Jump to content

User talk:RossPatterson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Welcome to another R Patterson

I guess you know your way around, up to a point! But maybe not too familiar with all the uses of one's User-page? I suggest you copy some of what you wrote above to start it off if you haven't any better ideas! Then use it for your own quick-links and "to do" lists, etc; big advantage is you can get to it in one jump from anywhere.

Many years ago I spent a dollar buying an encyclopedia by "R F Patterson, BA". Never thought I'd be really helping to write one one day.

Enjoy! Robin Patterson 00:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please amend Core Image

You posted some inaacurate information on Mac OS X's Core Image. The imaging you're thinking of is of disk imaging. The type of Imaging being discussed on Core Image is of actual graphic imaging and has absolutely nothing to do with ferrite cores. You would know this if you went to the Apple Link on the page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Simfonie (talk • contribs) 23:45, 30 August 2004

Done as requested. But anyone who doesn't know that Apple didn't coin the term "core image" hasn't done their research in the computing field. None of the information was inaccurate or had anything to do with "disk imaging". I know what Apple means by "Core Image", but I can't help it if they co-opted an existing term for their own purposes. RossPatterson 17:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh my God, Ross you are my hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.140 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 February 2006

Somehow I don't think that's really intended to be complimentary. But I'll act like it is and enjoy it :-) RossPatterson 22:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cat Stevens

Hey, I noticed you've been doing a lot of work on Cat Stevens related articles. I'm trying to get Cat Stevens up to the featured article level and submitted a peer review. If you've got any suggestions or comments they'd be really appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cat Stevens/archive1. Thanks, Mrtea (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ross, didn't know you worked on the Cat Stevens article - I did some work there recently too, trying to get some more balance in. (If we talk about the Rushdie and no-fly stuff, as we should, we ought to talk about his response to 9/11 too - so I added a section about that, and some other stuff.) Also, see email for a note about a different subject. Tvoz 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

New York City Islands

I fixed it! Let me know if you see any other mistakes. I also see that a lot of the Pelham Islands names listed in the article are circular links. They just take me back to the Pelham article. Did I miss any of the Islands? I am creating the templates for all 5 boroughs and for the Islands, Bridges, and Rivers of New York City. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Islands

Are you on Staten Island now? I am in the Lounge and the hospital right now. I guess you fixed the last Pelham Island link, but had not checked all of them. So what's a good new New York City topic to start? I am still working on the river's template. Its not very big. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Daffodils

Have the daffodils bloomed yet? The crocus are in full bloom here. What do you do down in DC?

Cdigix

Nice work cleaning up the Cdigix. Press releases as articles kinda irk me, and take some work to get article-worthy. Again, good job. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 01:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Stuyvesant Debate

The conclusion of the dispute was never reached, but the guy who was vandalizing stopped after the page kept being protected from anonymous edits and I believe his IP was banned. It's actually more useful to have some criticism in addition to the good things, but that guy went too far, and the edits had to be toned down.--Zxcvbnm 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, his IP wasn't banned, because it was an AOL IP. At any rate, Zxcvbnm interpretation of the situation is correct; no resolution was reached but it seems irrelevant as Bobbydoop (and various other usernames/IPs) has sort of given up. Which is probably better since nobody else seemed to agree with his edits. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

stuy userbox

Greetings,
Consider adding the Stuy userbox, {{User Stuy}}.
Regards, - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (Class of 99)

SING

Ross

Thanks for cleaning up the page. Question: Do you know for sure that the schools you have listed under "former" are no longer having SINGs? I was going to do a similar split, but didn't feel I had all the information. If not, maybe a third category, "schools unknown current or not" might be appropriate. I was very suprised I found out where SING! started. Its very hard to Google for information, since Google doesn't distinguish between sing and SING!

Also, I have Stuy SING! programs from 1976, 77 and 78. Would one be good for the Stuyvesant article? Simon12 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ross - your comment about the theme was interesting. By the time I was involved in '76 (my Soph year), there were no themes anymore. I'll see if I can find the SING programs and if they'e usable. Simon12 02:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cousin chart mathematical definitions

I've restored this section, it's perfectly valid and useful and actually much more concise than the other sections. Anybody who's not mathematically inclined can simply ignore it. -- Curps 23:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the non-notable edits on Staten Island Technical High School. It's seriously appreciated. SKX-4022 22:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnote irritations

See #cite web-waybackref merger below for the version of {{cite web}} that resulted from this discussion.

That was a splendid piece of work on the footnote about Joan Jett gossip. Unfortunately it didn't actually work. But before cursing me and reverting my edit, please look at my comment in that article's talk page. Thanks. -- Hoary 03:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Very curious. I tested it quite a bit (you're right, it was painstaking :-) ). I'd love to know what doesn't work, since looking at my version right now it seems to be fine. What I see is this:

1. ^ “Interview with Maggie Downs, The Desert Sun (Palm Springs, CA), 31 March 2006.” http://joanjettbadrep.com/cgi-bin/fullStory.cgi?archive=currnews&story=20060405-01shore.htm. Archived on 28 April 2006.

with the following links:

  1. "Interview with Maggie Downs, The Desert Sun (Palm Springs, CA), 31 March 2006." -> http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:JAxf4v-pQmgJ:joanjettbadrep.com/cgi-bin/fullStory.cgi%3Farchive%3Dcurrnews%26story%3D20060405-01shore.htm (which works. The "31 March 2006" is due to my date preference setting, and is wiki-linked to [[2006-03-31].)
  2. "http://joanjettbadrep.com/cgi-bin/fullStory.cgi?archive=currnews&story=20060405-01shore.htm" -> http://joanjettbadrep.com/cgi-bin/fullStory.cgi?archive=currnews&story=20060405-01shore.htm (which of course fails because the site is refusing all requests)
  3. "Archived" (wiki link to Internet Archive)
  4. "28 April 2006" (wiki link to 2006-04-28, formatted per my preferences)

Care to tell me what you see and how it differs? RossPatterson 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the undeservedly genial reply. Yes, I see what you describe above. However, much of it is linked to an external page in a way that works, but it is followed by an explicit link ("http://blahblahblah") that is long and ugly and doesn't work. That the latter link didn't work could of course have been the fault of that particular server. I didn't bother to read up the syntax of the macros that you'd used: I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that following (a) a link that worked and supplied the information promised with (b) a long, ugly, and non-working link was some kind of error. I also guessed (perhaps again wrongly) that you knew what you were doing but that it clashed with some REF-related bug. Now that I look at it again, I suppose it means <a href="long URL of working archive">title</a>, date (<a href="original URL">original URL (which may not work)</a>, archived on such and such a day).
It now seems to me that the macro is badly designed. Putting aside the complication of dates, I'd suggest "Interview with Maggie Downs, <i>The Desert Sun</i> (Palm Springs, CA), 31 March 2006." <a href="long URL">Here</a> (28 April 2006 [[Internet_archive|archive]] of <a href="short URL">this page</a>, which may no longer work). -- Hoary 05:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your summary of the meaning of the {{waybackref}} macro is correct. I agree, it's a little too simple-minded. I'm prototyping a merge of its features into {{cite web}}, to produce something like this:

2006-03-31 [Interview with Maggie Downs http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:JAxf4v-pQmgJ:joanjettbadrep.com/cgi-bin/fullStory.cgi%3Farchive%3Dcurrnews%26story%3D20060405-01shore.htm]. The Desert Sun. archived from the original on 2006-04-26

with the link on "Interview with Maggie Downs" pointing to the archived version and the link on "the original" pointing to the place where it came from. The source looks like this:

{{cite web |url=http://joanjettbadrep.com/cgi-bin/fullStory.cgi?archive=currnews&story=20060405-01shore.htm |title=Interview with Maggie Downs |date=[[2006-03-31]] |publisher=The Desert Sun |archiveurl=http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:JAxf4v-pQmgJ:joanjettbadrep.com/cgi-bin/fullStory.cgi%3Farchive%3Dcurrnews%26story%3D20060405-01shore.htm |archivedate=2006-04-26 }}

which makes it very easy to replace an online version with its archived version when the original gets 404'd - simply add the "archiveurl=" and "archivedate=".

Anyway, for the time being I don't have any problem with whatever way you want to mark the Joan Jett note up. I just wanted to get the actual source of the quote into the page so that the next time it comes up the citation will be checkable :-) RossPatterson 05:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mm, yes, I now think that you were right (and have just now reverted accordingly). It's the macro, and not your use of it, that's the problem. Well, I'm no expert. Sorry to have wasted your time. -- Hoary 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Persistant User Edits

What can I do if someone keeps on reverting the page on Staten Island Technical High School? I'm pretty sure that the IP and SteveCarbo588 are the same person. I'm a new user (and pretty clueless). SKX-4022 19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The answer is "not much". You can start by telling both of them on their Talk pages that they shouldn't be doing this - check out Wikipedia:Vandalism (aka WP:VAND) for suggestions on what to say, including some standard templates. You can also revert their changes, but be sure not to do that more than 3 times in 24 hours or you'll be treated as a vandal yourself. The good news is that most of these folks get tired after a while and stop. If they don't, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (aka WP:PROT) to have the page protected (nobody is allowed to edit it) or "semi-protected" (anonymous (IP) users and new users are not allowed to edit it), but you need a history of non-cooperation before the admins will agree to do so, and even then it won't be for more than a few days to a week.
And by the way, welcome aboard! RossPatterson 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

cite web-waybackref merger

This is my attempt at merging {{waybackref}} into{{cite web}}. The test code is in User:RossPatterson/cite web, and here are some examples of its use.

Example 1

{{User:RossPatterson/cite web |url=x |date=0000-00-01 }}

Example 2

{{User:RossPatterson/cite web |title=x |date=0000-00-02 }}

Example 3

{{User:RossPatterson/cite web | url=http://url.example.com | archiveurl=http://archiveurl.example.com | archivedate=1234-01-23 | date=0000-00-03 | title=title }}

Example 4

{{User:RossPatterson/cite web |url=http://url2.example.com |title=title2 |archiveurl=http://archiveurl2.example.com |date=0000-00-04 }}

Example 5

{{User:RossPatterson/cite web |url=http://url2.example.com |title=title2 |archivedate=2006-05-06 |date=0000-00-05 }}

Example 6

{{User:RossPatterson/cite web |url=http://joanjettbadrep.com/cgi-bin/fullStory.cgi?archive=currnews&story=20060405-01shore.htm |title=Interview with Maggie Downs |date=[[2006-03-31]] |publisher=The Desert Sun |archiveurl=http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:JAxf4v-pQmgJ:joanjettbadrep.com/cgi-bin/fullStory.cgi%3Farchive%3Dcurrnews%26story%3D20060405-01shore.htm |archivedate=2006-04-26 }}


I've copied this ↑ to User talk:RossPatterson/cite web and added a regression test case. I also merged the newest change on template:cite web into User:RossPatterson/cite web --Ligulem 21:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

No problemo, sir. Just doing my part to make Wikipedia a better place! --Zpb52 01:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy

You're correct - the reversion was an error. Thank you for pointing this out to me. — ßottesi?i (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Stuy "edit war"

It isn't an edit war so much as vandalism, as he removed the newspaper from the infobox. It was only on that one paragraph in the first place and it can be settled on the talk page. Ostenwald seems to be heavily biased against the Standard and he was the one that started it.--Zxcvbnm 02:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Enya

I see your point but mine is that it is rendered in the English alphabet which can (as in this case) be considered phonemic but in no way phonetic. I'd lay money that anyone who pronounces <yard> or <Tanya> differently from me would also pronounce Enya differntly. In the same way there are people who pronounce my name David with the a as the same as I would the oy in boy - were they to say it the same way as I do it would sound very odd to me. Dejvid 17:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Specialized High Schools Template

That's from last year, read the new one for 2006-2007, if you really don't believe, then I guess I'll have to post up a scan. File:Myscreenshot.jpg I Am Ri¢h! 02:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking about Brooklyn Latin, I believe. If we're talking about Staten Island Tech, no, you don't need to post a scan, but you do need to add a reference to the article saying exactly where you got the info. If it's not online, that's OK, but you need to put it in the article. RossPatterson 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Link went blue - but the article is pure crap. FYI - needs lots of fixing. The shiny pretty Stuy article should not be linking to such junk. Sigh... - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Just found it by accident today, the SHSofNYC article. Waste of space, IMHO, redundant to the template, but whatever, let it be. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Brooklyn Latin is a poor article, but so was Stuyvesant High School [once http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stuyvesant_High_School&oldid=2067509]. Presumably someone will adopt it and start the improvement process. Or else it will be deleted as unencyclopedic. RossPatterson 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That's overduing how "useless" the article is, just becuase it's not as good as the other articles, doesn't mean it cant be excluded in the template. Also, RossPatterson, I already wrote my reference down, so I don't know what you're talking about. I Am Ri¢h! 11:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stuy audio

Just wanted to properly say thanks for your help with noticing all of my mistakes on the recording of Stuyvesant High School. Sedola 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

von Neumann machine

The reason I didn't use the lc template in von Neumann machine is because it is a dab page, not an article. --Blainster 02:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

bold

what is the policy on bold? a lot of people get upset when it's used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaNubian (talk • contribs) 22:37, 6 September 2006

Yup, they sure do. I don't think there's a capital-P-Policy, but it usually runs up against the sniff test - if it smells bad, it probably is bad. Personally, I avoid bold text like the plague except when I'm trying to scream :-), but I believe it is common to embolden the first reference in an article to its subject. Italics are a different story - there is lots of history on Wikipedia and elsewhere encouraging their use for words from other languages and for titles of films, books etc. RossPatterson 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


brooklyn tech

individual tenebre is reverting material to his version. assistance please. NinjaNubian 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Stuyvesant pool

What do you say we let my pool comments stay in their a bit! Simon12 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should we permit false information in an article? RossPatterson 23:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Herndon government sources

Thanks for adding some sources to Herndon, Virginia#Government. However, two of your sources seem to be session-based, which return an HTTP error without your session data:

  • "Code of Ordinances - Town of Herndon, Virginia; Charter, Chapter 2, Powers". Town of Herndon. Retrieved 2006-10-07.
  • "Code of Ordinances - Town of Herndon, Virginia; Charter, Chapter 3, Mayor and Council". Town of Herndon. Retrieved 2006-10-07.

Could you provide some permanent, non-session links to this information? If you're not sure how to do this, I'd be happy to try it if you can tell me how you originally queried for this info. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Rats. I've replaced the direct links with links to the code website itself. Man, I hate websites that do that to you! RossPatterson 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

S/370 cleanup

Thanks for tidying up after me. I began what was intended to be a minor, corrective edit to this article, but it wound up taking more time than expected. Eventually, I had to save it when it had reached what I thought was an acceptable (if not ideal) state. (I'm still uncertain about the contents of the table; I corrected it as well as I could in the available time, but there seems to be some variation in how IBM has referred to its product series. I don't think the -XA architecture designation was an official part of the series name, but just a feature; and that may or may not have been true of the /ESA desgination as well.)

Do you think the compu-hardware-stub template still belongs here? The article isn't very complete, but it is comparable with entries for other computer systems.

Anyway, thanks again. The most important thing I have learned here is that I need to start using cite templates, which I have thus far managed to ignore. Trevor Hanson 20:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. As I recall it, XA-capable machines were still System/370, and it wasn't until ESA that they broke with the S/370 moniker. Which reminds me - I don't believe I ever heard "ESA" called "System/370-ESA". I was attending the Endicott/Poughkeepsie non-disclosure briefings in those days and it was always described "System/390" or just "ESA". And on a related point, "System/370 compatible" was always a term applied to Amdahl/Fujitsu and National Semiconductor/Hitachi clones, never to IBM machines. The 303x, 4331, and 4341 were genuine S/370. The 308x series almost got called "System/380" (but didn't) because they were the start of XA, which was briefly known inside IBM by that name.
  2. No, I'd say it isn't a stub any more, go ahead and delete the tag.
RossPatterson 20:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This is some of the contradictory stuff that made my edits drag on and on. To answer your specific comments:
  • One of the papers I cited talks about ESA/370 in those initial machines. (I pretty much followed the table that somebody else had put here though, which broke the line down this way.) I removed the term 370-ESA because now I can't find it; I thought I saw that in an early R&D paper late last night but...?.
  • I too was surprised to see the term S/370 compatible on an official IBM historical site (I too always thought of 'compatible' as referring to Amdahl/Hitachi/etc., though we usually called them 'PCMs'): http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_basinfo.html. I figure if that's the party line then we better use it. I put a citation in for it in the article though, because I agree this is not how I remember normal terminology at the time. And I can't think of what else to call the 3033.
  • I now remember hearing about S/380 also. It's funny how many old factoids start to emerge as you rake over the embers.
Thanks again. This is relevant stuff so I am going to copy the gist of the above to the S/370 discussion page. Trevor Hanson 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Category clutter"

Hi Ross, Hoping you'll fix the following Category entries on your User:RossPatterson/cite web page:

Categories: Esoteric templates | Citation templates | Templates using ParserFunctions

so that your page only links to, and is not part of the category

you just need to insert ":" between "[[" and "Category" in each ref.
e.g. "[[:Category" -- Thanks, (class '68) BTW -- RCEberwein | Talk 21:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Better than that, I blanked it. That was just a prototype for some new features in the cite web template. RossPatterson 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stuy Featured Article

Good to see. Thanks for the heads up, I wouldn't have noticed it immediately. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ross - hope we can get the Science page up there one of these days!Tvoz 03:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Support for Bronx Science GA collaboration

The Bronx Science article had been nominated for Good Article Collaboration of the Week by another editor. This should a significant step toward its collaborative development as you asserted. Please add your suppport.Bxsstudent 00:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. You should approach the Schools Portal and Wikiproject Schools crowds as well - their criticism helped push Stuyvesant High School into the form it needed, even though some of it hurt to hear at the time. And look at some of the other top-rated school articles on the Schools Portal page, like Hopkins School, for examples of what you should be striving for. RossPatterson 04:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

squirrels

you have something against squirrels? just kidding Tvoz 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, some of my best friends are squirrels :-) RossPatterson 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Manhattan Center for Science & Mathematics

You prodded Manhattan Center for Science & Mathematics. I added some references and removed the prod. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Ross—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. We'd like to keep the representation as simple as possible, by the way. Tony 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ross, I'm being dumb: unsure of precisly what you intended when you added the comment that the first sentence of the text should be the proposal. Can you give me an example? Tony 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, you're not being dumb, I was being perhaps too careful with my words. I think every time this idea arises it gets derailed by arguments over which syntax is best, where commas belong, and then someone pipes up that we should just get rid of date preferences completely. As a professional software developer and manager, I trust the Mediawiki developers to take a clear and brief statement of need and translate it to function. But I don't trust the Wikipedia editting community to do so. I'd really like to see your proposal succeed, and I think the only way it will is if it avoids getting bogged down in design-by-committee like its predecessors. Better? RossPatterson 13:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:HighlandParkHSNJLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HighlandParkHSNJLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuke it. Someone deleted the only use of this image back in November. RossPatterson 17:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Virtual memory

Hello, thank you for improving the Virtual memory article; I'm not fully satisfied with my last edits, because I feel that now the structure is not well organized... could you check and help?--Dr. Who 18:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: WPFS

Sorry for not moving the {{WPFS}} tags to the talk namespace myself. I didn't see Dcclark's message until today. Thanks for moving them. Geekman314(contact me) 13:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No problemo, glad to help. RossPatterson 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You are NOT my hero

Last time I checked wikipedia was an enyclopedia which allowed people to edit articles freely. You asked me not to post links to a survey anymore and, although your request was polite, I am highly offended by it. Results from any study could be used to enhance knowledge, which wikipedia is also about. Wikipedia is not about showing off what you know! So, I would really appreciate it if you stopped interfering with research. Somertime 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. Wikipedia is not for people to "edit articles freely". There are rules about what goes in an article, and if you're going to participate you should learn them, or at least not be offended when your mistakes are corrected. Here are the basics:
RossPatterson 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Archives

Although archives are not supposed to be changed, I would say that the change of URLs from IPs (which can change over time) to fixed DNS addresses should be allowed. I checked before running that task (via some folk on IRC) if changing all pages with that IP was ok. The consensus there was, as an encyclopedia, we want things that are likely to stay around for longer. Your views please :-) --Sagaciousuk (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the motivation. In this case, it didn't help - the link still fails. But what you're doing is probably a good thing. Thanks for looking into it - I just assumed it was an over-agressive bot. RossPatterson 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cousin chart edits

Ross, did you intend to revert your reverts of the arrow indicators back to the the questionable question marks? I strongly favor restoring the arrow indicators. They DO make the chart work. Though I assume whomever changed them felt they clarified, to my mind, they do the reverse and only make the whole chart seem questionable. (if the links to other Wikis get broken in the process, and you don't know how to repair them (neither do I), leave them broken as there are plenty of editors who love to go around fixing that sort of thing and the main focus of your edit (and mine) is this article not some other Wiki's link. JackME 23:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, didn't mean to! They're fixed now. Maybe they got lost by mistake in the first place — I certainly didn't undo them by hand. RossPatterson 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

More Represenitve Image of Reston

I understand why you wanted a more reprensitive image on the Reston page. Originally there was crappy picture of the Reston Town Center, and I changed that. While I'd be glad to photograph the Hickory Ridge townhomes and move that image to the top, I feel that since the current image of Hickory ridge is non-free that it best be used at the bottom. Two Saturdays from now I'll have some free time to photograph those, and so in the meantime I'm moving a free (as in freedom) image back to the top.

Also what image is representative of Reston is debatable. To some the the skyline represents Reston. To me it would be like posting a picture of South East DC at the top of the Washington, DC page, and saying it represented DC.

Articnomad 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Free and non-free don't really matter in this context, since Wikipedia has rules about image use. If the Hickory Ridge picture isn't GFDL, then it needs to be deleted from Wikipedia, not just moved towards the bottom of the Reston article. I'll look into that. I might go out and shoot a few pictures this weekend myself, let's see what we can come up with and what might make the article better. RossPatterson 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well that particular image has been "Released for promotional use" and is thus assumed it's okay to use on Wikipedia, since this article could be perceived as promoting Reston. But it still has a full copyright, so it's not totally free.Articnomad 01:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The Paramount, which only opened a year or so ago and is one of the only four highrise residential buildings in Reston, certainly isn't representative. One might argue that the Fountain Plaza buildings are, since RTC has been around a while, even though it's only a very small part of Reston and quite distinctive when compared to the rest of it. I actually considered using the Lake Anne Plaza picture instead of Hickory Ridge, especially because of the Fellowship House in the background, but despite Simon's original intent, the plazas don't dominate Reston the way townhouses and single family homes do. Regardless, let's leave Lake Anne Plaza in place for now, and see if we can come up with something better. RossPatterson 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The place I live is over thirty years, and I when I look out my back window, I can see the newer part of the town center and trees. I understand that representation might be a different idea for different people though... Also including the 2 seniors homes there are 8 residential highrises Articnomad 01:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I guess I lost count - I was thinking of the two Fellowship Houses (Lake Anne and Hunters Woods), The Paramount, and the the Stratford. I see now that I missed the place on the NE corner of Reston Parkway and Sunset Hills, but that still leaves me about 3 short. Ah well! RossPatterson 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
These are the ones I know of:
  • Hunters Woods: Fellowship House
  • Lake Anne: Fellowship House, Heron House
  • Reston International Center: Not sure of name, but there's one over there
  • Reston Town Center: Two accross from the Town Center at Reston Parkway, one next to the Library, and then two at the Town Center
  • Southlakes: Now that I get to thinking some might consider the seniors residence near Southlakes a highrise too

So that makes 10...

Hard to keep up with all the development... Plus there's some new ones going up near Parc Reston, and at Lake Anne. Articnomad 15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Liu

Feel free to remove the image since it's not so good, but the promotional image can't be there. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #1. To quote "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.". Which in this case applies. Garion96 (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Image:Lucy Liu Kill Bill.jpg image itself may or may not be acceptable under WP:FUC, although it appears to me that it is, and it has survived almost two years without being nominated for deletion. But with one exception, the usage of the image isn't an issue - the image itself is. As long as the image exists on Wikipedia, it can be used in any article. The exception is that uses "that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" (WP:FUC #2) are forbidden, but that's certainly not the case here. Other than that one prohibition, WP:FUC is all about the use of a copyrighted image at all, not about the number or type of uses. I'm going to restore its use in Lucy Liu again, and I suggest if you think the image isn't permitted by WP:FUC that you nominate it for deletion. RossPatterson 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Fair use criteria and Wikipedia talk:Fair use. That an image exists on wikipedia, does not mean you can use it everywhere. Another example, you can't use an album cover or book cover to show how the artist writer looks. Don't revert the article. Garion96 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Or start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. It comes up almost every week I think, but the result will nonetheless be the same. Especially considering the foundations recent Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Btw, per our discussion you restored? You didn't even waited for my response. Garion96 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. I really don't care enough to keep up the discussion. RossPatterson 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Brooklyn Tech

Thank you for your help in keeping an obsessive anonymous IP's uncited and disruptive edits from taking away what is a very good, solid entry. Your edits are much appreciated. --Tenebrae 03:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thanks for this. It's the best edit summary I've read in weeks. I was deeply confused when I first saw it on my watchlist, but once I read your comment, it really put a smile on my face. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reston Town Center

Ross,

I am not sure if you live in Reston or not, but "Clown Center" has in fact become common parlance here in this community. My adding it to the page was not an act of self promotion, the myspace reference was put there to document the claim, (the page is not mine.) If the fact that many people who frequent Reston Town Center bar scene refer to it is "Clown Center" is a fact, is it your job to judge them as foolish and remove this fact from the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.45.97 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I've lived and worked in Reston for almost 20 years, and I've never heard the term. The MySpace page contains nothing of interest, and pages like it don't qualify as sources under the Wikipedia reliable sources guidelines. RossPatterson 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the edit -- and especially the model -- on how to mark that a citation is needed. Bellagio99 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

De nada. Now go forth and teach others ;-) RossPatterson 02:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
And what's a Stuyvesant guy doing watching a Bx Science article? ;-) (What year were you?) PS: I started on a 1401 and a 7090. Bellagio99 02:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Our crowd has to hang together ;-) I even watch the Brooklyn Tech article :-) Class of '76, so I'm a bit younger than you, unless you found the 7090 rusting away in some barn in upstate NY ;-) I only go back to the 1130 and the 370/168 :-( RossPatterson 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

HOLA

Hola, como estas? Me llamo Eduardo. Y a ti? Yo no llevar pantilones y calcetines. Yo soy actactivo y grande y trabajador y pan tostado. Yo bebo jugo de platinos. ¡Adios! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsAKow (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 June 2007

¡Hola, Eduardo! Estoy bien, gracias. ¿Y tu? Me gusto pantalones, y sombreros tambien, pero no gusto calcetines. Yo no soy pan, y no bebo jugo de platanos. ¡¿PLATANOS?! Soy un trabajador del computador, y un estudiante del mundo. ¡Hasta la vista, mi amigo! RossPatterson 02:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pipjarg1.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pipjarg1.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale added, thank you for the reminder. RossPatterson 12:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IBM REXX

Hello. I'm afraid I don't quite understand your insistence to get rid of this redirect. I think we can reasonably expect that a) anyone searching Wikipedia for IBM REXX needs to be directed to REXX and b) somebody will eventually use IBM REXX as a search term. There's really no negative to keeping this redirect. Pascal.Tesson 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insisting, I just think it's unnecessary. I thought it was a legitimate candidate for speedy deletion, you objected, so I'm following the proper procedure. However it turns out is how it turns out. RossPatterson 01:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Get a life

Get a life Ross Patterson. Firmitas 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think your edits to the Lisa Randall article ([1], [2], [3], and [4]) constitute vandalism, you need to get a dictionary. I was just asking you to stop, more politely than some folks might. RossPatterson 22:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mummy.

...You'd better chime in.. =)

Yeago 12:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been offline, subjecting my brain to a little recreational saline lavage :-) RossPatterson 21:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Articles with broken citations

As you proposed adding Category:Articles with broken citations to articles using broken {{cite web}}'s, you might want to participate in the CfD discussion, started by User:Melsaran. –Ms2ger 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's fine as it stands, but I don't have a problem with a reasonable rename (as noted over there). RossPatterson 22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Note to self: the CfD failed, ending in "no concensus". RossPatterson (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Social Security (United States)

Thanks for fixing those 2 screwed up notes. They were beginning to drive me nuts. Vgranucci 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

De nada. Recent changes to {{cite web}} have put all articles with busted templates in Category:Articles with broken citations, so now they're easy to find and clean up. RossPatterson

Vijay Ray-Chaudhuri

I have declined speedy and nominated instead at WP:AFD. After much angst and debate, the powers that be have decided that hoaxes or suspected hoaxes are not speedy deletable as nonsense or vandalism. I think the idea is that we don't want single individuals deciding what's a hoax - even when it's obvious - so it goes to afd. You are free to participate in that discussion. Cheers, 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs)

Re: SineBot

Hi there. I noticed you left a comment on User talk:SineBot. As part of a signature, the bot will look for both a User internal link and a datestamp on the last line added. It thought that your addition might have been a valid userpage reference, so it thought that you simply forgot to add a date. In the future, I'm planning to make more rigorous checks when it comes to signatures in response to issues of people trying to fake signatures, thus this small bug will probably be fixed around that time. As for now, I'll put this one one the to-do list, because it's an easy exemption to make (i.e., someone referencing the bot clearly isn't a signature). If you have any other problems, please be sure to contact me on my talk page instead of the bot's, as I'll receive and be able to respond to your messages sooner. Cheers. :) --slakr 03:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why this edit in my user space?

Dear Ross:

Why did you make this edit in my user space: [5]? I keep several completely blank templates there, to copy into articles and then fill in. So, of course, required parameters are not supplied in the blank templates. Finell (Talk) 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

{{cite web}} now categorizes all pages containing broken uses of the template (e.g., url= omitted) at Category:Articles with broken citations, and I was trying to clean out the category. If it's a problem for you, go ahead and revert the edit. RossPatterson 12:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. To avoid having the page flagged again, I can live with your change. Finell (Talk) 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Cousin couples

There is some discussion of the relevance of adding a section on the children of cousins to the article on cousin couples. Would you like to contribute? BrainyBabe 09:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SHARE Operating System

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of SHARE Operating System, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.santiago.es/ir.php?var=SHARE_Operating_System. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, get a grip. The first content line at http://www.santiago.es/ir.php?var=SHARE_Operating_System says "De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre". It's a copy of a Wikipedia article, albeit one en Español. No copyvio here. RossPatterson 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Specialized high schools in New York City

Hello Ross. I wanted to let you know that I am moving "Category:Specialized High Schools of New York City" to Category:Specialized high schools in New York City despite your comments. I'm doing this because our guidleine Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) explicitly instructs that schools — along with many other facilities like libraries and roads that are also usually owned or operated by cities — should use in. If you still think that the cat should be of New York City, and should be an exception to the guideline and the convention of Category:Schools by country, please start a new topic at Categories for Discussion. Let me know if I can help in any way. ×Meegs 16:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to treat schools (and libraries, for that matter) under the "Man-made objects" classification (which is the only way they could be in NYC). School buildings (like roads) are certainly man-made, but the New York City Department of Education, of which these schools are elements, is an arm of the government of NYC, not an object. But it isn't worth fighting over. RossPatterson 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Waybackref

I've marked it as deprecated, since is no longer used in article space. I cleaned it out of the last five articles that used it. Cheers, Cleduc 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Template Infobox Secondary school

Could you please take a look at Template talk:Infobox Secondary school#Image caption text without picture image. Thanks. Truthanado 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comments there. Sorry, no joy. RossPatterson 02:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, it was worth asking. Thanks for thinking about it. Looks like I could have a project on my hands ... finding articles that have captions and no images .... I'll have to think about that. Truthanado 04:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Florida Atlantic University

I saw that you did a good job on Stuyvesant High School and was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the above article. It is currently undergoing peer review here. If things turn out well I plan on taking it to WP:FAC next.

Thanks, KnightLago 22:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Good luck! RossPatterson 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the great review. It does look like I have a little work to do still. Thanks again, KnightLago 01:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to French fried potatoes

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, RossPatterson! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule groups\.msn\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 15:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just fixing other folks' broken {{cite web}} usages, not adding links. But I've deleted the two that you don't like, since they break the citation. RossPatterson 16:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Foss St photo

Ross,

re the Foss St photo (Alternative names for free software etc), I know it doesn't add anything, not in a logical, geekish sense anyway, but it lightens an otherwise dry article and looks nice. I don't feel terribly strongly about it, so I won't put it back in. Happy Wikipedia-ing.

Brian Conollyb 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Blog sourcing

Sorry, I just got out of a bruising fight over sourcing to reputable blogs (I conceded, but wrongly, I think). I was probably unnecessarily tactless.

There are clearly blogs and then Blogs. My standard is probably longstanding blogs verifiably written by people at least as notable in the industry as Richard Bejtlich.

--- tqbf 05:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I read our exchange as a polite discussion on their validity under WP policy. I never thought you were being tactless, although I couldn't understand your initial readings of some of the pages you pointed me to. If anything, I think I might have pressed my case too hard - my penchant for quoting relevant passages has been described by friends as a little over the top. RossPatterson 12:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

CISSP article

There's an edit war happening on CISSP to which you've contributed.

tdbf is insisting on inserting a POV tag meaning he feels the article is not neutral.

I believe the article is neutral. I do think that it can be improved but as it stands the problem with the article is not that it's POV.

Would you please leave your thoughts on the matter on the article's talk page?

Thanks Vincent 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. RossPatterson 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
(This talk page is now in my watchlist for some reason).
That's what you get for posting here before - you might want to unwatch :-) RossPatterson 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ross, if you think I'm out of line on raising POV issues with this article, I'll abide by that. Personally, I don't share Vincent's visceral reaction to POV tags and discussion links, I think there's a clear path out of this particular debate, and I think that article improvement tags are a simple part of the WP process. --- tqbf 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tweak cite web

(replying to message on my talk page) - You're welcome! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

History of Baltimore City College

Don't worry about it. You had the right instinct and I understand it was in good-faith. Golem88991 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

:)

Thanks! PeaceNT 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Antichrist page

Someone has performed edits on this page in the Islamic beliefs section. They appear to be NPOV but I'd like you to look at them. There are no references; some of the typing is poor, etc. Leave me a message on my webpage, please, and thank you.--MurderWatcher1 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The last 24 hours' changes look pretty lousy to me. If I knew more about the topic I might revert them as vandalism. For sure they're unsourced and they're bad prose. RossPatterson (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

re GPL viral myth revert

Hi Ross, I largely reverted your recent "myth: GPL is viral". If you are tempted to rerevert, please take a look and carefully consider what is written. Obviously this is a heated topic, but the wikipedia article should be about what the GPL itself says. If you haven't read it lately, I strongly urge you to go through it. (Also, thanks for the mdashes!) Regards, Mkcmkc (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I keep a close watch on it, and I will read it carefully, but I believe you were wrong to revert. The GPL can indeed compel you to do things with your code that you don't want to, like perhaps give away the source. And that's the key point of the "viral" criticism that is made so often. No, that doesn't "take away" your code, but then again, that's not the essence of the "viral" criticism either. RossPatterson 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a slightly different case to consider: Suppose Joe releases some code he owns using the GPL. Sally, a proprietary software author, owns some code and sells it with a license allowing in-house use by her customers. Ed buys Sally's code and links it to Joe's code. Does Sally's code now "catch" Joe's GPL virus? No. Even by the standards of our current legal system, this would be a completely bizarre and catastrophic result (and the "powers that be" would not allow it). The GPL here simply doesn't have any control over Sally's code. If Sally herself links the code and distributes it, she is probably guilty of copyright infringement. And Joe may offer that she can cure this infraction by GPLing her code. But she is not compelled to do so, and Joe is not compelled to offer this cure--it's just sometimes done because it serves the interests of both parties. Mkcmkc (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

History of open source

I want to get information about the open source from where it got start and now a days features of open source. your's truly. Najeebullah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.243.149.24 (talk • contribs)

reverting due to out-of-alpha-order

yes, it's a good way to encourage editors to use some care before committing their changes. Anastrophe (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's a good example of why Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point was written. RossPatterson (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
i think disrupt is a bit of a stretch. i do see where you're coming from. for me, it tends to also fall under the 'i thought i was an editor here, not a maid' banner. i tire of fixing other people's carelessness. Anastrophe (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
As the maid who sweeps up Category:Articles with broken citations, I understand completely. RossPatterson (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
heh. Anastrophe (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
figured i'd give you a hand with the broken cite pages. got most, looks like you crushed the last couple of troublesome ones. Anastrophe (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Lots of folks can't seem to type this holiday season :-) RossPatterson (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Fallon

Thanks for catching and fixing that cite error! Ckessler (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No problemo! RossPatterson (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kemo the Blaxican

Kia ora, Ross - thanks for your help with the reference link! (Still in the early stages of the learning curve, here...) Zzyzx60 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RossPatterson/Archive_1&oldid=1144443984"