User talk:Remy B/Archive 1
Book-worm - Road to reality[edit]
I am new and I am not sure where to respond to your comment that was posted on my talk page. Please advise. I have read the policies and still think that I am compatible, while other text is not compatible with these same policies. I am eager to discuss that. --Book-worm 09:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason I put MAD #1 on the left is because of a basic design principle: The characters in Kurtzman's cover are looking to the right. If they had been looking to the left, I would have placed the picture on the right.
This is similar to the way an actor on stage opens out to the audience with the upstage foot placed slightly forward and body angled rather than pure profile.
Notice how this Jack Davis layout was planned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Davis_%28cartoonist%29 The first paragraphs of the story have been smoothly integrated with the illustration, and all four figures on the right look to the left and toward the blocks of copy. Pepso 06:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Re multiple animal births, sorry it annoyed you enough to need a cleanup noice. Actually you managed to put it there just seconds after I created the article itself... Getting there :) If you're interested in the topic, help would be most welcome. Cheers Donama 06:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- You are right, I am probably too eager to put that tag on new articles. I think I'll just leave editing the brand new pages to labelling speed deletes from now on. Remy B 06:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Really, what do you think about this article? I never got motivated to improve it. Also, I added some words about multiple birth in other species at the start of the "Multiple birth" article which is probably where information about multiple birth in all species should go. If anything, perhaps information about human multiple birth shuold have its own sub article or distinct subsection and this "multiple animal birth" article be deleted. Donama 01:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
My interesting facts section was not notable enough? Surely you are just being prodigiously anal to remove such a sentimental fact
- Wikipedia isnt about lumping together every possible piece of information on a topic. At the very least, the bridle of the winning horse wasnt notable enough for an entire section of an encyclopedia article. Sorry if that seems anal, but it isnt personal, I'm just trying to make the article as encyclopedic as possible. Remy B 07:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
You put a cleanup tag on this article, but I'm not sure what exactly it is you'd like changed. Was the cyclical example too confusing? I looked through the style guidelines and nothing popped out as wrong. You also didn't list a reason under the cleanup lists. I'd certainly like to make this article better, but first I'd like to know what's wrong with it. Reisen 07:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- In retrospect I probably should have used the wikify tag rather than the cleanup tag, as it was more of a style issue than the wording of the article itself (although the first sentence in the article isnt proper English). Typically well styled articles tend to have bolded title text, a separate section for examples, and often links to related topics for further reading (maybe game theory in this case, for example). I wouldnt read too much into my tagging though, I think the article is generally well written and covers an interesting topic. Remy B 08:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Reisen 09:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I like the update, looks good. Remy B 10:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Does that mean that all Aussie rules "computer games" can be classed under video games as well? If so, perhaps there should be a name change from computer games to video games. By the way, good article. Rogerthat 01:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me welcome you to WikiProject AFL. Hopefully we can sort out some of the disputes happening with regards to NPOV and more importantly expand the footy on this site by the time the season kicks off. Rogerthat Talk 00:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I was considering doing a similar thing myself using Excel. I assume that is also what you will be using? If so send it over via email - cornuto1 at gmail dart com Rogerthat Talk 06:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have put up the reasons I think the article should be merged on the talk page, but if anyone wants to oppose it, it will be majority rules.--Zxcvbnm 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Commonwealth Games teams articles[edit]
Thanks for your kind words. It is just a basic article in each case but hopefully it means that people are not reinventing the wheel each time CommGood 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about the ordering of the page.
On the other hand, you are also condoning the removal of every single detail about the Opening Ceremony from the main page for the Commonwealth Games,as though it has no value. I feel that such wholesale removal of information is excessive.
There is a separate page for the Opening Ceremony for the 2004 Olympic Games, but there is also some detail about the Opening Ceremony given in the main article for the 2004 Olympic Games.
Why should there not be, in a similar fashion, some details about the Opening Ceremony on the main page for the 2006 Commonwealth Games? Figaro 17:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- You supported the structural changes to the page by JP06035. Those structural changes included the complete removal of all details of the Opening Ceremony from the main article page, and just leaving a single link to a separate page which is specifically about the Opening Ceremony. Figaro 00:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
RE: SVG Logos[edit]
If you zoom in on the flash file that opens when you view the 'Interactive Scoreboard' (I think that is what it is called, you can get a high resolution image of a team's logo. Cut out the background, put it into Inkscape, trace it & save it. The current PNG logos are good enough to trace into high quality SVG images (Click 'High Resolution Version' on the image page.) ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 01:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
AFL[edit]
some of Pnatt's changes were to genuine typos and were not just americanisations. Xtra 12:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working, which also displays at teh bottom of the main CFD page. We are quite backlogged in the actual work of the renaming. We used to have a bot to do the grunt work of renames, but it died a month or so ago. So for now, the renames have to be done manually. The tedious part is moving all the members from the old name to the new name. - TexasAndroid 15:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Vandalizing?![edit]
How am I vandalizing exactly? Do you mean the 3RR? Please explain?! Pnatt 10:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof![edit]
Hi Remy B/Archive 1, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!
If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Glen TC (Stollery) 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Template with logos[edit]
Please read WP:FU. Fair use images are not allowed on templates, or for decorative purposes. For sports logos, this means the only use should be on the article discussing the team, or the history of the team, where the badge is discussed. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 10:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
G'day Remy,
thanks for your query. Basically, I removed the tag because, even if we accept for the sake of argument that the restaurant is non-notable and the article is there as an advertisement, that is not sufficient for it to be speedy deleted out of hand. The speedy deletion criteria exist to enable us to get rid of obvious crap rather than having to follow the AfD process. However, an article like Bibas Greek Pizza really needs more people to look at it and argue over it than you and I; the article is not a bad one, and it certainly doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. As for my edit summary, in essence: whether the restaurant is notable or not is irrelevant to whether I should delete it or remove the tag; and the article does not, in my view, read like an advertisement. Its tone could do with a minor touchup but, if it was written by someone with an interest in promoting the restaurant, then the author took great pains to ensure he stayed within Wikipedia guidelines as he did so. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comparison of synchronous of asynchronous signalling[edit]
I went ahead and deleted this as it appears to be a spelling error. Let me know if there is any cleanup that needs to be done, thanks :). It is as it always was T | @ | C 07:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Locational damage[edit]
I cant imagine an article being made about the concept of specific hit points for each body part).
Hey Remy B, just a friendly hello! Do you know exactly which game first implemented the so-called "locational damage"? Was it Half-Life? I think it's a pretty significant development and am considering adding a small section about it under FPS (if it hasn't already.) Nice to meet ya. ~ Flooch 09:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the article HDRI Image Format Comparison, which you proposed for deletion, I have marked the article for speedy deletion, as I feel that the article meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. In cases where it applies, speedy deletion is preferable to proposed deletion. I have left the {{prod}} tag in place, so that if speedy deletion is rejected, your proposed deletion will remain in place. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this page as I saw it had exactly the same content as the Swans entry at List of celebrity supporters of AFL clubs. The fact that no other team had such a (needless double of a) page suggested that a simple redirect or merge was needed. Given only Sydney Swans linked to the page, I just changed the link accordingly and deleted. Hopefully there should be no reason to debate the need for two copies of identical content on Wikipedia. Harro5 06:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was going to redirect the article and the link, but then that would just be CSD R3 as people wouldn't search this title. If you would like to me restore the article, redirect it, and nominate the redirect for WP:RFD then I will do so, but hopefully this is a fairly non-controversial action as no information has been lost. Harro5 08:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
VandalProof 1.2 Now Available[edit]
The following message was found posted on User talk:Rem120 and was moved here as a public service.----Russ Blau (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I personally agree with the two criticisms I posted of the book, which are merely reitarations of Marvin Minsky's arguments against The Emperor's New Mind. Penrose's assumption that the internal represational structure of consciousness comprises a formal logic system is false. I'm a strong believer in computational theories of consciousness, such as the theory Minsky advocates in The Society of Mind, or Dennett advocates in Consciousness Explained. I'd like help expanding the article though. I think a more detailed synopsis of Penrose's arguments is needed, along with a synopsis of the linked criticisms. Tarcieri 08:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not Philip Dorell. I stuck his GFDL text into the article. It just restates Penrose's original argument and offers criticsm. I'm not smart enough to restate the other criticsms for the article, but figured there should be some in there Joegoodbud 11:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Responded...[edit]
I responded to your comment here. I apologise, as it was a genuine accident - vandalising an article which is one of my major editing projects at the moment isn't something that makes much sense. Sorry again.
While I'm here, I noticed you had those awesome-looking progress bars on your page - how did you do that? I tried, once, and failed miserable. Is there, like, a tutorial about it?
Oh, and sorry again for the mistaken article edit. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
My discussion of The Road to Reality[edit]
I did not put my book review in the small article, because we strive for consensus and I know that there are editors that disagree with me. I just suggested a start to a more detailed discussion of the book. I do not think discussion of the topic is irrelevant, because his lack of understanding of Schrödinger's 1935 Schrödinger's Cat article appears to me to be, after the beautiful treatment of mathematics and of why most people don't like mathematics, one of the prominent features of the book. As I tried to indicate, I tried to invite responses from the author. Since he is retired, I was not surprised not to receive a response. So I re-edited my comments and posted them, in the hope that they will contribute to a review that may not only help people to decide whether to take the effort (which in some cases may be very considerable) to read the book, but that will tell them how the book fits into the general understanding of the subjects it covers.
In this context, it is clearly relevant to discuss the subject. The EPR paradox is based on only three things: QM; classical physics; and intuition and the Copenhagen interpretation. Of these, only intuition and the Copenhagen interpretation are not stated in clear mathematics. Penrose is aware that the former two are local in nature. So the apparent non-locality (action at a distance) clearly comes from intuition and the Copenhagen Interpretation. But he did not say that in his book. My only possible conclusion is that, being an old mathematician, he learned QM too late to ever accept it as part of his perception of reality. In my opinion, young people need to be told, at least, that there is a commonly held belief that QM is reality. If they don't hear it now they will be like Einstein and Penrose who never got the real point. I realize that I underplayed what a good book it is. Particularly, I like the discussion of the importance of complex numbers. The introduction to field theory and general relativity are inspired. Again because what I put on the discussion page was not balanced, I have put it in the discussion only. David R. Ingham 05:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't get it. This is potential material for the article that I have not put into the article because it is one-sided and needs others views to balance it. David R. Ingham 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Battlefield 2 maps[edit]
Hey I'm sorry I hope you don't think I have anything against Battlefield 2 (personally I love playing the game myself). I just feel that each map shouldn't have it's own article. I will gladly withdraw my delete vote for List of maps in Battlefield 2 article as long as you allow the pages on each map be deleted. I hope you don't take this personally I'd love to play against you and such but please just let the map articles die.--M8v2 04:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message on my talk page regarding the above deletion - I've replied there, but thought I should draw your attention to my response here so you get that exciting orange box at the top of your screen. :) I'd like to draw your attention to the FA-class article Super Mario 64, which includes sufficient information on the maps within itself. We don't need articles on the maps, since that information should only be included in the main article - there isn't enough worthwhile information to justfiy a split like this. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
well since this topic has already been created.... while i agree that whoever used "game-guide" was doing so a little liberally, most of the articles you posted have little worth as seperate from List of maps in Battlefield 2. Generally, entries within lists (particularly lists of fiction) remain until there is so much info contained within that section that it becomes distracting from the article as a whole. For example compare List of Pokémon items and Poké Ball. These map articles only contain a little more useful info than their counterpats on the main list page, and there is no reason why that encyclopedic info couldn't just be added to the entries. You could even create a table to easily add the images and for easier comparison of things like terrain. -Zappernapper 15:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd also just like to point out that while mentioning AfDs in the relevant wikiproject is appropriate, oftentimes leaving msgs on peolpe's talk pages is considered solicitation for votes and looked down upon. -Zappernapper 15:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Quick Note[edit]
As i can see you have received personal attacks from Argent009 on his talk page - and i have issued him with quite a strong warning aswell as the one you issued him. If he personally attacks you again follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and report him. This will block him from wikipedia.
Kind Regards
Dep. Garcia (Talk to Me) 19:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Troublesome editor[edit]
Hi Remy. I've left another message on the user's talk page, with more explanation, and directing him to discussion and some relevant links. I don't think there's much more to do unless he keeps going. Hope that helps, JPD (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Geelong Football Club Template[edit]
The fact that you have removed the club template from the Geelong FC page has angered me somewhat. My ultimate goal is to achive featured atrticle status for the GFC page and I've been following the exaples of Chelsea FC (which has a club info box), Sydney Roosters and Central Coast Mariners pages to achive this. These pages all follow similar layouts and have lists of past coaches and players to go along with the main article. If you have a problem with the seasons each club has played in, remove it from the template, don't remove the template. Now because you removed the Geelong template there is no longer a direct link to other Geelong FC related pages like for instance, List of Geelong Football Club coaches and Geelong Cats 2007 Season. Links like these are needed to achive FA class status. So is there any other reason(s) (apart from the VFL/AFL seasons) why you removed all the templates? Sge 05:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how I deleted that huge chunk. Oops :P Remy B 13:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I've killed the tag for you, too, after I reverted. Gscshoyru 13:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Vanuatu[edit]
Hi, I think the "current event" tag referred to the earthquake which happened 2 days ago. I'm not sure whether it should be placed at the top of the article, though. --Targeman 13:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio[edit]
I suppose I could have wasted my time deciphering your mistakes. Perhaps someone should be more careful next time. Anakus 12:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Season articles[edit]
Thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I think you're right, I will post it on the 2007 AFL season talk page to see what other people think. I was following the same as the NRL 2007 season article. Times1 12:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Flags on AFL squad pages[edit]
Can you please explain why you removed these. Every other sports team in the world has these flags. So why have you removed them on the AFL articles ? --Spewmaster 02:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- A good starting place for the reason is here: WP:FLAG#Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason. I can understand it for sporting competitions where the nationalities are widely varied (eg. soccer), and people are keenly interested in the national alignment of a player. But in the AFL the vast majority of players are Australian, so to put the flag of a non-Australian is just to profess a novelty about that player. We shouldn't be decorating squad lists over novelties like being born overseas. The same logic applies for Aboriginal flags. If people want to know the nationality of a player, they can go to the article, just like all the other information about the player. An encyclopedia is not the place for decoration just for decoration sake. Remy B 10:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)