regards. Valentinian (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well that writings been on the wall from before I contacted you all! <G> FrankB

OK- that's the Final word' as copied from user talk:HereToHelp

Want to move the 'Cooly recieved' proto-article into sandbox, as the feedback points out that the amount of work to evolve it in the directions suggested are going to be very time intensive, and that just won't fit my schedule in the near future... The article is pretty much a concept that 'flunked' as you can readily see in the talk. Which is why I invited input in the first place. FrankB 17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Now I've just gotten contrary suggestions from two who made a large effort to review the article, so that makes three with Mel's reaction this morning.
So you need not bother any further. I didn't and don't know that it's current form fits well but apparently it will suffice for now. Sorry for the trouble. FrankB 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all, I can live with this. FrankB 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits at Parallel universe (fiction)[edit]

While I agree that the intro to this page was begging to be rewritten you might wish to include a reference to Possible world ideas as they are more pertinent to this topic than Many Worlds Theory.

Just a thought. --DV8 2XL 19:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Prior answer see: User talk:DV8 2XL, err- User_talk:DV8_2XL/archives#I_have_to_quit_out_Now
  • The idea has merit and requires study by me, so it'll be delayed. I'll take it under advisement, and eventually do this if you don't first. Another is actively nursing that article though. Mine were 'glue' contribs. FrankB 17:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply on "Customary measurement systems"[edit]

Hi,

I think its my fault. You acknowledged this even before and I didn't acknowledge your response considering the case to be closed and well explained. Anyway my apologies for the same. I have received adequate response from you. Thanks. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

S'all right- I saw this in the talk when I went to cross post the one now reverted. I do need to pay more attention to my watch list, but had a couple of awful lost 'stacks of edits' with a new browser that closed on me scrapping everything during the interval. Live and learn! Best! FrankB 16:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to your question on Customary measurement systems in my Talk Page. - Centrx 17:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Breitenfeld (1631)[edit]

Frank, I am becoming a buttinsky I know, but the maps were already in WP, and it seems a shame not to use them.--Yendor1958 15:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I wouldn't say that about you ever!

  • Looks like a great change — not my article (as if any 'are'!) — I'd just tacked in a few notes about Gustavus II's firepower. Thanks for the heads up. One thought— you might want to play some with placement on the left so they are as close as possible to the relavant text instead of (apparently) being pushed off and down the bottom by the tables.
  • If you do, make sure to check the placement with different font scalings, and esp. against the mere five offered by IE6. Sometimes the better HTML implimented browsers (e.g Firefox && Netscape, etc.) will also display things somewhat differently.
  • The other caveat is to try a couple of other skins too during your testing. (It beats having someone come along later and revert you because THEIR view was so much different than yours.) One skin I tried last week was insisting on NOT embedding thumbnails, but instead wrapping them inline under full paragraphs— which is a good reminder. I meant to report that!
  • Just FMy'I'(Butt in on this! <G>): I notice you have preceded the above link with a colon (':') character. What does that do???
    • The colon doesn't do anything for pages, but for Categories, allows you to create a link to the category, without putting the page you are on into the category,like this Category:Category needed --Yendor1958 16:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In sum, Thanks, have fun! (Link to thread here on User talk:Yendor1958

B'regards, FrankB 15:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • That's what I thought, but I'd posited that it might suppress the 'What Links Here' feature as well, so at least you saved me testing that theory! Thanks for the speedy answer. Didn't know there was a 'Cat:Cat needed' Cat! <G> FrankB 16:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in images...[edit]

Greetings, old friend. I've pondered your question (and researched the image. Bear in mind that the age of a picture (and death of a subject) has no bearing on fair use. An old enough picture might be in the public domain (if the picture was published before 1923, or if the author has been dead for 70+ years. In this case, I can find no evidence of either the date when Image:Cajal.gif was published, or who the author even was, so we can not claim public domain. With respect to fair use, a copyrighted image can still be used under this doctrine if such use will not impact the commercial value of the original, if it is primarily for educational, scientific, or artistic purposes, and if no more of the copyrighted work is used than is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use. The problem here is that it is not necessary to use this image at all to illustrate the concept of a scientist because there are many other images that more clearly illustrate this concept (e.g. better known scientists) and many images we know to be in the public domain. Of course, it certainly is necessary to use this image to illustrate Santiago Ramón y Cajal. I personally doubt that any action would ever flow from this use, but it's always better to play it safe in copyright matters. By the way, thanks for the Macaulay speech - great stuff! BD2412 T 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks - I guess I should cross-post this on the image talk. Appreciate the expert opinion! FrankB 18:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to your e-mail[edit]

Hi. I got your mail. Sorry, but I am not familiar with the topic but I can have a look. I think I won't have much time in the next days but maybe some time in the future... Just let me know if you need anything specific. Best regards, --Tone 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal of Democracy[edit]

How is that article coming along these days? My apologies for not getting back to you regarding your earlier questions on my talk page. At one point, I had so many posts on it that I lost track of your message! It wasn't until I went through my archives that I found out you were able to resolve some of the issues that you had. I'm glad to hear that went well. You were correct, I was on a brief break from Wikipedia - a wikinap let's say, for humorous effect :-) That was quite refreshing - I got to finish up some important things during that period! --HappyCamper 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I figured you might have missed a few <G>. As I noted in the article talk, I've got to put that 'invention' on the back burner for a while. I'd estimate June before I can do much with the recommended directions to take it— I don't have the training as I noted there.
  • I did pick up a FDR biography (Well, two!) and 'ordered' a couple more references in from other networked libraries (Good Lib-Nets, and common here in New England, home of the public library!) so I can begin researching per the 'main' development suggestions... though they aren't precisely parallel, they're close enough to see what's available for information and start with note taking, and far enough from what I'd envisioned to need a lot of research. Shrug. A worthy topic, I'm a bit amused to be doing what is a large term paper at 51 years!
  • But essentially, I have a prior commitment that involves a lot of wikiWork, as no one else is currently working the Talk:1632 series project.
  • Both these timesinks are way off my normal 'technical patroling', but right in line with my historical and literary avocations. Helps that I'm actually a fan of this 1632 (novel) and milieu possibilities— I don't go in much for 'fandom' as it's philosophically against my grain, so to speak — but appreciate good work in many fields (Even when performed by phooey entertainers and musicians, Yuck!), so address it from that angle overall. Good thing, my initial 'blabs' got some POV tags, I've yet to 'cleanse'... that's all WIP, assuming I stop getting sidetracked (I'm in Collaborative fiction right now).

Anyway, the 12-15 articles needing work or writing there will dominate my wikiTime for most of May, or longer. It's spring -- Yardwork calls! Best! FrankB 20:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not EVER post on my talk page againUser_talk:Judgesurreal777[edit]

Org Post1
  • If there is a problem, address it to me directly; you could have asked me to clarify why I labeled it as such, but do not post a barrage of hate and irrational overreaction on my page. There is no excuse for this exercise in immaturity. Judgesurreal777 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Response to above2
  • If you or anyone related to that page continue this discussion, I'll see if the administrators think it's ok to express "contempt" or whatever you call totally overreaction and piling on for no reason Judgesurreal777 19:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Response to the new above 3

Closure and resolution follow below. Documentation (3 links) interleaved now. FrankB 17:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

_Query_on_the_above_by_User_talk:HighwayCello[edit]

Hey, I've recently read a message regarding Judgesurreal777 andI was wondering if you had a side of your own to the story (see the current version at User talk:Celestianpower.) As it stands at present, you are in breach of WP:NPA and need to cool off. Editors can annoy each other, but stay calm, leave the computer and come back refreshed. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer FrankB 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please watch where your tongue lashes, because some people will not back down, and ask for help like Judge did. Someone will not take your attitude so easily, and fight back. I suggest you calm down before someone does. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
re: tongue lashes:
  • All due respect, but Having backbone enough to have a discourse is exactly what Michael needs, I'm not unkind, but can be direct as a thirty-year man in the USNR has given me a hell of a lot of experience in dealing with others.
  • OTOH, YOU weren't necessary at all had he just had the conversation with me on his talk page that ended up on your talk when I initially contacted him. Other than giving him a hug, all he needed was to read what I was saying and take it like an adult. The conversation would have been very much identical... a little fury, a little give and take, a clear exposition of mutual position, and end in an hand-shake. (Did you notice that embrace on this matter? See his and my talks. That shouldn't have required any hand-holding, but is everyday adult life.)
  • And HELL NO! I don't back down on principle and neither did your ancestors, or mine. That way lies ruination of many kinds. A slippery slope. FrankB 19:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Response, back to wikipedia[edit]

  • I thank you, your apology is accepted. If you wish, I can state the reasons I felt that the article was not a neutral point of view on the article page, which I apologize for not stating in the first place.

I wish to let you know that I hold Wikipedia in the highest esteem and I too look down very harshly on anyone who would hinder the work of those who give their valuable time to it. As I am still new, and I thought the article to be pro-Roosevelt, it did not require an explanation but I know now that it always does. This is not meant to be an accusation against you or your work; as I can tell from your userpage, you seem to be a very active wikipedian and I'm sure have contributed much time and effort to it. I wish you all the best. -Mike Judgesurreal777 02:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do bother with this kind of edit[edit]

Why? — some attempt to build edit counts? Add some content! FrankB 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First, why do you care? Second, why would we want a link to a dab page like Democratic Party? Link to the right pages and then I can spend time adding content. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't understand your answer. I was asking why bother with replacing &+mdash+; with some graphic equivilent. The computer deals with that kind of thing millions of times faster than a million of editors ever could. There is no return on investment. I care as it junks up the history with unecessary changes. With all content issues herein that need addressed (e.g. stub sorting, categories, requested articles, et. al.) this seems like a low level priority. Fair enough?

No, you missed the point of the edit. I changed a link from Democratic Party to Democratic Party (United States) (the first one redirects to a list of all Democratic Parties in the world). I used WP:AWB to fix that which also automatically fixes less important things like &+mdash+;. If you're not going to take the time to see every part of an edit, don't attack the editor out of the gates. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. And yes, I'll concede that just changing the format of a dash character would be too trivial to deal with - that's why I didn't do it.  ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Re: Unified Theory of Cycles[edit]

I guess that would be the correct stub. Thanks. Lcarsdata Talk | @ | Contribs 10:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive 29 April 2006 20:59[edit]