User talk:HiEv/Archive 2

Main talk page
Archive #1

Usenet spammer

Let's try leaving the article unprotected for a couple of days. I'll block each spamming IP for a year on sight, but there doesn't seem to be an applicable range? Let me know if I miss any, and if it all gets too much I'll semi-protect again for longer. --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

CanadianAlien.com is a free tutorial for beginners to learn how to use the binary Usenet groups. Unless you can articulate how CanadianAlien.com is different from usenetnewsgroup.net or how-to-usenet.com, please stop removing the links to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gord1234 (talk • contribs) 08:58, November 8, 2007 (UTC)

When adding your comments to my talk page please put them on their own line and sign them as I indicated at the top of the page.

Anyways, as I pointed out on your talk page and in my first edit summary, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, so an article should only have a few useful and relevant links on them. Since the article is mainly about the history, organization, and technical details of Usenet, I don't think a site that mainly talks about how to trade files on Usenet is of particular relevance to the article. It's too specific. Furthermore, the site contains little information about Usenet which is not available in the article or other existing external links, which makes it a poor external link. Because of that I'd say it fails under both #1 and #14 on the list of links normally to be avoided there, and possibly #6 (see below).

Regarding usenetnewsgroup.net, the site provides a comprehensive list of Usenet newsgroups and some general information about Usenet. The how-to-usenet.com is a good general resource that includes general Usenet information not in the Usenet article. Also, neither of them have any advertising (though there is currently a gap for an ad on the first one) while CanadianAlien.com on it's Introduction to Binary Usenet page has three advertisements (two for a particular Usenet provider) and one "support this site" advertisement which goes to a page asking for donations and such. Even if it were identical to those other sites, that too would be a reason to exclude it, because then it would add nothing new to the article, and the article should not try to be a collection of links to all Usenet related sites.

Also, I should note that if you are affiliated with the canadianalien.com site (and I don't know if you are or not) then it is inappropriate for you to add a link to it to any articles.

If you still disagree then you should bring it up on the Usenet talk page and let others decide. (copied to Gord1234's talk page) -- HiEv 12:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane timeline color key

There is a separate template that contains the SSHS without the button bar -- {{Saffir-Simpson small}}. However, I can't seem to find a way to fit it without it looking unappeasing to my eyes. Maybe you will have better luck. -- RattleMan 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks absolutely amazing. I can't believe how good it looks. Yes, please put it in the other articles! -- RattleMan 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Severe Tropical Storm" is used by the JMA and refers to wind speeds from 48kt to 63kt (89km/h to 117 km/h). See more information here. Thanks for taking the time to update the other timelines. -- RattleMan 06:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It helps if you actually bother to read the relevant explanatory section of the article. In the chart, we use JTWC's 1-minute average sustained for all except Severe Tropical Storm. I understand that it could be confusing - but the fact is that if the JMA does not upgrade a JTWC tropical storm to severe, and the JTWC reports wind speeds higher than the threshold for severe (89 km/h), we will have a problem. Hence I think it is better to overlap with explanation than to put ourselves in a situation should this scenario play out. Also, regarding your other change of wind speed for Category 1, while I also understand that it is awkward to have a break from 117 km/h to 119 km/h, please appreciate the rationale for this. The NWS states that Category 1 of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale starts at 64 kt, 74 mph, and 119 km/h. Tropical Storm ends at 117 km/h due to a little oddity with wind speed conversions. Officially, the upper threshold for tropical storm is 63 kt or 73 mph, and these two values give 116.676 km/h and 117.457 km/h when converted respectively, and both round to 117 km/h, and not 118 km/h. - SpLoT // 05:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my response on SpLoT's talk page) Actually I did "bother to read" the explanatory section, however it doesn't make any sense for the agencies that determine what rank each storm gets to use a 1-minute average for all storms except for severe tropical storms, and that simply doesn't seem to be the case anyways. The text in Tropical cyclone scales#West Pacific indicates that all storms measured in most of the West Pacific are based on a 10 minute average, not a 1 minute average most of the time and a 10 minute average for one. (That section is also where I got the "typhoon ≥118 km/h" information.) Aren't the descriptions given in the Timeline section all based on 10 minute averages? The article seems to indicate that only the US uses 1 minute averages, China uses 2 minute averages, and everyone else uses 10 minute averages. The Tropical cyclone scales#Comparisons across basins section also notes that both JMA and JTWC use ten minute averages. However, it gets worse. That section also notes that the JMA and JTWC have different speed ranges for almost everything, and only the JMA uses the term "severe tropical storm." Ugh. Any idea how to fix the legend now to work with both the JMA and JTWC definitions? -- HiEv 06:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All storms in the Western Pacific are measured with 10-min by the JMA and 1-min by the JTWC. Yes, it is unfortunately complex. The JTWC is in fact run by the U.S. navy, which is why it uses 1-min. This shows wind speeds already converted from 1-min to 10-min, for the sake of comparisons. However this conversion (between 1-min and 10-min) cannot be deemed to be accurate. The chart (and all others for this basin) uses JTWC's 1-min except for the case when a JTWC tropical storm is upgraded to a JMA severe tropical storm. Only the JMA, not the JTWC, has such a classification. Perhaps we could do away with 1-min altogether, since it is the JMA 10-min which is official, but this would mean a lack of differentiation for the typhoons (the Western Pacific churns up a huge number of them). Thanks for trying to understand this uneasy system. I hope we can find a way to work everything in, but personally I don't see any way where that is possible, unless we just use JMA 10-min. But for now, for the sake of accuracy, would you mind if I revert the chart back? - SpLoT // 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, sorry if I came across as rude earlier. The legend is still undoubtedly an important and useful addition to the chart. - SpLoT // 07:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my response on SpLoT's talk page) Well, an article should probably use only one system whenever possible to avoid confusion and error, and since the JMA numbers are official we should probably go with that. Either way, those typhoons could still be sub-divided into category 1-5 based on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale (SSHS) for easier comparison with other regions (though it looks like cat 1 overlaps STS, right?) with a notation that the SSHS isn't actually used by the JMA. Or perhaps we should just move this to the article's talk page and start a discussion/straw poll to see what others think? That would probably be better than us two deciding this for ourselves since be both agree it's not a simple question. -- HiEv 08:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my response on SpLoT's talk page) P.S. Thanks for the correction on the JTWC's system. As for reverting back, I think we should stick with the JMA's system for the pre-typhoon numbers, though that means that the legend/explanatory section still needs further corrections. -- HiEv 08:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding using SSHS with JMA 10-min, absolutely not. The SSHS can only be used with 1-min winds, and the conversion between 1-min and 10-min is inaccurate. But I think the second solution to use JMA 10-min for everything below typhoon is a good one. Yes, I do agree that we should raise this elsewhere, perhaps on WT:WPTC? Quite busy with school at the moment though. - SpLoT // 08:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my response on SpLoT's talk page) I'd be OK with using JMA 10-min for everything below typhoon, but admittedly it's not my field. I say you should fix the page to use that for now, and also bring it up on WT:WPTC to see if anyone has a better suggestion. Don't forget to note that Timeline of the 2006 Pacific typhoon season also needs to be updated to match 2007. -- HiEv 09:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Dubai

Conversion templates do have a limit, It was fixed through substitution. Now that the limit was reduced, please feel free to use {{convert}} again. Regards,—MJCdetroit 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated.  :-) -- HiEv 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost but not quite accusing me of vandalism

I was warning the user for the vandalism you reverted (not all vandalism reverters bother to warn users as you did). Thus my warning was redundant to yours. I've found that at AIV they like people to have been issued a full set of four vandal warnings for four separate incidents before they will block. My first warning covered the first series of vandalizations that I reverted. Sorry if I offended you by downgrading your warning. It was done in good faith and I was also trying to give the vandal a chance to shape up, which is also good faith. Katr67 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you've deleted my comment from your talk page already, so I'm responding here. You appeared to not know that it was against Wikipedia policy to edit other people's comments to change their meaning, so I pointed you to two pages that state that, one of which happens to be WP:VANDAL. As for what AIV likes, that wasn't my point, it was to get the user to stop vandalizing the page, and with seven separate harmful edits by 209.91.51.141 to the Lewis and Clark Expedition article I thought a higher level warning was called for. The fact that you changed my comment has nothing to do with "good faith" because it is both counter to Wikipedia policy and changed the meaning that I wanted to convey to that user. Perhaps you didn't want to go that far with that user yet, but that doesn't mean you can edit my comments to suit you. -- HiEv 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I know the policy. I fucked up, OK? Now please cease lecturing me, and I'll put the page back. Thanks. Katr67 23:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, take a deep breath, calm down, and don't take my comments so personally. I have a right to respond to comments on my own talk page. Thank you. -- HiEv 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, usually if you tell someone to take a deep breath and calm down, it has the opposite effect. It comes across as condescending, even if you don't mean it that way. I was just explaining why I did what I did. I didn't say it was right, I just said it was done in good faith. I've been here a while, I've done a bit of editing, so I found your tone a bit "lecture-y". "Assume good faith" also means, roughly: "give a seasoned editor a chance to explain herself". (this is a variation on WP:TEMPLAR) I can't assume you realized how much Wikipedia experience I have. On the other hand, I do screw up now and again. It's nice hear something like "Uh, did you really mean to do that?", rather than have the vandal policy recited to me. Does that make sense? In the end we're all just here to help fight vandals and build the encyclopedia. Happy editing. Katr67 23:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And I was just explaining why I did what I did back and you basically told me to shut up. I'm sorry if I didn't pad my original comment enough to avoid upsetting you, but I didn't expect you to take it so personally and I wanted to be brief since I didn't think it was anything that warranted long flowery prose. Still, I think you might want to look at your own responses for your tone of civility as well. -- HiEv 00:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I sure will, sorry again. Have a great day! Katr67 00:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No thanks

When someone is egregious in putting BS like "Alota Vagina" into an article, I reserve the right to call what they did "idiotic juvenile vandalism." If that gets me banned, oh well.K. Scott Bailey 23:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my response on Kscottbailey's talk page) Two wrongs don't make a right. It just looks bad if you're enforcing one policy while violating another. Please don't let people committing vandalism lower you to their level. Thank you. -- HiEv 12:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think most people have enough common sense to understand that someone who puts "Alota Vagina" in an article HAS, in fact, committed "idiotic juvenile vandalism." I didn't say the PERSON was an idiotic juvenile delinquent (though they probably are), but limited my edit summary critique to what their edit summary contained. I'm not certain that even violates WP:CIVIL, but it doesn't really bother me if it does.K. Scott Bailey 13:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(copy of resp.) Did you read WP:CIVIL? You said on my talk page that you weren't certain if "rv idiotic juvenile vandalism" violates that policy, but under "Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:" it includes "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")". So, yes, your edit summary clearly violates that policy.

And I don't know how you can say it doesn't bother you to violate Wikipedia policy, when you did it in the process of dealing with someone else who wouldn't follow Wikipedia policy. Do you think it's OK when cops rough up criminals simply because they're criminals? Selectively deciding which rules you choose to follow and which ones you ignore is just asking for trouble, and enforcing the law doesn't place you above the law, no matter what the other party has done. Please, all you have to do is try to be more civil in the future. That's not too much to ask. Thank you. -- HiEv 14:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There is NO comparison between "fixed sloppy spelling" (which is insulting a person who made an honest mistake), and calling out a blatant vandal. I also greatly enjoyed your hyperbolic comparison of my edit summaries to police brutality. Well done. If you want to claim they're the same, that's fine. If you want to report me for doing so, that's fine too. I'm not going to stop calling out vandals in my reversion edit summaries. If you want to make an issue of it, go for it. Get me banned for doing so, if that's what you want. It will be damaging the project, as I spend most of my time on here reverting vandalism when I have the time, but if you want to press the issue, feel free. My edit summaries for vandalism that is juvenile and idiotic will not be changing because of your notes left on my talk page.K. Scott Bailey 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting silly

You really should work on the project, not policing edit summaries for something you find out of line, tone-wise. That you took this to the noticeboard seems a bit extreme. I've made it clear that I'm not going to stop being blunt in my assessment of juvenile vandalism. If you want to get me banned for it, do your worst. I will not be bullied or coerced into changing my edit summary style in vandalism cleanup. Why you care--and THAT you care--is beyond me.K. Scott Bailey 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but unlike you, I try very hard to not pick and choose which policies I follow and enforce. By trying to enforce all Wikipedia policies, including the ones you insist on ignoring, I am working on the project. The fact that you think you're above Wikipedia policy forced me to treat you the same way I'd treat any other person who insisted upon violating Wikipedia policy after being informed of it. You said above it would be fine if I reported you for this, but apparently that was not the case. I'm sorry if it bothers you, but don't take it out on me. The only reason why this is getting "silly" is because you are refusing to follow a very simple policy, and are blaming others for the problems you are causing for yourself. -- HiEv 23:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you're choosing to "wiki-lawyer" which succeeds in doing nothing more than irritating people, and wasting administrator's time. I'm glad that several of them informed you that the edits in question WERE being accurately described, and that administrators have better things to do than trying to change the behavior of someone who is actually improving the project with their edits. Search my contribs. You won't find one bad faith edit. You'll find MUCH vandalism removal. Please stop wasting my time and the time of administrators with your wiki-lawyering.K. Scott Bailey 00:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But others informed you that those edit summary comments were unnecessary, that you should not call someone a "moron" in your edit summaries, and that by continuing to do so you were risking WP:POINT. Also, not one agreed that I was "WikiLawyering" after I pointed out the definition, so please quit accusing me of that. Being a "good editor" doesn't mean you get to ignore some Wikipedia policies, and ignoring Wikipedia policies is not the mark of a good editor. This whole problem could have been over and done with if you simply hadn't been so stubborn. It's this behavior of yours is what has wasted so much time, not me. Now, please quit bothering me with this issue and accusing me of things, and just be civil. Thank you. -- HiEv 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to inform you, but nearly EVERYONE agreed that you had posted frivolously to AnI. WP has little need for an edit summary police force, but especially for those of us who are making constructive edits. You would do well to find something to do that does not involve harrassing me about accurate edit summaries. I'm not changing the way I do things regarding the issue, and you've been informed by numerous admins and other editors at the AnI that you should have never posted it. Leaving me to fight vandalism in my own way would probably be a good option for you right now. K. Scott Bailey 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you politely to quit bothering me with this issue and accusing me of things, and yet you are continuing to do so. This is bordering on harassment now. Please leave me alone. -- HiEv 14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's rich. Now that your draconian edit summary policing has been repudiated--after forcing me to waste several good hours defending myself from your attacks--you have the gall to accuse ME of attacking YOU?!? That's rich. I'll tell you what: you desist from policing my edit summaries again, and I'll never post another message to your page as long as I work on the project. Fair? K. Scott Bailey 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You don't get to threaten me with further harassment unless I do what you say. I also disagree with your summary of events. I asked you politely to stop twice now, and you have refused, that is the definition of harassment. -- HiEv 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please consider your own edit summaries which include comments like "RV nonsense" and "RV vandalism". Using the logic you presented in the ANI against Bailey, these too constitute violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE. However, as you've probably noticed, most editors supported Bailey's edit summaries and several thought your ANI wasn't very helpful. I certainly don't object to these edit summaries of yours. With this in mind, I highly recommend that you hold back expressing your opinions about other people's edit summaries unless or until you see a blatant policy violations. At such time, I am sure you will receive far more support for your suggestions. Rklawton 01:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I saw your comment to Kscottbailey on your talk page and I have been thinking about it. A lot. I had considered that it was mainly phrases like "juvenile" and "childish" to be the judgmental part (per WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals), but after your comment I can see how "nonsense" and "vandalism" could be considered similar. I did stop marking my vandalism reverts as "vandalism" where I would have normally, but I did mark one talk page edit as vandalism since I was adding a vandalism warning template there.

That made me think though; a number of the vandalism warning templates that you put on people's talk pages describe the edits using the words "vandalism" or "vandalize", so I'm unclear at what point you are explaining the reason for the revert vs. being uncivil. Furthermore, in one part WP:VANDAL does say, "Otherwise, please explain in the edit summary that you have reverted vandalism" when undoing vandalism. Add to that the fact that Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism suggests, "Use an edit summary such as 'rvv' or 'reverted vandalism' and click on save page."

So, if I'm reading all of these things correctly, and I could be wrong, I think it is OK to call vandalism "vandalism" in an edit summary if it is clearly intentional vandalism, but you can't be judgmental about it ("(insulting adjective) vandalism") or call the editor a vandal. Does that sound right to you? -- HiEv 02:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Even calling something "vandalism" is judgmental. One person's vandalism may be another person's "art". We just can't go down that road. Calling someone's edits "nonsense" isn't a problem, either. Remember, we have a speedy deletion criteria specifically devoted to "nonsense" entries. It's all judgmental – and that's just fine. If someone is reverting something that is clearly vandalism, then let them say what they want - and bless them for taking the time to fix the problem.

In reading WP:VANDAL I see that the idea about not insulting vandals or "feeding the trolls" is actually one editor's essay and not policy. As a result, I recommend not commenting on edit summaries for vandalism reversions unless or until someone actually uses profanity (on the grounds that profanity is boring). Remember, vandal fighting helps the project and we wish to encourage it. Don't worry about the "judgmental" part as it pertains to vandalism. It isn't causing a problem, and if it serves to motivate an editor's vandal fighting efforts, then it's all for the better.

I prefer the brief and utterly useless (to the vandal who may not know Wikipedia's shorthand) "rvv". I can type it more quickly than the equally appropriate "removed an idiotic bit of handicraft posted by yet another mentally stunted kid who should be challenged more by his or her teachers". Is that judgmental? Applied to the appropriate edit, then no, it's accurate. I've even received talk page comments to such summaries from other editors and admins that read: "thanks for making me laugh", "I needed that", and "keep up the good work." I found that encouraging, and I'm still fighting vandals (even though I generally stick to "rvv").

Lastly, remember this:

• Vandals: bad
• Vandal fighting: good
• Discouraging vandal fighting: bad
• Encouraging vandal fighting: good

Rklawton 14:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree that calling something vandalism is "judgmental" when it is clearly an addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. That is simply the definition of "vandalism" straight from WP:VANDAL, and a clear cut case requires no judgment to recognize. Even if it is someone else's "art", if it fits that definition then it is also vandalism.

Yes, Wikipedia:Deny recognition and Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals are both essays, not a policy, but they still give good reasons why uncivil comments like "removed an idiotic bit of handicraft posted by yet another mentally stunted kid who should be challenged more by his or her teachers" or "rv back through moronic, juvenile, childish edits to a clean version" are not only uncivil, but they help encourage further vandalism by creating animosity against Wikipedia and its users. I think this is a very good reason why we should worry about being judgmental against people who cause vandalism. It may very well encourage further vandalism as retribution for the insult.

(Also, you say your example is not judgmental, but I have to heartily disagree because it certainly requires involving the use or exercise of judgment in deciding if something is "idiotic", whether the person is "mentally stunted", and whether they "should be challenged more by his or her teachers". So, yes, that is definitely judgmental, since one or more of those things are not obvious and could easily be disagreed with under someone else's judgment.)

As for saying "we can't go down that road", you missed my point above, which is that we already have gone down that road long ago, and all signs seem to indicate that it is appropriate when used correctly. While I realize that "other people do it" isn't always a good argument, even Jimbo Wales uses "rv vandalism" in his edit summaries. That, and various long-survived policies and templates which indicate that calling vandalism "vandalism" is a normal step, suggest to me that it's use is perfectly acceptable, as long as it is used appropriately.

And finally, I don't think trying to get people to follow Wikipedia policies should be interpreted as "Discouraging vandal fighting", if that is what you are implying above. I think everyone should be politely alerted to potential policy violations when they make them and be encouraged to follow those policies, regardless of any other activities they may have here. Just because you fight vandals does not mean you get to ignore parts of Wikipedia policy that you feel are unimportant or do not apply when used against people you don't like, like vandals. If someone is a good editor then they can accept constructive criticism without it affecting their ability to fight vandals or otherwise support Wikipedia.

Let me add to your "remember this" list:

• Encouraging further vandalism through unnecessary insults: bad
• Nonjudgmentally giving a clear reason for a revert: good
• Ignoring violations of Wikipedia policy because someone fights vandalism: bad
• Getting someone to follow Wikipedia policy and fight vandalism: good

Thanks for the discussion though, and sorry about being so long-winded. I've learned a lot more about Wikipedia policy in the process.  :-) -- HiEv 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take into consideration the feedback you received through the ANI you posted. Rklawton 17:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have. Is there something I'm missing? -- HiEv 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

HI,

I noticed that you were an avid commentator on the issues regarding the article. We are currently in the midst of discussion. Care to join in?Bless sins 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks =)

I totally got a kick out of that webcomic. =) hah

Pg8p 12:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

YECism and alleles

Thanks for your "long winded" and helpful answer. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

172.163.213.175

Excellent catch on that tag! I knew I was missing something there...glad you fixed it! Dreadstar † 10:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good detective work on identifying the sock as well. Dreadstar † 10:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Let me know if you spot him again, I'll be glad to help out...the only PITA I like is with my falafel...;) Dreadstar † 10:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag and edit summaries

An explanation of what you want cleaned up, either in edit summary or on the article talk page, would be helpful.[1] I've been trying to clean up the walled garden of dismal autism-related articles and getting no help. Tagging an article without saying why doesn't help the cause. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was a combination of two things. First, I thought it was kind of obvious that it was not in the standard format for a Wikipedia article ending on those two huge quotes. Second, it was kind of a place marker for me. I got distracted by a long string of other things that needed fixed, so I did that as a reminder for myself. I'm doing some research on Amanda Baggs, so I plan to do a bit of cleanup there soon, and having that edit in my "My Contributions" list will keep me from forgetting. -- HiEv 00:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I had just cleaned it up. I deleted the quotes, but someone else put them back. I've unwatched because I don't care one way or the other; I'm just going through all of the autism-related articles trying to raise the cleanup level from mostly garbage to somewhat passable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call on Category:Jewish surnames

Hi HiEv: See my additional comments [2] at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 11#Category:Jewish surnames. Thanks, IZAK 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have started a discussion at Category talk:Surnames about Category:Surnames which I hope will be able to address the issues in common to the surnames category tree, without implicating issues particular to any one group of surnames. I'm posting this notice to all participants of the 11/11 CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

@! party

Hi, I noticed you flagged the @! Party article for notability. I don't think this is quite right; the phenomena is definitely notable (I would say rather significant, actually; the very first physical gatherings based on internet-based on-line interactions attended by users as opposed to engineers), the problem is that it is hard to document. Is there a more suitable template that could be applied? I can personally attest to these events occurring in the late 80s, but of course that's O.R. --Akb4 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it really was notable then shouldn't there be some significant secondary sources recording such events? Keep in mind that while the events may be notable to you, that's subjective, and I don't think they're notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I could be wrong, but if it is notable then there should be documented evidence of such events that you could cite. See the Wikipedia:Notability guideline for the objective criteria for notability. -- HiEv 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint on minor edits. As to sources, the short answer is no. This stuff would not have hit mass media; it was too early for that, so the only paper records would be in things like APAs, zines, and personal correspondence. Finding online stuff is problematic for this particular topic, mostly because the subject can't be directly googled for, and secondarily because online documents of this sort from before 1992 or so are rare; disk space was too expensive, and like 1930s comic books, keeping the material wasn't seen as important. I don't feel that that is a good indication of notability any more than I think the number of extant copies of a 1930s comic book is; networking in the 1980s changed the world, but few books besides contemporary technical manuals yet mention the DEC Easynet, the IBM VNET, or BITnet, and only a few hundred web pages mention all three. To do a good job on this, I or someone else may well have to perform O.R. and publish it someplace. I can't quite see how the first computer-based social gatherings could possibly not be notable; the transformation of virtual interaction into physical interaction is a significant phenomenon of our age. How many times a day does someone invite a group of people to meet physically based on membership in an online forum? This is the start of something that has happened millions of times, affecting countless lives in ways both large and small. I'll go post to usenet and see what I get. -- Akb4 07:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying they can't be notable, take a look at the Homebrew Computer Club article for example. The simple fact is, if these "@! parties" really were so important then there should be some record of them, and if there is no record of them then the article fails Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines anyways. As the guideline says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in original) It doesn't matter how important or true something is, if there is no way to verify it occurred then it should not be included here. I used Google Groups to search through over a hundred of the earliest Usenet posts using the term "party" (excluding some of the common irrelevant phrases), and the closest I could find were a few less-than-notable mentions of a "net party", mainly in the "net.singles" newsgroup (for example, see this or these posts.) I didn't find one mention of anything called an "@! party". Really though, what you want is a newspaper, magazine, book, or other secondary source if you want to establish notability. This means that currently your only reference is a Usenet post of someone's vague recollection from about 20 years later, which is not a particularly reliable source. Like I said, you need to find some reliable sources that establish notability and satisfy verifiability, because without them the article fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. -- HiEv 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah

Hey, you just beat me to this edit as I was reading the article. Good work, man! Jared Preston (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)