- 1 A welcome from Sango123
- 2 Thanks for the welcome
- 3 Question From Jimmy Zhang
- 4 Michael Kay (software engineer)
- 5 Nominating AfDs
- 6 Computer Museums and deadPC
- 7 Reverted edits to Run-on_sentence examples
- 8 What are you doing?
- 9 What pompous tosh?
- 10 Description missed in your appraisal of my site
- 11 www.online-xslt-processor.tk is spam?
- 12 My claim to 'greatness'?
- 13 Removal of implementations list from XML template engine
- 14 Talkback
- 15 Nomination of XSQL for deletion
- 16 A barnstar for you!
- 17 Disambiguation link notification
- 18 Re: Talk:Michael Kay (software engineer)
- 19 St James's Church, Reading
- 20 Disambiguation link notification for June 4
- 21 Singing on the River
- 22 Disambiguation link notification for July 9
- 23 Disambiguation link notification for September 8
- 24 September 2014
- 25 A "fanciful" diagram for you
Hello, Mhkay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
- Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Simplified Ruleset
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Wikipedia Glossary
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
hello what is the source for "His campaign extended to the SQL language, which he regarded as an incorrect implementation of the theory. This made his position in IBM increasingly difficult, so he left to form his own consulting" in the page Codd
P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)
Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome on the object database page. Although, I am puzzled by your comment that I am a "little bit lacking in dispassionate analysis." I am trying to be unbiased. So, could you point out what I missed? Thanks. Doug Barry 13:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Question From Jimmy Zhang
Hi, I saw you deleted my entry into XML about VTD-XML and non-extractive parsing. I use SAXON for transformation and admire its power and flexibility. The reason I added a section about non-extractive parsing is because this is a well-known technology capable of helping solving a lot of problems that no other technology/software seems to be able to solve. It is a piece of information that can help a lot people. Whether it is a fringe technology or not... it seems to me more like a subjective view. I intend to base my judgement based on merits and reasoning. Otherwise, what is the difference between a human being and a crocdile? I appreciate your suggestions on this. Please email me at email@example.com
- I think Tim Bray's rewrite of the XML article is excellent in terms of the target readership of an encyclopedia article about XML. If everyone with good ideas about XML-related technologies is allowed to add them to the article, we will quickly end up with a mess again. So removing this was not a view about the merits of the technology, it was a view about what belongs in an overview of XML. One criterion one might use is: if every recent book on XML sees fit to mention the technology, then it is important enough to justify inclusion. If some books on XML don't mention it, then it probably doesn't belong in an article which has to be much shorter and less comprehensive than a book.
- The right place for this discussion, I think, is the talk page associated with the XML article. Mhkay (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. It's not really a "breach of protocol" to create an article about yourself, however it is generally discouraged. Wikipedia:Autobiography is a guideline on the matter. That said, I have no problems with the version you've written, it looks very factual with definite claims to notabilty, which I easily verified. (i.e. none of the problems many autobiographical articles usually have). I'll add some references for the XSL to the article, categorise, and other minor bits though. Regards, MartinRe 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Computer Museums and deadPC
Hello, and thanks for your snobbish remarks about my deleted entry: "The fact that the addition made a silly and unnecessary claim to greatness ("Ireland's first") was probably what caused it to be deleted"
Yes, my online computer museum is the first and only one in Ireland. That may be of interest to Irish people, and apologies if you find that uncomfortable.
As regards 'online computer museum' not being proper, of course it is not, in the 17th. Century definition at least - that is why it says 'online', as per 'online shopping', 'online gallery' and a plethora of other such web activities. According to the natural progression of your 'argument' Wikipedia should not exist, for it is not a proper Encyclopedia.
If everyone waited for definitions to catch up with reality, not much would happen. I note that you work for W3C ( who after 10 years can not agree on standards ) so you of all people should understand that. Might I suggest that you find something better to do than gloating about deleted references. That kind of arrogance is turning people off Wikipedia.
I note that you "hoped" in creating your personal page that it did not contravene Wikipedia rules. I was in the same position, though probably knowing less about Wikipedia than yourself. Thanks for the nice welcome.Deadpc (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't delete your text from the computer museums article: someone else did. I was speculating as to why they might have done it. I actually considered it marginal myself. I wasnt' gloating at all; I was inviting discussion as to whether the deletion was appropriate or not.
- I don't think there's any problem at all with the concept of an online museum. There's an excellent article on the concept by Doron Swade in the current edition of "Computer resurrection". To qualify (a) as a museum, and (b) for inclusion in Wikipedia, however, the material needs to be properly catalogued and documented. While your site is attractive and entertaining, I don't think that comments like "I love the design of this Box ... the console is nice too, until you look for features! The Commodore 64 GS ( Games System ) pretty well marked the departure of Commodore from the market - so sad." are of museum quality.
- Sometimes the terms "snobbish" and "arrogant" are applied to people who have high standards by people who don't.
Indeed ... if you are suggesting that I have low standards, please just say it. I think 'intolerant' would probably have been a better term for me to have used. For example, the reference to 'Bletchley park' is of no interest to me, but I RESPECT the fact that it may be of interest to Britons, and therefore refrain from making sarcastic remarks about it's inclusion on the page. My 'attempt at greatness' as you call it, referencing the fact that I decided to set up an "Online" museum which IS the first in Ireland, is probably similarly of no interest to Britons.
Thank you for your feedback regarding my site. The reference you quoted was intentionally mischevious and irreverant on my part, and intended very much along the same lines as, hypothetically: "The NSU Ro-80's wankel rotary engine was unreliable and lead to warranty claims. This sadly marked the demise of NSU, a great company". The reference there is to what went before. Admittedly the site navigation is messy, admittedly it is '2-D' in appearance, but in terms of actual descriptions there are several issues which I have considered.
Firstly, most online computer collections carry descriptions which - in many cases - are simply copied and pasted from elsewhere. I do not want to do that. It is very much a 'work in progress' and yes, descriptions need to be added. Granted, in traditional museum parlance my descriptions are not 'museum quality' however the entire meaning of the site is firmly in the context of the computer in popular culture: not many people are enthusiastic about 20 year old fridges or vacuum cleaners, for example. In the case of consoles, 'toy computers' essentially, the packaging is an important consideration, designed as it was / is to lure children and create "pester power" in order that parents will make a purchase.
In essence, what I am trying to create is probably more 'Andy Warhol' than 'Caravaggio'. Within the ever - changing Web I do not believe that this is dishonest, nor do I believe that I am being less than transparent in the way in which I am doing it. Many things happen on the web in similar fashion, and the end 'truth' becomes whether or not the idea works ( at least that is my opinion )
Having been away for some time I was disappointed to read your remarks, which came up quite high on a google search of my site's name where previously they had not. I am doing my best, and have worked very hard and spent a lot of my own money on this ( private ) venture. Yes, like any other human I make mistakes. Obviously if I had huge funding things would be different. My website has a 'contact' section and links on every page, and I would be delighted to hear your views, but I would appreciate it if you could contact me via the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpc (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect you really want to be having a conversation with the anonymous user who deleted your edits, not with me: all I did was to speculate on why they might have done it. You seem to have taken particular offence at my conjecture that they might have disliked the entry because of its claim to be a first in Ireland. I made that suggestion because it sounds rather like marketing-speak, and there are many Wikipedia authors who take exception to anything that looks like advertising. The fact that it was Ireland was not the point: I would have made the same remark if it had been Italy, Israel, Iran, or Iceland. The point is that a reference to a site like this should contain a short and objective statement of what can be found on the site, not a claim to be better, greater, earlier, bigger, or glitzier than other sites.
- You've produced a nice site with a nice collection of pictures and anecdotes about the machines. I think that to claim the title of "museum" it needs to be more than that: it needs to be grounded in scholarly research. I'd personally be quite happy to have it referenced from Wikipedia provided it doesn't claim to be what it is not. Mhkay (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we will have to agree to disagree in some respects. I take your point about the possible 'marketing speak' interperetation, however this was not the intention. The eventual aim is to mould the site pretty well into what you describe, though with the emphasis more on the visual: currently it relies more heavily on the visual. It is far from "done and dusted", and certainly there was / is no intention to mislead. Thanks for your opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpc (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. McKay,
I was a little surprised with your response. The above (previous) comment here related to the article itself, not the 'talk' page associated with it. I edited that and accidentally deleted a lot more than intended. Deadpc (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Reverted edits to Run-on_sentence examples
Your edits to Run-on_sentence appeared to be in good faith, however I reverted them for being derogatory towards a specific entity. It's not really appropriate to reference an excerpt from a company in an article, especially for an example of bad language mechanics. Nick Wilson (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why. It's normal practice in books on style to quote both good and bad examples and in each case to say where they came from. But I won't press it.Mhkay (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
What are you doing?
Also you undid a revision stating it was "ungrammatical". However the formality of the sentence was in question, and "It is not a good idea..." is informal compared to "Poor separations of concerns...". Please consider that Wikipedia is going for encyclopedic content, which strives for proper formality. Marx01 Tell me about it 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The revision was ungrammatical because it added a bullet that was a noun phrase to a list whose other items were all complete sentences. I don't share your view on style: you seem to adhere to a very old-fashioned way of writing, that treates the passive mood as somehow more respectable than the active. Mhkay (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
What pompous tosh?
You are a Member of the W3C, and an expert on the topic of XML. You frequently edit XML Schema (W3C).
There is a section called "Criticism", that is critical of your organization (W3C) as it relates to XML.
For example, this section says
The W3C Recommendation itself is extremely difficult to read.
- Um, no. It is not critical of the organization, it is critical of one of its outputs (and it is not "my" organization; and I am not a "member", I am an "invited expert").
- You missed where I said "as it relates to XML."
- Your user page says "[I am a] Member of the W3C...".
I edited that section (Criticism) and changed
- "who admittedly promotes his own version" [the non-W3C version] to
- "promotes his own version"
The protest that followed compels me to assert that you have a potential conflict of interest that has actively defended a biased remark.
- I wrote the summary of James's criticisms because there was previously a poorly written and highly subjective set of criticisms on the page, and James's views are far more coherent and well argued. But I felt it necessary to point out that he has an interest in the matter, which is why I added the "admittedly" phrase.Mhkay (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I find it very odd that as one of the editors of a spec I should be accused of bias and lack of objectivity as a result of making strenuous efforts to ensure that criticisms of that spec are well represented in the article! Mhkay (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore it appears to have driven you to edit a user page to make a negative personal remark.
- I did not make personal remarks about you, I criticized what you said (in your explanation for the changes you made). I didn't revert your changes, but I felt your explanation for them (that the adverb "admittedly" somehow injected a point of view, rather than (in my view) adding balance) was way off the mark.Mhkay (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Remarks are marks having implications: "you are pompous". Another is "you write nonsense." But OK, my "edit summary" was tosh and pompous because it was propaganda, what I considered the opposite extreme of what I edited out. How was I to know my propaganda would fall on it's author's ears? I apologize. I now know better how not to make edit summaries. CpiralCpiral 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would submit that in objective reality, the encyclopedic reality, that every conceivable motivation, conscious or not, all summed up, then informed James Clark's act. Then writing "admittedly promotes" or "lovingly offers" are both true, but both at odds with one another, and so both are unnecessary and dangerous forays into the creation of an unreliable "excuse" reality, a "reality explained" that we are asked over and over again not to make. CpiralCpiral 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia values civility and neutrality above expertise. Please review
I certainly had to!
- OK, it wasn't very civil. Sorry about that. But I let you have your way, which is the main thing. Mhkay (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Going further, the main thing is objectivity.
All the best now.
- I feel I need to give some input here:
- Mhkay - You noted that you were not very civil, and apologized. Thumbs up. However, I would just like to reinforce that discussion is to stay on a talk page not a user page. I you had not had the edit count I saw, I would have reported you immediately. However, seeing that you and Cpiral have settled the dispute (which I find much much much better than reporting you). I completely understand how you felt when you were writing that on his userpage (I've done worse, unfortunately (all in the past)), but the best way to exert your feelings, ideas and whatnot onto a person is through the talk page, mainly because there is that wonderful sign that pops up at the top of the screen to notify of a message. Also remember that 'I let you have your way' was not the main thing. I was much more concerned about the way you acted. I see that most of the above section is about that.
- I must applaud you for the way you contribute, having such a wide variety of subjects you have contributed to. I'm glad Wikipedia has wonderful editors like you contributing like that. Also if you feel I should not have butted in or anything like that, the reason I did was because Cpiral is my adoptee.
- Cpiral - You put out your point without being vague in the least bit, and not drawing it out whatsoever. Excellent job! I applaud you for dealing with this better than I would have at your wiki-age. I'm sorry for going ahead of you and confronting before you do (again), I just feel I have to. Anyway I don't think I have much more to say to you.
- Thanks (both of you) for being amazingly clear and not throwing insults at each other. Good job!
Description missed in your appraisal of my site
I would urge you to look underneath the photograph on this page: http://deadpc.net/html/c64_gs___games_system__.html
You seemed to take issue with the fact that my site only contained 'personal anecdotes'. Well, if you have a look, they're not personal anecdotes. The page has not changed in the interim. Deadpc (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- What I see under the photograph is this: "I love the design of this Box ... the console is nice too, until you look for features! The Commodore 64 GS ( Games System ) pretty well marked the departure of Commodore from the market - so sad." Well, that seems very much a personal viewpoint, and it's not even attributed! I quite like the personal touch, but it's not what you'd expect to find in a caption labelling an artefact in a real museum." Mhkay (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Below the photograph can be found the following: "20,000 examples sold, 1990 ( was not available outside Europe ). This is number 16888" Brief I grant you, but informative I would say. Deadpc (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
www.online-xslt-processor.tk is spam?
My claim to 'greatness'?
I have noticed the following has escaped your attention for quite some time:
"The Museum of Computing in Swindon, UK was the first UK museum dedicated to the history of computing."
This is practically a verbatim copy of my own reference, since deleted ("Ireland's first online computer museum"), and referred to as a "claim to greatness" by your good self.
Could it be that U.K. claims to "greatness" are different to all other claims of "greatness", to the point where they are in fact "great"?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't say I'm comfortable with the sentence you refer to, but please don't regard me as in any way responsible for it. I think it's probably technically accurate, in that other and earlier UK collections have been part of museums with a wider scope (i.e., not "dedicated"), but it would be nice if whoever inserted the claim could say something more interesting about the establishment rather than merely claiming a rather dubious first. But I didn't feel on balance that I knew of any grounds for changing the entry. Someone tried to delete it entirely, without giving any explanation, and I reverted that because it looked like pure vandalism. If someone were to change it to give a more objective and less advertorial statement about the institution, I would be the first to welcome it. Mhkay (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Removal of implementations list from XML template engine
As i can see, you removed implementations list from the XML template engine article (diff) stating that "The implementation section was puff, and duplicated XSLT/XQuery". However, i see no duplication here; there is no implementations listed in the XSLT article. Maybe i missed something?
- Well, the list was certainly in pretty bad shape - as such lists almost invariably are, since they are an open invitation to add material that's essentially pure product advertising. And the "XML template engine" article itself was in very poor shape - I've argued in the past that it should be deleted, but having failed on that, I thought a good clean-up was in order. And I do think that if we're going to have a list of implementations, they belong with the specific languages (XSLT, XQuery, etc) and not with the very generic article "XML template engine". But what I hadn't spotted was that the section in the XSLT article on "implementations" refers to "XSLT processors" as the "main article" on implementations, and this in fact redirects (someone spuriously) to "XML template engine". So it seems some further tidy-up, and perhaps reinstatement of the list of processors in a new place, might be appropriate. Mhkay (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XSQL until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Thanks for the Ironside contributions, very handy! Excalibur (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)|
Hi. In Greg Winter, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Medical Research Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Re: Talk:Michael Kay (software engineer)
St James's Church, Reading
Are you sure the reference of the book you added which doesn't reference anything in particular is what you want in that article? The WP page is not a book advisory to advice people on what book to read on certain subjects. If the book has certain references to the details mentioned in the page please use a proper page number with citation to the particular section in the WP article instead of just putting a POV kind of statement in the references. I will be reverting it again for the same reason. Amit (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- The reference was added as a "See also", implying that it provides extra information beyond that in the article, rather than being used to underpin the facts given in the article - though it could certainly be used in as a reference as well. I agree the link could usefully be expanded to explain what kind of information it contains. (It actually contains (a) very detailed information about the historical events leading to the founding of the church, and (b) a detailed analysis of its architecture).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ponte d'Augusto (Narni), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Italian, Roman and Nera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Thank you. This article is work in progress. There are many ways it can be improved. Feel free to help. Mhkay (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Singing on the River
Hello, Mhkay. In case you're still interested, I've replied to your comment on Talk:Trinity_College,_Cambridge#Singing_on_the_River. cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 19:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Data definition language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Views (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Crofton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical Research Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- [[MySQL]], [[PostgreSQL]], [[Microsoft SQL Server]], [[Oracle Database|Oracle]], and [[IBM DB2]]]. A database is not generally [[Software portability|portable]] across different DBMSs, but
A "fanciful" diagram for you
- I explained my thinking on the XSLT talk page. Sorry about the word "fanciful" in the edit message, it's hard to explain one's thinking in a few characters and "fanciful" was a poor choice. "Imaginative" might have been better. Thanks to the link to where the diagram comes from (shouldn't it have been acknowledged?) I wasn't sure if it was original work (damned by the Wikipedia rules on original research) or something that had been published elsewhere (damned by the rules on copyright). I fully admit I'm not really a diagram sort of person, unless the semantics of the diagram are precise. What does it mean for two languages to be represented on a Venn diagram by two overlapping circles? As I said in my comments on the talk page, I think you could justify the XSLT/XPath/XQuery part of this diagram even though the meaning is imprecise, as showing visually in an informal sense that XPath is what XSLT and XQuery have in common. If that's what you had done, I would have left it in. But the XLink and XPointer part seems to be technical nonsense. In what sense is XPointer the intersection of XQuery and XLink? I think it's interesting that the diagram comes from an XLink page - it comes from an XLink person trying to give XLink a role in life which it doesn't have. XLink is dead, precisely because it doesn't have the kind of relationship claimed by this diagram. Mhkay (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)