User talk:Jnc/Old

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

Other Inactive Stuff[edit]

Moved to User_talk:Jnc/2005B because of Talk: page bloat.

Active Stuff[edit]

Akhenaten Aten[edit]

Hi Noel, you asked about my removal of "Aten's cult was the target of considerable official hostility after that." from the bottom of Akhenaten. I felt it was not only superfluous (covered by "the Aten cult he had founded almost immediately fell out of favor." earlier in the para) but rather weak given abandonment of Akhetaten, Tutankhaten's name change etc. And the sentence disrupted the flow of the paragraph about how Aten fell out of favour.

And though there's more to be said about Smenkhare, Tutankhamun and Ay's attitudes to the Amun and Aten cults (eg Smenkhare may have intensified persecution of Amunism; Tutankhamun and Ay may have been Atenists who reverted to Amun only for public show), I didn't want to go into the (murky) details. Rd232 11:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hello. I don't really have any ideas on the computer-related protocol pages. Apparently protocol comes from a Greek phrase meaning first leaf and refers to the first draft of a treaty. What I had thought of as the primary meaning was the ettiquete of diplomacy, but apparently that's not the original meaning. Maybe a protocol disambiguation page should have one line that points, not to protocol (treaty) but simply to treaty, with an explanation that that's one of the meanings of the word. Treaties are of course products of dimplomacy, so maybe protocol (diplomacy) is ambiguous. But even so I suspect protocol (diplomacy) is far more likely to be construed as being about the ettiquette of formal diplomatic encounters than about treaties, so for now I'd go with that. If experts in that field join Wikipedia, then maybe we'll do better. How 'bout something like this:

Protocol is derived from the Greek words προτο-, meaning first, and κολλα, meaning glue, and originally meant the first leaf of a bound volume.


Michael Hardy 01:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Edit summaries[edit]

Here are your comments and my reply from my user page.

I'm afraid that is not realistic in my case. I am engaged in a huge project to make the United Kingdom menu a complete set of all relevant articles, or as near as I can get it. I have made thousands of edits in a month - largely doing other people's work for them. I consider this to be a very valuable project, but I am not prepared to make it even more time consuming. I note what my edits are when they are sensitive. Philip 23:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I usually tick the "minor edit" box for minor edits. I may have forgotten a few times because I am fallible like anyone else. I do provide good edit summaries where appropriate; in fact I have made 23 in the last 24 hours. On numerous occasions I have had to prune them to make them fit within the 30 word or so limit. I think I am actually well above average among Wikipedians in this regards. "Minor edit" really is enough of a description for a minor edit, and the page you linked to merely says that providing further details for minor edits would be, "nice even then". Well I agree, but I don't have infinite time, and I am hardly alone in not doing it - and I am making more edits than almost anyone at the moment, so I have more time to lose.
I will try extra hard to make sure that I never omit to follow these practices, but I am not going to change them. Philip 03:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

African American[edit]

I usually prefer to respond as you do -- on the poster's talk page. But if someone doesn't yet have a page set up, then I respond on mine.

Actually, I wasn't "sticking up" for RickK. I don't know him, have never (to my recollection) had an exchange w/him. Just thanking him for restoring the talk threads for AA. That other guy's a real jerk.

"Some" isn't necessary, because you're speaking of African Americans as a collective. The same is true for the use of "and" instead of "or." What about in my case, as I can "claim" all three? The use of "or" would not be appropriate. You're speaking of the whole, them as a collective group, with members among them who belong to a particular subset. (Ever taken a logics class? Simple, finite math.) deeceevoice 17:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but in an article devoted to African Americans, we are, indeed speaking of the group as a collective -- and not of individuals. When you say "or," that means one, but not two, or two, but not three. Yet, there are many African Americans who fit all three categories -- so, the more appropriate word is "and," speaking of the collective. Among African Americans collectively, there are all three heritages represented (no either/or implied -- just a whole characterizing a whole). An exercise in basic logic: "There are red, orange and purple balls in the boxes." Does that mean that every, single box has at least one of each color? One might assume that -- but no, not necessarily. But it does mean that in the boxes, regarded all together, there are balls of all three colors there? Yep. As I said, if one approaches the statement based simply on what it says (not what one might erroneously infer), it is completely correct. Well, enough of that! (I hated logics class.) deeceevoice 19:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I went back and deleted "Many," because that confuses the issue; the sentence is more correct without it. Perhaps you see my point now? Anyway, I think you're probably as bored with this by now as I am! :-p deeceevoice 19:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How to comment on a specific contrib on a talk page[edit]

This is to explain my reformatting of two of your contribs on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard.
(In progress. While it looks like you're probably off-line, i'm not going to rush this & make a mess of it; this prelim is to let you know i think you deserve an explanation & will provide it fairly promptly.)
--Jerzy(t) 00:04, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure i understand what you had in mind: each of the two times, you were commenting on contribs by A that B (and perhaps others) had already commented on, and not commenting on B's comment. So you put your comment directly under A's, and indented it further than B's in order to avoid the impression that B was commenting on your comment.
There's a lot of logic to that, but it's a bad idea for a number of reasons.

  1. If others follow your logic, and in turn want to comment on the same contrib you did, the first of them should post above your comment, still further indented. The second should post above both of you, yet further indented. There are times when its hard to avoid indenting far enough that the column gets indecently narrow, but the situation we are discussing is not one of them: What is normal on WP is that the first person (B) to respond to A indents, and everyone else commenting on A's contrib indents to the same extent B did, following the last person who responded to A. And no matter how many multiple responses a single contrib gets, that doesn't push unnecessarily far to the right.
  2. Those commenting on A's contrib usually have read all the earlier contribs before framing their own comment, lest they waste time being repetitive, and that's a good thing. It's also a good thing if the later readers read those responses in order: then when they read C's, D's, and your contribs, they've just read B's (as C, D, and you did), and don't have to waste time wondering why C, D, and you are so dullwitted as to bring up these minor points after having overlooked the major points that should be obvious to anyone whose contrib is worth reading. But if everyone formats it your way, later readers either read the comments in the reverse order of their occurrence, or go to extra trouble to go down to the end of the comments on A's contrib, and repeatedly read down and scroll back up to read the next one. (And then scroll back down over what they just read.)
  3. If some do it your way and some not (nearly all in fact don't), the only way to read the comments on A's contrib in order is to search thru the datestamps to deduce the proper order.
  4. In fact, in that mixed-method case, the effect of being the last to have used your method is the same as being the one rudest one forcing your way to the front of the line and yelling, "No, read mine first."

So i trust you'll understand why i adjusted your formating & positioning.
--Jerzy(t) 02:58, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Thanks for response, J,
It doesn't seem to me these cases were like what you're talking abt, but let me comment on that anyway:
The case you stated, using normal WP style

  • Any fool can see X.
And Y follows from that.
So we all should Z
  • I've indented this to show i'm responding to what A said; specifically Z is an unsuitable response to the realities of X and Y. --User:B
  • I'm indenting this to the same level that B did, to make it clear that like B, i'm responding to A (not to B). There's no reason to consider Z, because X just isn't true. -- Anon.

The case you want to distinguish that from, using normal WP style

  • Any fool can see X.
And Y follows from that.
So we all should Z
  • I've indented this to show i'm responding to what A said; specifically Z is an unsuitable response to the realities of X and Y. --User:B
    • I'm indenting this a level further that B did, to make it clear that unlike B, i'm not responding to A (but to B). B is right to some extent, but made an important mistake. -- Anon.

More elaborate example of WP style: I nominate Bad article for deletion, on grounds of mopery and dopery. --A

  • Delete for reason 1. --B
    • Reason 1 violates the Pauli exclusion principle. --C
      • My art teacher says it doesn't. --B
        • Art teachers rock! --D
      • My gym teacher says it doesn't, and everyone knows that gym teachers rock. --D
    • Reason 1 violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but there are better reasons than that for deleting. --E
  • Keep for reason 2. --C
  • Delete for reason 3. --D
    • D is a fool -- C.
      • I am not. --D
      • Everyone knows he is, but he still gets to vote. --A

This is always sufficient to distinguish the relationship among comments, subject to the restriction that every comment addresses at most one other comment. (Note above that D made two comments, rather than trying to make one that applied to both B's and C's comments.)
The rule sounds more complicated than it is: two comments apply to the same comment if they are both equally indented, and no comment that is less indented falls between them.
VfD debates tend to make good examples, because it's so clear that a vote is a comment on the nomination, and it's usually pretty clear that which vote or comment is being commented on; breakdowns are usually the reuslt of commetning on two comments simultaneously.

--Jerzy(t) 06:17, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Subpage redirects[edit]

Hello Noel, could you point me to the discussion or voting where it was decided to keep the old subpage redirects? I would like to inspect the old arguments before proposing any policy changes. Since it was you who added the "keep 7" to the list [1], I hope you could explain the rationale behind it. Any pros/cons I can think of:

  1. There may be major history that needs to be kept for copyright reasons
  2. Some external websites may link to a subpage redirect
  1. Clutters search results
  2. Clutters "What links here"
  3. Takes up (little) space in database
  4. Can encourage newbies to use subpages or create new subpage redirects
  5. Can confuse editors who happen to find a web of bogus redirects with convoluted history
Now, my opposition to Pros:
  1. Obsolete histories can be merged or moved to talk
  2. Enough time has passed since the conversion away from subpages, websites should have adapted already. Not our problem, if someone has not updated his site for years.
  3. Because redirects are cheap, deletion of them should be cheap too, since they can be recreated with minimum fuss.

I also find your interpretation of the various keep/delete rules way too rigid. The text says "avoid deletion", not "under no circumstances delete". Surely we can delete a subpage redirect, if there is a rough consensus to delete it. Policy is formulated that way in VfD every day. Problem is that there are not enough participants in RfD to override old questionable policies by voting for a new de-facto policy. Currently RfD is the backwater of Wikipedia deletion.

I guess I'll be bold and update "keep 7" to allow deletion of historyless historical artifacts and obviously temporary subpages (like /Temp), if no objections are raised. I'd appreciate your thought on this before proposing this on talk of WP:RFD. About the CSD rules, I'm not sure I'm bold enough to tweak them just like that, it seems that even insignificant changes to them cause objections from the "keep everything" crowd. jni 09:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Military history naming conventions[edit]

See:Wikipedia_talk:Military_Collaboration_of_the_week#Naming_conventions. Perhapse there is a page which we could draw this subject up as a guide line. Any ideas? -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Further reading/References[edit]

Hello and thanks for making me aware of your rationale for dividing the article reference section into two---Further reading and References. The only reason I collapsed them into one sec was my perceived notion of "std wkp format", and to keep the number of "auxiliary secs"* as low as possible (which leads to more concise articles, IMO making them more readable). However, I very much see your point, especially after reading your comment at my talk page. :)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to use a References sec only, but to list the references under separate italicised** subheadings (not subsecs---they also clutter up the TOC & article IMO; even worse than separate secs), my suggestions being Further reading: and Academic sources:. How about that? Anyway, I will certainly work through (some of) "my own" articles (those on my watchlist, that is) in order to split the refs into said categories. --Wernher 21:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(* By "auxiliary secs" I mean those "std" secs like See also, References, and External links.)
(** I have noticed that some other contributors use italics for non-subsec "subheadings".)

RfC re: Wareware's blatant racism[edit]

Just stopping by to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the above-referenced matter -- and also for stopping by my talk page: "He was so far over the line there that the curvature of the earth had removed it from view." That gave me a chuckle. I guess there's humor to be found in almost anything. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 21:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. Actually, I didn't reformat the RfC. SlimVirgin kindly took the time to do so (I'm having hardware and software issues that I must attend do) because, apparently, that's the format that is required in order to have one's RfC considered -- I suppose because it's a way of providing verifiable documentation for each offense. The last time I checked, there were, I think, four or five people who'd signed on and none endorsing Wareware's account. I note with interest, though, a user named Pharlap is going out of his way to make excuses for Wareware and has started his own campaign against me. And get this: he's a black man. (Well, biracial.) He's actually even called me "racist." But has he bothered to sign on against Wareware? Nope. Go figure. I'm not worried, though. While, yes, I've lost patience with people on the site and not always been nice about it, I've never (and wouldn't ever) used racial slurs; it's just not something I do (or think). *sigh* Wikipedia is getting to be more trouble than it's worth. But, anyway, thanks again for your kind words. Peace. deeceevoice 02:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I may be missing your point, but a key element in my RfC is not only Wareware's racism, but the fact that he has actually stalked me from article to article, discussion thread to discussion thread in order to attack me. His attacks have been premeditated, purposeful and systematic. Are you saying you think the examples go beyond the scope of that, or that you don't think the stalking issue is an important one? deeceevoice 03:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

{User} template[edit]

Hi, is there any particular reason you are using this with "subst" (e.g on WP:PP)? You don't need to, and it just causes page bloat. (The bloat on WP:VIP was so bad I was moved to change the instructions there to remove the "subst".) Same goes for {Article}, of course. Noel (talk) 21:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind and convert to using templates directly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for answering on someone else's talk page. You may see Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits for why subst: is preferable at times. Ignore this message if you already knew this. -- Sundar (talk · contributions) 16:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me. -- Sundar 05:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages[edit]

Linking to disambiguation pages makes monitoring the addition of new inbound links difficult. Right now, linking to fish (disambiguation) is:

  • Fish
  • User:Jnc
  • Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages
  • FISH (redirect page)

If it wasn't for Fish, there'd be one link, the redirect.

So, a collection of all the pages you've ever edited is nice, but if you link through a external http link I don't have to keep checking why there's a link coming from your page to a disambiguation page. I changed your page to be a link to WhatLinksHere because I assumed you were interested in maintaining the inbound links rather than a trophy collection of edits (there's a little link in the top-right corner called "my contributions" for that). If you must have a categorised collection, use http links to minimize inbound link pollution.

Also, please sign all entries with ~~~~. Thanks! Josh Parris 05:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Superfluous/VfD template removal[edit]

Hi there! This has come up on TFD twice this week, and it seems prudent to just get rid of it as it's about 10% of template namespace... on Bot Requests, you say you'd be happy to help. Glad to hear that! Maybe you could talk to Kevin Rector and/or AllyUnion? They're the two foremost experts on bots that come to mind. It seems nobody much reads the BR page anyway :) HTH, Radiant_* 11:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation Style[edit]

There's a survey you may be interested in - Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Style#Survey Josh Parris 02:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi, why do you want to keep 00Axx as a redirect?

It's not speedyable, and redirects are cheap. That would likely have been its fate if I had sent it to VfD anyway. Denni 23:08, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Archiving WP:AN[edit]

I would be fine with doing this. I follow the AN pages and do have a fair bit of time on my hands. Though if anyone else really wants the the job they can have it. - SimonP 21:37, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Disambiguated primary topic disambiguation"[edit]

You may have noticed that, following some discussion, this idea of yours showed up at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Now someone wants to remove it, and honestly, I don't see any good reasons why, according to protocol, it should be there. I suggest that you either provide a link to the discussion we had over this, or go to talk and defend the idea yourself. --Smack (talk) 18:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony O[edit]

I just used the move function. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "microsoft specific characters" AndyL 11:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi Noel: Yes, I did check to see if the article had history that was used in any current article. Its history contains just one material edit and I made a textual comparison of that version with the current Algae article. There were no significant duplications, which is why I stated "No part of its historical contents appears in Algae" in the deletion log summary. Thanks for keeping an eye on things.—Theo (Talk) 19:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi Noel, thanks for the heads-up. I know nothing about the subject so I'm not going to get involved, beyond asking people to stop cursing at each other. I'll tread even more cautiously now. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input[edit]

If you have any input on the Flowerofchivalry/Iris Chang/Nanking issue please don't call the other user names on my talk page. If you want to, there's some questions you could answer, same ones I asked FoC, if you like. I've agreed to act as an advocate for Flowerofchivalry, so I can't really express an opinion. I'll try to assess the situation and advise, as well as try to help everyone else understand the point he's trying to make. It seems pretty important to him, so it stands to reason that it will be important to someone else too. If he has a valid point, I'll help him express it. If he has an invalid point, I'll try to help him express it, and try to help him comprehend why the community thinks he's wrong.

I absolutely don't care what happened prior to now, except as it helps me understand the issues as expressed by everyone. My only interest is in creating an unbiased factual encyclopedia. I think that the consensus process works when all parties try to make it work, and when it fails everyone should just be a little nicer and try a little harder to understand each other. Thanks for your help.Pedant 04:03, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

Deleted page[edit]

Heya Noel, I deleted a few of them, but only because they had been around for several days and I figured the editor who kept recreating it would have gotten bored and moved on... I guess I didn't want to see the page and up on anyone's random article page. Sorry if I've made a mistake here!

Out of interest, which page was it? I can restore and reprotect. I think there is a tag to be used for such pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddam Hussien and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory[edit]

This has already been discussed at length. See: [[2]].

And do not poke moved pages, (i.e. change "redirect" to "Redirect") it prevents the page from being moved back. Even worse, people might assume that this is intentional, and that would be considered disruptive and uncivil. I'm assuming in good faith that this was not your intent. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No. The move was based on a policy established by Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2. Kevin Baastalk: new 20:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I agree the renaming thing is probably overblown right now. I'm ok with the name as it is though I think the other is more accurate. --csloat 18:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Number redirects[edit]

I see no profit to contradicting Radiant, but there does seem to be a small amount of history to the big number redirects, mentioning a system of number names called Rowlett. Septentrionalis 21:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

1000000000000 and 1000000000000000000[edit]

Thank you for deleting 1000000000000; it's nonsense. However, the more nonsensical 1000000000000000000 still exists, even after its VFD with 13 votes to delete to 5 to redirect. Can you look into this, please? --A D Monroe III 01:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


I hate to bug you, but there seems to be a contingent of folks who are denying even the existence of a dispute about the appropriate title for the article... keep in mind that these people are saying that anyone who says that the article title is currently non-optimal are doing so in bad faith. Care to come by and weigh-in? Your suggestions have been the best so far, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


Sorry I didn't respond to your message - been on holiday. Deb 20:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Japanese emperors[edit]

Response to your message User talk:Jefu. -Jefu 22:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for your help. -Jefu 04:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I hadn't really thought of the fact that successive small edits to a page fills up the server because every copy is saved. Has anyone ever proposed the idea that successive edits by the same user should be consolidated into one edit to save on disk space? I know there may be a case where a user purposely wants to save intermmediate versions, but you could have a checkbox where you have to make that affirmative election to preserve the record. Just a thought. -Jefu 10:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


As you have done work with some monarchies, please take a look at this too. There's been a huge fuss lately over whether articles on Hawaii's monarchs are in the right location and there are some people who'd like to change the format used in naming the articles (e.g. one user wants to move the article Kamehameha I to Kamehameha I, King of Hawaii. We're having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style#Names of monarchs, and your views on the conflict would be welcome. Arrigo 13:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Generic file names[edit]

Thanks for supporting my idea! I have left a message and a request on the page Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Generic image file names. --Janke | Talk 06:02:42, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

  • OK, you can protect them now. I uploaded the warning image to all the files named in the discussion (and moved & renamed one user's self-portrait, notified him), except "Image.gif" which resides on Commons. The image there is not used anywhere, but I'll let somebody else fix the Commons image (I've not logged in there - yet.) --Janke | Talk 06:28:23, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'll leave the one on Commons for someone else to fix. --Janke | Talk 17:11:37, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Transliteration of Hebrew names[edit]

I cannot agree with you Noel. The modern way of writting Biblical, Jewish and Israeli proper names is to transliterate them from the original correct Hebrew. The now mostly disused old-fashioned way is to write the name in translation or using the Greek/Latin/German equivalent. Eg Yaaqov is not Jacob even though J is pronounced Y in German. Most maps and encyclopedias used the Hebrew transliteration method. All official Israeli Government publications use the Hebrew transliteration including road signs, this is based on the rulings of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. The Beer-Sheva municipality uses Beer-Sheva for the name of the town (see and the same method for the street names. True that some names are difficult to dislodge (eg Jerusalem should be Yerusalayim) A similar move-over has been taking place in other countries in the Middle East from the Arabic and in China (who says Peking now). Beersheva is old fashioned and simply wrong, Beer-Sheva is correct. --User:Ben Qish | Talk 2005-09-07

Three more...[edit]

Image:Picture.jpg / Image:Picture.gif / Image:Picture.png How could I forget these? Please protect as generic file names, too! AdThanksVance, --Janke | Talk 04:20:35, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Fluid pressure[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up on fluid pressure. Added some introductory material that is simpler, based a lot on your work in the now redirected water pressure. See what you think. Thanks again, Steven McCrary 19:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Generic files again...[edit]

There are six more generic file names to protect. You can find them at the bottom of Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Generic_image_file_names. I hope you have the time to do it, thanks! --Janke | Talk 19:36:52, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

User: bryanmenard[edit]

I'm sorry if my revisions of DC-9 offended you. I was working very hard on the page. There were already numerous double and triple redirects going on. I know how to move articles. In that case, I used a cut and paste move because I was actually attempting to start from scratch. I was cleaning up a lot of redirects on other pages as well, (DC9, DC-9, Douglas DC-9, Douglas DC9, Super 80, etc.)

The article gets cannibalized every time an MD-80 slides off the runway or, God forbid, crashes. I'm well aware of wikipedia style and was acutely aware of how to move articles when I left. I apologize if I left a "huge mess" for someone else to clean up. I've been consistently working on that article for quite some time when no one else would take the time.

In any case, thanks for the suggestions and for even looking at the DC-9 article. It's the most overlooked article on here, I think, and no one seems to care unless there's one crashing into a mountain.

If you want to work together on that article, please talk to me. I still have lots of ideas I'm working on for it.

Ciao, Bryan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanmenard (talkcontribs) 15:37, 24 September 2005

I definitely see where you are coming from...I knew that, I didn't think about it when I was doing it. Good point! This article is kind of becoming my baby...I'm about to go out to the airport and take some original pictures so I don't have to worry about copyrights! The article is going to end up being really super once we're done with it. No one even looks at the Discussion page on it, so I rarely bother. It's amazing 2500 planes in the skies and no one cares. The 737, 757, A320 articles get far more attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanmenard (talkcontribs) 15:28, 24 September 2005


I'm curious, why did you leave Passing Songs (Legend of Zelda) when removing two other redirects I nominated under the same criteria? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I see... thanks for clearing that up. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, to be honest I'm not particularly comfortable with it; while a casual gamer might misremember "the Song of Passing" as "the Passing song", the author was using "Passing Songs" to refer to all songs in the series which cause time to jump forward, and that usage constitutes a neologism( even more so than Warp Songs, which was redirected after an inconclusive AfD). As for Blue Fire, sounds good, though I don't know what else it's featured in. If you disambiguate it, though, don't forget to move it to Blue fire. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Barberio[edit]

I saw your notes on User talk:Barberio. While I appreciate that you may be having frustrating interactions with this user, please try to remain polite when interacting with other users, particularly new users. All contributors to Wikipedia are valuable, and new users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, whether we agree with them or not. Let's let civility be our rallying cry. -- Essjay · Talk 08:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Not being content with screwing up the History of the Internet (here we go again, I see), you have seen fit to get rid of the entire PUP article (including the long list of references, further reading, etc, none of which were in any other article). I've had it with your trashing of networking articles. Noel (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I fixed a large number of errors you made in a variety of other pages (e.g. Routing Information Protocol, etc) but I don't have the time to check every edit you make and get rid of all the errors you introduce. Noel (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Um... I did not 'get rid of' PUP, the article was merged in to XNS. No information was lost, all the references were coppied over. The RIP article seemed to be be claiming that a protocol created at Xerox PARC for PUP was first used at ARPANET.
I'm not sure what my 'large number of errors in a variety' of other pages actualy are, since you only appear to have 'corrected' the merge, and the RIP article. (Oh, and in violation of Dual version guidlines, reverted History of the Internet. Again.)
Could you tell me where these other errors are so I can correct them?
--John R. Barberio talk, contribs 09:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Why don't the two of you try mediating your differences? Or in the alternative, just avoid one another until tempers cool? -- Essjay · Talk 08:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly reiterate the statement (copied above by Barberio) that the two of you seek mediation on the issue. -- Essjay · Talk 12:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to mediate, except for two problems: 1) I am in the midst of the nomination process for the Mediation Committee, so I am not yet a mediator, and 2) I don't understand the background of the situation (the subject matter) sufficiently to be able to adquately communicate between the two of you. If you file a request at RfM, they will pair you with a mediator who understands the subject matter sufficiently to be able to coordinate. -- Essjay · Talk 12:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi Noel and Barberio,

I'm happy to be a mediator at Requests for mediation/Jnc and Barberio. Please give me a day or so to catch up on the situation. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like you both to look at the mediation page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jnc and Barberio. Please note from the onset that I am not here to agree or disagree with any specific fact in the article: this mediation is to enable both of you to list your disagreements in a rational manner and hopefully to try to agree with each other, not me. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Noel,
Are you still interested in pursuing mediation? If you're interested in sorting out the problems at the History of the Internet article, I think it would do a lot of good to at least lay out the specific problems first, and then we can see where we can go from there. Mediation has started at the link above, and John has made a start at saying why he changed what he did. I think if you were to at least make a list of the problems with the current article as you see them, we could make a lot of progress. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 03:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves[edit]

Thanks for fixing the history on HMS P311, and consider my wrist slapped. Unfortunately I can rarely remember in detail what I did last month, and so August last year is well below the horizon. However I suspect it was the only one — I created the original article, but I was never happy with the title. From the history I moved it again on 4 April 2005 from HMS P.311 to HMS P311 when the standard for this type of name was settled, but realised the error of my ways, reverted it and got an administrator to move it for me (there is a comment Rv change - let the administrator do it to preserve history). I am not sure why I didn't use the move this page button - maybe it really did require administrator intervention at that time or maybe I didn't notice it. Anyway that gives a cut-off date for cut-and-paste moves, so I've had a scan through my contributions prior to that date and I cannot spot any others. But if I do come across any then I will certainly let you know. Best wishes Jll 23:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 USA-Race[edit]

DNS stands for when a car does not take a a race start. Makes sense. By having Ret listed that mean the driver has actually started in that race and will count a race starts towards the driver race start tally.. The formation lap does not count as a lap at all as it is not added towards the race classification. For when does a driver 'start' a Grand Prix? To my mind he does so only if he is on the grid when the flag drops or light goes green at the final start. Should a driver have failed to compete the formation lap, for instance (as was the case with Prost at Imola in 1991), he cannot truly be said to have started the race. In the case of restarted events such as the British GP in 1986, poor Jacques Laffite certainly did start the race, but this was declared null and void and he was not presented to take the restart, which is the only one that counts. For true official race results is best to get them off as they receive their race results from the officials. Yes I know is official but not 100% official in statistics. If you decide to leave it as Ret then you must give all the drivers a race start count!

I have spend hours in researching and asking many F1 statistician who are famous and know more on Grand Prix. All the statisian I have contacted and got back told me it is actually DNS not Ret, they also have mention the is not very accurate with their race results. The is incorrect as listing as ret instead of DNS for 2005-USA. This were the responses from the following people. Renowned F1 statistians, like David Hayhoe or Autosport's Peter Higham agree that all Michelin drivers were DNS in 2005-USA, but consider a RET if a driver didn't made a re-start, for example. That was the common view in the past - no contemporary source listed Lauda as a DNS in 1976-Germany - and they simply ignore the current "null and void" FIA rule. I totally agree to change it as DNS not Ret as they didn't take part on the first lap.

Here is a intersting fact. Button will start his 100th race start in the 2005-China race. But according to wikipedia when doing the math by adding all Button race starts it would be his 101st race start in China as Button has been listed as Ret instead of DNS for this year 2005-USA race. Does this make sense to you. That means wikipedia will have an extra race start for all the drivers who have no started in the 2005 USA race have an extra race start which wouldn't be official to the drivers stats.

I am trying to help you all to have accurate data on Formula 1 on wikipedia. I DO beleive the site doesn't not give out accurate race classifications. As I have been involved with FORIX and for many years as my job is to look for incorrect data on their server. Andreas 04 October 09:36


The pages aren't about different things so shouldn't be separate, but I guess I was sloppy in merging them, for which I apologize. I didn't notice the extra genera, but I've restored them. The linked pages disappeared automatically with the revert I did to get the listing back, but I figured that since the linked pages are relevent to every prokaryotic group, it wasn't important to give them for each family and genus article. As you think otherwise, I've restored them as well. Josh 21:08, 7 October 2005

Database groveling, again[edit]

Hey, I finally got a full dump (I think). Since we couldn't get a developer to run the script on a slave. I kept getting an error with your wkf program, not sure if I compiled it wrong. I havent' reinstalled my complier yet either, new pc. So instead I am running this command:

C:\storage\wiki>bzip2 -cd 20050924_pages_full.xml.bz2  | grep -e "<username>\|<title>" >count.txt 

Which of course just gives title and usernames that edited each title. No userid. I've had a brain freeze lately and haven't gotten very far in writing something to count the entries yet. Any ideas, or either? Who?¿? 12:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

New Stuff[edit]

[Please add new stuff here - just stick in a =={Title}== header at the bottom after this one (which you may do in the edit window that comes up after you click on the [Edit] button next to this header). Please leave this header, etc, alone, though! Also, please sign all entries with ~~~~. Thanks! - JNC]

I am mostly offline for a while; I've been sick, and have to focus on higher-priority stuff until I catch up. If you need to reach me, please email me, as I'm not reading my Talk: page here.


Hi Noel —

Can I ask if you're still interested in mediation? I realize you haven't been on Wikipedia much lately, and I hope you're feeling better now.

Personally I believe that headway can still be made. If you are worried that the disputes on the mediation page are spiralling out of control, then you could focus on just the first few issues that are up. John has responded to your comments, and the ball is in your court.

Please note that mediation is an active process. I really can't do much by myself — the work needs to be done by the two of you. If you are actually interested in resolving the matter, you need to be able to discuss it with John in a clear, rhetoric-free zone.

Even if you don't have the time to get onto mediation stuff in the next couple of days, can I just hear from you whether you think it worth continuing?

Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)