Jump to content

User talk:Jerzy/Archive 05

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

Deceptively Short, Fake, Overview Mini-ToC

Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy[edit]

Follow this link to this page's Table of Contents. You may find a section in it where a message from you, intended for my attention, could fruitfully be placed.
But the end of this page is always a good place to leave messages to me, especially if you start a new section by

  • starting a line with two equal signs,
  • typing its title, and
  • closing the line with two more equal signs.

Guide to What Else is Before the ToC[edit]

The material between here and the ToC consists of

  • A warning about a highly idiosyncratic aspect of my grammar, and
  • Help finding things that were previously on this talk page, but have been moved.

(These are some people's top priority, but most will prefer to jump to the Table of Contents, or add a message at the end.)

Note to Non-Native Speakers of English[edit]

Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.

(I also say the above, and a bit more on my User page.)

Links to my Archives[edit]

Topical Archives[edit]

These all concern one area of interest, sometimes orient toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected

Multi-topic Archives[edit]

These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section.

TABLE of CONTENTS[edit]

Older Discussions[edit]

TRAC Programming Language[edit]

While this heading & some content in its section may be maintained for the long term, its pre-18:31, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC) content has been moved to /Top Arc TRAC.

Scientific American Voynich article[edit]

Thanks for the tip on the Scientific American article! I happened to go through Miami airport last week, on a conference trip, and bought myself a copy. It may be a month or more before it shows up in bookstores around here...Jorge Stolfi 04:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Non-content WP Matters[edit]

Exigencies of Non-admin Moves[edit]

Response re move problem[edit]

Hey, I moved the article without any difficulty. Don't know what was up with that. john 05:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[What "historyless redirect" really means][edit]

The reason you couldn't move it was because List of people by name: Ste needed to be deleted first. Unless a page redirects to the same page that are you are trying to replace it with (and always has done - you can't just edit it to make it a redirect there), then you need to delete a redirect before you can move something into its place. Anyway, it should be ok now. Angela. 09:01, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)~

LoPbN Admin Move[edit]

Good morning. I've moved List of people by name: Bo-Bq to List of people by name: Bo as you requested. I'll leave you to sort out redirects. Angela. 06:43, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Request for help with a move[edit]

[ JML]
Your comment about a redirect with no history makes me think that maybe I could do this myself without fouling things up, but I'd rather play safe.

An article was moved from Modeling (NLP) to Modelling (NLP), leaving a redirect. I think it should be moved back with a redirect where the article now is. I explained the background at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#August 4, but it seems like it can take a while for anything to happen on that page. I noticed your expression of particular willingness to help with such situations, so I'm calling it to your attention. Thanks for anything you can do. JamesMLane 20:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for laying out the process in detail for me. That was exactly what I needed. I think I've moved the article, and even fixed the links, without causing any floods or earthquakes. I gather from your comment on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion that you can handle the administrative followup needed there, which would be great.
By the way, just in case you haven't come across it, one of my favorite articles on Wikipedia is American and British English differences. It's very useful when you need to get a handle on how something is "spelt" in Commonwealth usage. JamesMLane 23:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Section-editing Anomolies[edit]

VfD section doubling[edit]

Hiya! I was wondering if you noticed any weird behaviour from the system when you made those edits to WP:VFD earlier? Because your 12:11 edit "Logamnesia — Add to this discussion - +=== July 7 === blw it" caused a doubling of the whole page, and then your 12:18 edit "pre-ToC: + 7th; rlk 1st to /Old" caused another one!!

Did you hit any edit conflicts? I notice that you were moving some section headers around, thought maybe that we could be onto a clue here as to what causes the page-doubling? —Stormie 02:04, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

List of Bi- people[edit]

<KF> tk User talk:KF#List of people by name: Fi

  • 00:10, Oct 21, 2004 KF m (edit conflict with myself)
  • 00:09, Oct 21, 2004 KF m (Please let me save this page)
  • 00:06, Oct 21, 2004 KF m (Bin-Bio)

Hi, thanks for your message, which I believe I haven't fully understood. Thanks also for cleaning up the list of people. Whatever happened, whether it was my connection, my ISP, or Wikipedia itself running slowly, I thought there was no way I could save that page. At 00:09, after waiting for three minutes, I pressed the save button a second time. Then I got a message telling me I was having an edit conflict with myself. I pressed the save button a third time and gave up. It has happened to me before, I don't know if it also happens to other people.

All the best, <KF> 22:42, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


VfD matters of Lasting Interest re VfD[edit]

Doubling VfD sections[edit]

See especially #VfD section doubling in #Section-editing Anomolies above.

VfD footer[edit]

On Template talk:VfDFooter, you suggested that the silence means we should add the anti-ad language back to the footer. I'd rather wait a while longer. The instructions are much too clumsy right now. I've already made my case for why I think the ad language is overkill. Let's both take a few more days to see if we can drum up any more interest in discussing the point. Thanks. Rossami 15:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like it. And I'd never found WP:RFC before. Thank you. Let's do the collaboration on the talk page. I'll start a draft there (unless you already have). Rossami

VfD-Closing[edit]

Closing VfD debate[edit]

St
Hi Jerzy, got your message about closing VfDs..

As a freshly appointed admin, I decided to help reduce the size of the VFD page by closing off some 5-day-old entries, and, not being sure of the exact process, I read Wikipedia:Deletion process. It makes absolutely no mention of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old (which I'd never heard of before), it just says (paraphrasing) at the end of the VFD period, determine whether the consensus is to keep or delete, add the header and footer to the discussion page and link it from the article talk page (if you're keeping) or Wikipedia:Archived deletion debates (if you're deleting), and remove the listing from the VfD page (emphasis mine).

So I think some editing to Wikipedia:Deletion process is in order. :-)

Now that you've brought VfD/Old to my attention, I'll help out with clearing things out there. Although I may not be that much help, since I don't intend to touch anything that isn't completely clear-cut in its voting until I'm more experienced at this. —Stormie 23:22, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not sure what you mean by "what reason is there for the confusing and less efficient practice of closing and perhaps taking action before midnite, unless you are going to reduce the excessive size of VfD by getting the entries off VfD?" — the two I closed (The Meritocracy and Tips for New Poker Players), I actually removed from the VfD page before I closed the debate & actioned the delete (see [1]). —Stormie 23:42, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jerzy.. it occurred to me after I posted that p.s. that maybe you had VFD opened up from before I edited it, such is life. As for the instructions on Wikipedia:Deletion process, I'm happy to have a stab at clarifying them—I'll drop you a note when I've done so, so you can have a glance over the page and make sure it all (a) makes sense and (b) accurately describes the desired procedure. Cheers! —Stormie 00:52, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've revised Wikipedia:Deletion process. It didn't change much, just explained the VfD/Old situation, and copied in a little bit from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators to remind people to pay heed to redirects and links when deleting a page. Hope you like it! —Stormie 03:47, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Genitalia[edit]

Hello, Jerzy. 10 days on VfD is a long time, and the art in question hadn't been significantly changed since Manning's reverse-redir and copyedits. I'm not sure what you expect to happen by continuing to leave the VfD discussion up, though I understand it is an emotional issue for the participants. Feel free to explain your concerns on my talk page. Cheers, +sj+ 04:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) (after reading your comments on VfU, I have a slightly better understanding of what you hope for... but still no sense of how you will determine when it is appropriate to archive te VfD discussion.)

You're a fairly new admin, so I suppose you don't remember when the recommendation was that VfD-templates be deleted once the VfD discussion was over. I can live with the community decision, since then, to keep everything... but it wasn't because the GFDL requires that. Similarly, I agree that as long as one is preserving a large block of text with unsigned edits, it is nice to preserve its edit history; moving it to a Talk:foo/Delete page is a great solution. And again, this is for neatness's sake more than for legal reasons; a user leaving an unsigned comment, then set in amber and referred to by others, on a talk page about a piece of actual content -- is many steps removed from a copyright grievance; note for instance that the GFDL is content to have a list of [major] editors of a body of work for a given year, without any details of who contributed what where.
In any case, thank you for caring about these issues, and for fixing the things you see as broken. Wiki works best when editors are bold, and don't worry about pushing back on one another. +sj+ 08:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
ps - why do you make 'routine dummy edits' to your own talk page? +sj+

I think my solution meets a nice midpoint. The article has changed substantially, and the article it was supposed to redirect to got changed to a redirect to it. However, since it should be Genital integrity and not Genital Integrity, I'm still hacking at it a bit. But I think the matter is basically settled. Oy. Snowspinner 21:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir[edit]

SP t
If you feel that a VfD vote has failed, the best option is often to relist it on VfD for a second round and see if things turn out differently. - SimonP 17:10, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)


AC elections[edit]

Hi Jerzy. Thanks for explaining your dummy edits, and I'm glad we're on the same wavelength again about moves and deletions. I'm just writing to remind you to vote in the ArbComm elections on En: today. Raul654 and I are both running on platforms to make the AC fast and efficient, and I'd like to help it view its own infallibility with a healthy grain of salt. +sj+ 22:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AC et al

Yes, you can vote more than once. Only your last ballot is counted. You should vote for every candidate you would like to see in office!

+sj+ 22:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attribution and/or Signatures, not involving Merges[edit]

Concerns solely about a WP Signature[edit]

"Trimming" signatures[edit]

You, sir, are an asshole. Because I'm too lazy and too busy to get in some petty war over a signature, I will remove the link that you have a problem with. However, you are still an asshole. Don't ever mess with my (or anyone else's, for that matter) signature again. It's not your place. I'm not quite sure how you made admin, going around doing rude, unilateral, agregious shit like that. blankfaze | •• | •• 14:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Now that I've cooled down a bit, I want to apologise for calling you an asshole. I was very offended, and took action very offensively, as such. I mean, how would you feel if I went around, changing your signatures? But anyway, I should have cooled down first. I sincerely apologise. blankfaze | (беседа!) 14:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sig[edit]

Thanks, I already knew MSIE sucks ;). I'm just teasing of course. It is of course unfortunate that Microsoft does not see the need to follow the Unicode character standards that it itself helped shape. Also, I am a bit suprised that after Microsofts latest security hole anyone is still using their browser at all. Who am I kidding though, people will continue to use their products Ad nauseam, even if they were/are inferior. Anyways, enough of that rant. Download Mozilla Firebird! I used to be stuck using MSIE, but I'm so much happier now! Tabbed browsing is godlyness! Take Care. — マイケル ₪ 02:31, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) (or as you know me box box box box squigly)

refactoring comments[edit]

Please do not refactor other users (or more accurately, my) signed comments by inserting strike-thru code, etc. Moving them around wholly is appropriate, but using strike-thru or changing any text in a signed comment, implies that the other user wrote it that way. If you feel strongly that this is needed, ask the user to refactor there own comments, otherwise, please keep them intact. -- Netoholic @ 02:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite reply. We'll both work better towards the common ends. Happy editing! -- Netoholic @ 03:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heading anomalies[edit]

Unbalanced Heading Reference[edit]

Just noticed this in my Whining section, before archiving it:

It's because I had a broken header on my talk page. It said ==Meta===, which is half recognised as a header and messes up all sections after it. Angela. 04:13, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Possible Tag-after-Heading-Markup Anomaly[edit]

heading in templates[edit]

You wrote "Rem Hdgs in template: <!-- FOR TECHNICAL REASONS, headings must NOT be placed in templates -->".

[ Jerzy(t) has added clarifying <nowiki> to quote of his edit summary (from a "VfD/" quasi-template page, and to which he (or possibly orthogonal) added comment markup from the edit), making the comment markup visible w/o editing.]

What exactly is the technical problem (I'm being curious, not contentious). -- orthogonal 05:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Syntax[edit]

Nj Tk
Hi Jerzy - just a quick comment - I really don't think that the Wiki Syntax Project is at all off-topic for the Cleanup page. The whole point of the syntax project is to clean up the wiki syntax of tens of thousands of articles. The only difference between most listings on cleanup and this one is that most listings are for one article, and want a more in-depth edit, whereas Wiki Syntax is much broader (literally 30,000 articles), with very shallow edits (fixing a small subset of problems). That's the only difference - narrow and deep Versus broad and shallow - but the fundamental aspect of improving articles is the same. Additionally I've actually had people comment to me that articles we turn up are quite often the ones in need of a deeper cleanup, which they then go to tag as such on the cleanup page - so again this makes me think that they Wiki Syntax complements Cleanup very well. It was for these reasons that I added the listing to the Cleanup page. On a different topic, one very small polite request - if you add a comment to a listing, can you please sign it? I had to dig through the last 2 days edits on cleanup to work out it was you that had added the comment - I don't have any problem with anyone adding any comments they like, but it is nice to know who added what. All the best, Nickj 01:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy, Yep, this is the second time I've listed it on the cleanup page - at first glance this seem to be the best place for it (because of the similarities), but if there's a better place for listing it then I'm happy with that - I'm still trying to work out the best approach! I understand about the Cleanup page getting quite big, and it's not my intention to contribute to page bloat, or the dilute the focus/purpose of Cleanup. Also I've added a paragraph to the Wiki Syntax instructions on "What do I do if I find an article that needs more than just its syntax cleaned up?" that points to Cleanup and explains the different focus of the two - I should have added this before and I agree it's a very good idea to include it. Also, I'm wondering whether a better place might be to add it to the Template:Resources for collaboration, because conceptually it seems to fit best in a category with all the other cleanup pages, yet I don't want to cause conflict by going off-topic in those pages - so I've add this in there for the time being, and left a message for JesseW (who was the last person to edit the template) asking him if he thinks this is OK. All the best, Nickj 05:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hi Jerzy, that was a great idea of yours about adding a listing to the Wikipedia:Announcements page - I did this a few days ago, and there was a definite increase in traffic. Most of the brackets are done now, and we're soon going to be down to just the mismatched bold/italic wiki quotes (of which there are heaps and heaps!). All the best, Nickj 02:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oil, meet troubled waters, hope you get along...[edit]

Hi. I'm back from work and am thoroughly relaxed now though I'm still maintaining a wee break till maybe Sunday.

I think these things need to happen occasionally because it forces discussion around policies that for whatever reason are not working as well as they could. Unfortunately somebody has to complain and somebody has to be complained at and in this cicrumstance I was the latter. But I'm not the type to harbour ill feelings towards others.

So yesterday I got down to some editing rather than sysoping, tidied up Tyburn, created Chidiock Tichborne, got it listed on Template:Did you know and then had a good night's sleep. And now I'm bright as a daisy and feeling happy. No ill feelings at all!

Graham ☺ | Talk 11:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Partisan[edit]

This section will be eliminated from this page; its content has already been transferred to User talk:Jerzy/Archive 04#Partisan.

Rouble or Ruble[edit]

[ Dainamo tk ]
Jerzy, I am almost speachless as to your efficiency and excellent administrative judgment in the actions you have taken concerning moving and presenting the above discussion. Well done and thank you. Dainamo 11:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


First Bible Stories[edit]

B tk
Jerzy, thanks very much for your giggle-raising comments on "First Bible Stories" (which I nominated for deletion) on VfD. It was a relief to see somebody go on from my own figure-laden example of how a Barnes&Noble book would tend to get a high Barnes&Noble rating, because I was beginning to think it had killed all conversation stone dead. ;-) Bishonen 19:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Rare Earth (Music group)[edit]

tk
I apologize for not getting to the edits on this right away. I am going to post them ASAP. I have removed the "inuse" tag from the article, though, because I shouldn't have put it up without finishing the edits right away. If there's some other detail I've missed, please let me know. Thanks for your note. ffirehorse 14:43, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Update: I just noted your comments at Wikipedia:Cleanup re coordinating clean-up, so I've reverted my changes to what was originally there. ffirehorse 15:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would it be all right if I continue adding to this article? I am hesitant because it seems there was something else you wanted to add about it (I am referring to your comments at Wikipedia:Cleanup, but also to those you left on my talk page). If not, I will resume editing it. Please let me know. Thank you. ffirehorse 23:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. It sounds like holding off on editing will save later confusion and stress, so I will gladly do so. ffirehorse 01:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I appreciate your letting me know about the situation. I definitely wouldn't say that you were interfering with any edits I was making. The changes I was making were certainly not anything that couldn't wait. ffirehorse 02:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)



Infinite-loop motif[edit]

I've been trying to find out if there's copyright somewhere on the wonderful internally-infinite poem:


Once a mad metapoet
In a mad sort of way
Wrote a mad meta-poem
That started this way
Once a mad metapoet
In a mad sort of way
Wrote a mad meta-poem
That started this way
Once a mad meta-poet
...
Sort of close
Were the words
The meta-poet chose
To bring his verse
To some sort of close
Were the words
The metapoet chose
To bring his verse
To some sort of close.


--jpgordon {gab} 18:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This sounds a little like some of the quines that Douglas Hofstadter has published. Inspired by quines, I wrote something similar (but far less poetic) at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QuineProgram that purports to "prove" that quines are impossible. --DavidCary 16:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

whiskers[edit]

This section will be eliminated from this page. Its former content is now at User talk:Jerzy/Archive 04#whiskers.

Webster's Merger?[edit]

PS tk
Salutations, Jerzy!
Today I decided to work on extensive revisions to Webster's Dictionary and in poking around found a stub at Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition and a longer article at Webster's Third New International Dictionary. It seems to me it would be best to consolidate the second and third material at Webster's Dictionary, because it is the familiar name and it would put the history of the work, which has appeared under several names in one spot; then put in redirects under the other names. I've integrated the material at the present "Third" article with my own contributions at Webster's Dictionary. Since you've worked on this, I wonder if you have any thoughts. PedanticallySpeaking 16:40, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Liquid web design[edit]

Lifefeed tk
Wikipedia is a liquid web design. Notice how it stretches out to fit the entire width of the browser. This is as opposed to a fixed design, where the website would be defined to an exact pixel width, regardless of the browser (which would either create dead space if your browser was too large, or force you to scroll horizontally if your browser was too small). - Lifefeed 20:56, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


Dedham, Massachusetts[edit]

Your particpation in the un-justified deletion (via non-discussed reverts) of a factually accurate, non-POV, historical fact from that page has contributed to causing that page to be "protected". Therefore, I am asking you to particpate in the dialog at Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts which the "protection" notice calls for. Either that, or please leave a message for Mirv and request that the page be unprotected. This message will be reposted here daily (approximately) until you acknowledge it on the Dedham, Massachusetts talk page. Thank you 216.153.214.94 03:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Further communication from you is unwelcome, and you are on notice that i will revert edits by you here that i consider essentially repetitive; i may (without further notice) do so without reading if sufficiently provoked. I may also cite spamming of my talk page, which you threaten above, as cause for restricting your access to WP.
  • I do not anticipate participation in any Dedham debate, since my role in the dispute is simply that of a harmless drudge who happens to have noticed an IP (who is apparently also a banned reg'd user) persistantly and single-handedly beating the same dead horse to the limits of the 3-revert guideline, in opposition to several registered editors who have earned the trust of their peers. (But please feel free to copy this entire section headed "Dedham, Massachusetts" there if you choose; however, do not extract from it without first copying it there as a whole.)
  • Your behavior has created a situation where the merits of your arguments for the content you seek are irrelevant, bcz you (the principal or sole one behaving badly) are the problem, and the existing content is not. You might be able to get your content arguments heard if you were to reform, e.g. by directing arguments about the content (not abt your antagonists' behavior) to established WP editors in good standing, who haven't already reverted you (i.e., those you haven't already earned the opposition of). Admittedly, you've dug yourself a hole that will make this hard, but searching article histories for uninvolved editors who've shown an interest in related topics (and admitting to them, with convincing sincerity, that you've recognized the error of your previous methods, so they don't discover your history in a context that suggests you preferred to hide it) may be powerful in moving yourself out of the role of central problem. If someone other than the original author (and an IP who is likely to be the same person) were to revert the content that i restored, you'd be in a situation substantially different from the dead end you are currently pursuing.
  • Without thanks to you (which would be insincere), and with no regret for any effects my opposition has had on you, but with optimism for the perpetual possibility of your becoming a colleague here and earning good will from me, i am
--Jerzy(t) 20:02, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)


Newest Messages and Discussions[edit]

Notifications of Comments on Other Talk Pages[edit]

Re:[edit]

A fresh reply awaits @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Nagarjuna. Sam [Spade] 04:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments[edit]

I have posted the respective replies at my Talk page. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[Another][edit]

tk
Me too (except my talk page) :) anthony (see warning) 00:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography note[edit]

see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#LoPbN (list_of_people_by_name) Courtland 01:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people by name: Vo-Vq[edit]

see Talk:List of people by name: Vo-Vq#German "von" and alphabetization Courtland 01:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_people_by_name:_Boa-Bok[edit]

see Talk:List of people by name: Boa-Bok#Indexing of the surname "Bo" Courtland 04:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comment[edit]

I'm grateful for your offer of assistance! a reply is on my Talk page if you're interested. Ammi 20:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[This Heading Subject to Change and/or Repositioning][edit]

Collaboration of the week[edit]

AndyL tk
Wonder if you'd consider voting for Indian reservation as Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week? Without ONE more vote it will be eliminated only days away from winningAndyL 23:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Restored in ed conflict w/ the author, who was reverting himself. --Jerzy(t) 00:32, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)]
Not even a link to the article, just a spam sent to, looks like, 10 users? Not a chance in hell under these circumstances, despite the self-reversions that followed while i was trying to count the spams. --Jerzy(t) 00:32, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Category talk:Lists of people[edit]

RB tk
Hi - I started a discussion on this page that you may find of interest. -- Rick Block 14:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Protestant denominations[edit]

GD tk
This newly-created category substantially overlaps or duplicates the existing Category:Protestantism. What might be the plan on this? Your thoughts appreciated. --Gary D 07:42, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Your comments on LoPbN Index-only pages[edit]

SP tk
Sorry about the mistakes. When I have some time I'll redo the messages for the index pages. I actually did not use a bot, just simple copy and pasting. - SimonP 15:38, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for going through and changing the comments on the LoPbN pages. I can understand how it looked like I was using a bot as I tend to open a dozen or so separate tabs and then save them all in quick succession.
I don't understand your question about list of born-again Christian laypeople. All I did was move the page from List of Born-again Christian Laypeople using the standard move function. It had nothing with categories. - SimonP 21:59, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Alumni lists[edit]

Ts tk
Please note that I have copied the discussion on lists/categories for university people from the Categories for deletion page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities and added a few notes and questions. / u p p l a n d 11:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vaughn Meader[edit]

I understand what you mean about excerpts always being incomplete, but there are different levels of completeness. In this case, what I meant is that the album consists of many skits. The excerpts are incomplete bits of those skits, so you hear the beginning of some but don't always get the gist or the point of it. If you can think of a better way of phrasing that, be my guest. :-) Elf | Talk 01:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Elf | Talk 19:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:259[edit]

Wikipedia:No legal threats provides that Wikipedia may not be used as a means to communicate legal threats. Users who genuinely intend to carry out legal action are likely to use means other than a wiki to make their intentions known. In dealing with MC's sockpuppets/sympathizers/co-conspirators/whatever, I believe it is best to revert and move on rather than try to integrate or organize the material they supply. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tnx, UC.
I'm not sure i find this application of that policy wise, whether it is explicit or accepted as being implicit there, or is just your personal inference from it. I doubt that suppression of their apparent threats is as good as, say, striking it thru and tagging it with a fleshed out version of
WP policy precludes discussion here of the following threat of litigation.
And it provides some ammunition to, let's say [wink] just for the sake of argument, someone claiming something is libel and wanting to suppress part of the record to eliminate it -- even though we probably ameliorate that in saying re libel something much more sensible than what 259 is implying.
But i intended no reply to it in any case, and this is not the time or place to work out that policy issue.
I hope you will find no problem in my keeping here a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Category%3AClimbing&diff=8050970&oldid=8041305

clear link] to the suppressed material. If this is also problematic, i invite you to break the lk, replacing it with a signed note along the lines of

[Troublesome lk removed here by ~~~~]
--Jerzy(t) 19:51, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
Jerzy, you may certainly include the link as you wish, and for that matter you can re-add the offending material if you feel strongly.
You should be aware that of those troublesome users who make an effort to "work the process" at Wikipedia, nearly all make libel accusations at some point. RK, EofT, Irismeister, Reithy, and many others have done so. They are reverted, they cry censorship, they are reverted again. No legal action has ever resulted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

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

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

OR

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

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

Thanks for your efforts to clarify things for me. I'm still very much at a loss as to how Wikipedia works. For example, I initially contacted 259, but the response came from you . . . does that mean you're one and the same? The only thing I can figure out is that your IP number is not necessarily yours alone, although I don't understand why. TOM 15:24, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

VfD[edit]

JW tk
You said "I rv-ed yr removals from VfD mainly bcz of cases i have seen where an admin responds with "this doesn't belong here, it's a Speedy", deletes the nominee but leaves the entry, and another admin undeletes it, saying it's not a CSD. Your measure would make handling these misjudgements about what "everyone would agree is a speedy" much more work to take care of. And a few red links are no big deal; anyone who prefers to trust all the admins to judge these right can skip reading the corresponding debates as soon as the see the red link."

Two of the cases I removed from VfD were speedies, but they were also 5 days old, and due to be moved to /Old anyway. The others were not speedies but deletions by User:Neutrality who forgot to finish the process of closing them (as they should be, since their 5 days is up). While I agree with your point about generally removing red linked items, I don't think these counted. However, I will leave it to you(or some other wikipedian) to revert the changes back in, as it's not a big issue. Thanks for explaining letting me know about this on the talk page. JesseW 01:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sophocles[edit]

I liked your work on the Sophocles article.

A question, as it's been a long time since I've written to Wikipedia: when you come upon something that's not exactly clear, how do you deal with it in editing? For example, you read something and have no idea what the person meant to say. Do you leave it as it is, or remove it as incoherent? A few bits I was working on last night, I had no idea what the people meant. EventHorizon 04:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Olympic softball players of the U.S.A.[edit]

RB tk
Hi - you recently replaced the contents of this category article with [[Category:Orphaned categories]]. If you want to delete a category, please add {{cfd}} to the category article and create an entry on Categories for deletion. Thanks. -- Rick Block 05:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

U.S. politician categories[edit]

Be careful with what you're doing. I've had to undo some of your changes because they were factually incorrect—not all Presidents and Vice Presidents were ever candidates for those offices, so it is incorrect to place them as subcategories within the candidate categories. Four presidents never ran for that office, and I believe two VPs. Even if that were not the case, it would be ill-advised to effectively hide the Presidents category within the candidates category. It is not intuitive that a category merely labeled "candidates" contains those who have actually won that office as well. Additionally, Category:American diplomats is not by its own terms limited to those who have held a formal diplomatic position with the federal government, and so not all of the individuals were "appointees" of the executive branch.

Why are you changing the current system anyway? In general, I'm not seeing how your changes (with the exception of Category:U.S. presidential cabinet members) are improving the structure and ease of navigation. Postdlf 10:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I saw very little in the way of a current system, and didn't anticipate breaking anything useful.
The only cogent answer i can offer to your very general question is the principle you see me recognize, that Cats need to be subdivided to be browsable.
As to Candidate vs. Pres/VP, i take your pt & it had fleetingly occurred to me at some point, but IMO the assumption that the name means what it says deserves at least as much respect as people's inclination to think of the name as meaning something other than what it says. Perhaps for that problem what you are looking for is "losing candidates", which would meet both of the concerns. Aslo a small Cat for unelected presidents; maybe that should be "unelected presidents and VPs", rather than splitting Ford off in a Cat of 1.
I also see that i failed to move VPs & Prexys into "Exec Br electees", where they belong whether or not there is are "candidates" cats; perhaps doing that & never trying to lump the winners and losers will go a long way.
Do keep in mind that Cat titles need to be as long as they need to be! Yes, long names are a problem, but their solution is not making the user guess what is meant; their solution is additional facilities for prioritizing Cats of a single page and for hiding the "too much info" until the user indicates interest in it. It'll be awkward in the interim before those facilities arrive, but not as awkward as teaching users to expect illogic.
In any case, i am off-line for a while; if you like, go at it, and i'll critique as my next round rather than trying to dive in so boldly.
Glad to see someone gives a damn! Tnx.
--Jerzy(t) 11:03, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD[edit]

TB tk
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a mailing list :-)[edit]

I just went through Wikipedia:List of administrators and messaged people. Then I got blocked halfway down the list by User:Silsor for "spamming". Which pissed me off no end, especially because they implied I was doing bad faith edits. Anyway, I've created an admin noticeboard because it's too hard to communicate to other admins via messages. So I've come up with a Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to use this! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, so I've worked out (the hard way). So this might be a good thing anyway because I've created it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ambition?[edit]

You wrote on my talk page something about the "Ambition controversy". As I said when I replied, I'm not connected to that issue, and I don't really understand what the deal is. It seems bizarre that a card game would be so divisive.

I am curious, because this episode seems to be one that's important in the community, and it happened while I was on hiatus from Wikipedia. Furthermore, all the back history is so opaque that it's impossible for me to get a coherent feel of what's going on. To benefit my curiosity, what is this "Ambition" issue? When did it start and why are there so many strong opinions? EventHorizon 03:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD Section Link[edit]

Just you know, I've requested that as a feature. See: meta:MediaWiki_feature_request_and_bug_report_discussion#Depending_on_page.27s_section.2C_Special_Variables:_Section Special Variables: Section

-- AllyUnion (talk) 00:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Charles Darwin[edit]

Silly thing to argue about? Sure. And you are entitled to your opinion as to the relevance of the item in question. But when you say that my behaviour is abusive, I feel I must respond to you personally.

My position is that I am the one being abused. I have a developed argument, I have accepted compromise, and I am not the original author. I am being bullied by a POV majority who became incensed at having someone stand up to them. I think the old expression "a tyranny of the majority" applies here. For that reason and because of the abuse I have been subjected to, I am boycotting the vote and waiting instead (failing a compromise) for the results of mediation. Vincent 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Fake" move[edit]

The changes at Talk:Ambition (card game) were not intended to be bad faith edits, but I'm on an apparently flaky internet connection and the page move didn't work properly.

What I was trying to do was clear that stuff out of Talk:Ambition (card game) and preserve it elsewhere, but for some reason the page move failed to do what I intended. I'll try it again when I have a more stable connection and it won't result in the loss of information. Pw3x 17:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:United States Senators[edit]

Hey, howdy. One of the benefits of the formerly REALLY long list of U.S. Senator articles is that we could quickly see "how we were doing" by comparing the number of articles in the category with the total number of U.S. Senators. Is there any way to have the 'pedia add up the number of articles over the several pages so we can keep that functionality? Thanks! jengod 22:12, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry! I thought that was you. I guess it's part of the new MediaWiki 1.4. :( Thanks/sorry. jengod 22:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

User:Oven Fresh[edit]

>:|[edit]

I will not stand for you reverting my edits. I just noticed, ten days after, that you reverted MY changed to User:Lst27. It is not against the rules to edit userpages, and I made a edit that fixed what was breaking his user page. Lst27 subsequantly reverted YOUR edits. So stop your ignorant crusade against me. Knowing your record to remove any crits on your talk page, I'm sure this will be shortly removed by you. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 03:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In Re OF[edit]

Anyone interested by OF's post above should be aware of the history. I have not read the entire history, but it may be of interest that i insisted on them editing this page further only under circumstances that they give no sign here of having complied with, or having even sought to comply with.
Such interested parties should also watch this section (or a subpage which may soon serve most of this section's current role) for further developments, as i have not yet said all that merits saying.
--Jerzy(t) 06:04, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

The history of what? And who is "they"? Complied with what? What the... o_O ✏ OvenFresh☺ 15:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm waiting. Snap snap. ✏ OvenFresh² 01:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since you are aware of the history, so the invitation was not addressed to you. The result does not seem worth the effort involved at present (no one but you seems to care). And i care less and less as i see things like your presumably intentionally rude msg just above. --Jerzy (t) 17:38, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/667 Dark Avenue[edit]

[Some of my own formatting errors fixed w/o new sigs. --Jerzy(t) 09:44, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)]
Jerzy(t) converted
  • GAYYYYY ehm... I mean: delete. --fvw* 16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
to
  • [Personal attack (however harmlessly intended) on multiple colleagues deleted here by Jerzy(t) 18:01, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC). Intent may have been "Should be embarassing to its creators."] ehm... I mean: delete. --fvw* 16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
thereby stimulating the following dialog:

My apologies if my comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/667 Dark Avenue caused offence, however it was merely a parody of something that was on the subject page at the time. --fvw* 18:12, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Ah, tnx, that goes enormously toward restoring my opinion of you as a colleague. And perhaps i should have looked at the history before considering exactly what interim remedy to apply.
On the other hand, i assume you've learned the lesson of not assuming the context will be stable. And at the risk of preaching (and maybe even preaching to the choir), i'm deputizing myself to make the points to you that
  • WP, tho a volunteer activity, sets a standard of collegiality comparable to professional and academic ones.
  • WP is firmly committed to a very high level of inclusiveness, precluding behavior that invites any inference of dispensing :with respectful communication.
  • Emotive language is not "just words", i.e., its purpose and effect are only secondarily the explicit conveying of information.
  • In practice (whatever the proper status of theories of "oppressed groups" may be), to the degree that calling a group "oppressed" escapes universal derision ("Oppressed American millionaire"? Liberate this, fat-cat!), many of the group's members react involuntarily, to what appears to them to be disrespect based on membership in that group, as they would to organized oppression, and they are done real harm by that appearance.
  • Thus "gayyy" and, say, "niggerish", are words that should (occasionally be discussed but) never be applied at WP, however satirical the intent.
Of course in the long term you are much more able than i to express your real intent. I saw quick amelioration as mandatory, and the intent of my edit was that, not contributing to the discussion at hand or making any point of independent importance. Thus i would welcome your rewrite of your original vote (eliminating my contribution completely if that is acceptable to you). (In such situations, my preferred documentation measure is modifying the sig-line into one dated like
16:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) & 20:04, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
(taking advantage of 5 tildes rendering as just a time stamp w/o any user link), tho i don't claim there's any clear policy calling for the double timestamp.)
Thank you for your quick and responsible reply to my action, and thank you in advance for your attention to this as well.
Jerzy(t) 20:04, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
I disagree, I think as long as terms like gayyy are used they're valid targets for parody, and I think the context, even with the comment removed from the subject page, were sufficient to indicate it was intended as that. But if the current version makes you happy, that's fine by me. I'll just leave the comment as it is now. ----fvw* 20:33, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Irony (of which parody is one form) is a dangerous tool beyond the bounds of those who know you well enough to pick up your real intent, and WP is certainly beyond those bounds.
Moreover, contrary to your suggestion, context is crucial for parody to work. Swift's Modest Proposal is such a classic because so many of its audience couldn't grasp the context and for them it failed as parody; its success was not in communicating to its readers. The comfortable readers who failed to perceive it as a parody are the ones who make it famous: that failure showed those who did understood it, better than their reading of the parody did, how deserving of ridicule those morally comfortable ones were. "Dying is easy; comedy is hard."
But let's get clear about your parody:
  • 667 Dark Avenue was VfD-ed.
  • Edits started coming at the rate of two per hour for the next four hours (including an edit deleted as vandalism after 3 minutes).
  • An IP, who had not edited the article before (tho they had an IP close to that of the creator), added "GAYYYYYYYYYY" under "==External links==". (Which suggests to me it came from a critic of 667, who is likely to agree with you that the 667 article is not worthy of retention.)
  • You decide, 33 minutes later, that imitating an apparent critic of 667 (not someone who said, e.g., that 667 is valuable via making readers aware of what is GAYYYYYYYYYY and what is cool) by calling 667 "GAYYYYY" was a useful, or at least clever, comment, in support of your del vote.
  • BTW, the context of your VfD edit disappeared (utterly predictably, IMO) after another 27 minutes.
  • You explain your intent as parodying the use of "GAYYYYYYYYYY". That seems odd, if parody indeed is "imitation of style" for "humor or to ridicule": did you think the personal attack you imitated, on those whose site you were criticizing, was something to joke about? Or were you for some reason seeking to ridicule others taking the same position as you, and whose personal attack you did not otherwise criticize?
At the bottom line, i think
  • you misjudge what expressions are acceptable media for parody at WP: terms of abuse that focus on sensitive groups are far too dangerous for that.
  • this particular "parody" raises for me a serious question about your skill at that rhetorical device, so that i hope you will give serious thought to whether wisdom bids you completely avoid parody here, and perhaps irony as a whole.
In any case, this bodes well by continuing gratifyingly civil. Thanks.
--Jerzy(t) 09:44, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

VfD Marco of Alexandria[edit]

Well done on straightening out the tally on the VfD for Marco of Alexandria. It was getting quite confusing and involved several judgement calls which I didn't really want to make, in case I was taken as being partisan. -- Solipsist 12:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VFD/Today[edit]

Thanks for updating the comments. By the way, it was placed under a sub-sub-page in the event that an article named "Log" is ever listed for VFD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Real[edit]

Ultimately it does not matter how things are arranged, but what makes you put the Brazilian currency on top of everything else. Just curios. Also, I did not understand your mention of the sock puppet. Cheers. Oleg Alexandrov 02:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why I put the message on your talk page. Most likely I clicked on the wrong thing in my watchlist. Never happened before. Sorry for that.

About my spelling. I did mean "curious". Sorry for that one too. Usually when writing articles on Wikipedia I am more careful, and also use spellcheck. Anyway, thank you for your patience. Cheers. Oleg Alexandrov 04:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Frontier[edit]

I am curious then, is mark McHenery not to have a bio under the Star Trek:New Frontier post, or does it need to be reformatted ? Thanks in advance. --James 07:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would listen to someone who said, "That can't possibly be true, if they had read the book. The bio that was given for the character was correct in every way. Meaning that when someone posts, Some odd mix of f*ncr*ft and fanfic I thinkor Delete as nonnotable character. it simply shows me they have not read the book series. It is not fanfic and as non notable if you meant the main charcater for the previous 2 books...I would agree. As it stands the bio is correct, as people who responded noted. So again I ask, is there some kind of format or something that needs to be changed, because you are asking me to take into accounts opinions that have no basis in fact. --James 09:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek:_New_Frontier"


Professor in accounting VfD[edit]

Good point. If I had read this today, I'd probably vote Move, and that's what I plan to do. Thanks for the heads up. --Deathphoenix 22:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advisory on VfD procedure. Now that I apparently have been admitted into The League of Extraordinary Deletionists, I would do better to get with the program.  ;-) Edeans 04:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thich Nhat Hanh[edit]

I have gone ahead and moved around one of my comments on Talk:Thich Nhat Hanh. In response to your comments on my talk page:

  • "your dismissal of my previous evidence re the status of "Thich" as if you had never read it," — I don't think this accurate. Your previous evidence has convinced me that it is plausible to not treat Thich as part of his name, whereas previously I thought it was implausible. I still don't think that the article should state as a fact that it is not part of his name. And I don't see it established anywhere that "Thich" is translated as "Venerable"; the only example cited on talk is in a letter from Martin Luther King, who one would not expect to get all the details right in addressing Buddhist monks.
  • "your discussion of PoV-implying names as if i had even hinted that "Nhat Hanh" should be eliminated from the article," — this was in response to your comment in talk:Thich Nhat Hanh, "OK, so he changed all his names to words that if not treated as names are make incredibly vague, and outrageous, PoV claims about him;" My point is that this is normal, and therefore the name "Thich" is not exceptional here. In fact, one might say that the claim implied by the word "Thich" is less PoV than what is implied by "Nhat Hanh".
  • "your characterizing 68 words by your "[dis-]comfort" without indicating a single word that would contribute to your comfort by replacing some of them, and" — many of those words could be eliminated (as I have indicated in my refactored comment), but really I want to get to the bottom of the basic disagreement before I start worrying about what the article should say. At least, that's my feeling so far; I might decide to make a revision later.
  • "(I suppose one answer for that is that i'm weirding you out, or shall i say, addressing you in a tone that raises tension for you. My temperment is quite averse to conflict, so please say so if i'm creating difficulties for you; i'd rather help you be, well, comfortable, than not, as long as you're not mocking the value of what we're doing.)" — your tone is a little unusual, but that, in itself, is more of a good thing than a bad thing. Not knowing what other tones you have at your disposal, I think I can say that the present one is just fine. Use whatever tone you like, it's not a problem. - Nat Krause 06:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LoPbN talk page organization[edit]

jni tk
Hello Jerzy, I just did some minor cleanup to the set of talk pages under Talk:List of people by name. Hope I did not break anything. Was it your intention that new discussions should go directly to appropriate subpages, or are the subpages just archives? At least I haven't ever received any feedback to my question Talk:List of people by name/Individual Entries#Year links in entries. I'd appreciate your comments on this, since you seem to be the most active maintainer of this HUGE index. In my own few additions to LoPbN I have tried to minimize extra links to year pages or even articles (in the third field after dates), but haven't reformatted sections that already have them. Cheers, jni 08:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Martinman11|Hoekenheef[edit]

Mm tk

Wondering[edit]

I would like to know why the tone of Kaiju Big Battel is incorrect for an encyclopedia entry. It is just plot and character list. If what causes this problem is the fact that their are short bios after each character, that can be fixed. But the reason I have them is to give viewers a quick overview of Kaiju Big Battel. This is because about 1 out of every 75 or more people know what Kaiju Big Battel is. Hoekenheef 12:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kaiju[edit]

Okay I messed up two words everyone does that, but about the article being "fictional," the article is completly real in the sense that, of course, their are not actual Kaiju, but that this is show that is held in different parts of the country. I also did not enjoy the fact that you said, "I hasten to add that i don't question your hold on reality...learn to use the Page history to review the nature of the changes made..." The first statement is not based on any facts or evidence as we most likley have never met and the second is once again false because you do not know my habits when I edit an article (and yes I do use the page history).

I will say I agree that Antaeus Feldspar re-wrote the intro in a good way that I had not thought of. I wrote what I thought would be the best way, yet questioning my hold on reality is not how to go about this. That is all of what I have to say. Oh, in the future don't "sweeten" the end of your comments. Hoekenheef 12:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

I realize now that your words were intended to be helpful and I am sorry I took them the wrong way. I just was bugged by the two comments that I refered to in my previous post here. I also see how that article was written in the incorrect point of view. My personal purpose is to not make enemies here, but to still stand up for myself and my works. I see not that on most levels here I was in error. Hoekenheef 11:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help[edit]

Js tk
I really appreciate your help in fixing the absolute mess on the Revival of Buddhism in India article. If you had seen the previews of the fixes that I attempted, you'd understand why I turned it over to someone else. Joyous 05:43, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

user talk:afanous

Hi Jerzy! Thanks for your advice. I agree with you that my post was somehow offensive. I will delete that paragraph of mine and will try my website to adopt a more gracious attitude from now on. Thanks again :) -user:afanous

Posting style[edit]

The problem is that if person A makes a long comment with points X, Y, and Z, and person B comes along and makes a long response to point Z, and I want to comment on point X, if I put my comment below person B's comment it makes no sense - why am I talking about X, when the person I am (seemingly) replying to is talking about Z? So that's why in those cases (you will note that I don't always do this) I stick it in below person A's comment, indented further.

I will look at the commetns you reformatted, and see if they still make sense reformatted. If not, I will put them back the way they were. Noel (talk) 04:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Coptic et al[edit]

User talk:Afanous
Hi Jerzy! How are you? Hope all is well. First, please don't change Coptic to Coptic language, since the adjective Coptic can refer to many more things than just the language. Thanks :) Then, I didn't want to comment on you deleting my last posting in the Isaac Fanous debate. Yet, I somehow agree with Omar that you delete/keep postings according to your own moral code system. But many postings, such as my last one for instance, was by no means intended as a personal attack on Omar. You thought it was and decided to delete it. I just don't see it to be very fair. Anyway, the issue is over anyway as you know. I just wanted to draw your attention to that, since we decided to be friends ;) Cheers, Andrew!

- Man! Please calm down! It was just an innocent comment! 1. I was talking about my comment to Omar about how he knows the guy is not notable if he wasn't Egyptian (to which he replied saying he was an Egyptian Catholic. You deleted my question and left his answer). I fail to see how that's a personal attack? 2. Of course I don't know the rules of Wikipedia yet because I am relatively new. I followed your advice and moved Coptic (adj.) to Copt, which previously pointed at Copts. Thanks for taking the time to write back. User:Afanous

Edit summaries[edit]

Please do not use edit summaries to "hold conversations". Summaries should describe the edit, not be used to send messages. Avoid taking a "judgmental tone in edit comments" as per Wikipedia:Civility. This is important because they are a permanent part of the history log, and can serve to bring disputes into the wrong forum. We all need to do better with that, but I wasn't sure if you're aware of that guideline, judging by your contributions. -- Netoholic @ 06:35, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Category:Writers by subject area[edit]

I'm afraid I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about.

I reorganized Category:Writers by subject area because it was a horrible mess. The alternative, of course, would be to get rid of the fiction and non-fiction subcategories and throw in the lot of them together.

Category:Mystery writers very definitely belongs under fiction, as do Category:Western writers and Category:Romance writers, although it seems that the latter should be merged with Category:Romantic fiction writers. (When people say "Romance" today, they are thinking about a genre of fiction. If that is not what is meant by the category, then it needs work.) I am quite familiar with mystery writers and the other two categories were so small that it didn't take much research to figure out what was going into them.

In my experience, military fiction tends to be called "military fiction", and that is what I would expect a category for military fiction writers to be called. Certainly the writers that I checked seemed to be writers of military nonfiction (I did not assume anything). Neither of your two examples is currently categorized under a Category:Writers by subject area subcategory, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to have been able to tell if they were meant to be there. (And I wouldn't want to put either of them in with Che Guevara.)

As it currently stands, Category:Military writers is being used for nonfiction writers. I categorized it accordingly. One doesn't usually say "military nonfiction". However, it might be useful for organizational purposes if Category:Military fiction writers existed. -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The genre, as far as I know, is called "military fiction". We do not say "science-fiction writers", so I don't know if it is necessary or (or necessarily grammatical) to say "military-fiction writers". Perhaps we could go with Category:Writers of military fiction. (What the heck, it might not hurt to do that to some of the others. "Science fiction writers" could theoretically sound to someone like an appropriate category for a character in a science fiction story who happens to be a writer. On the other hand, no one talks about "mystery fiction" or "Western fiction" writers. Consistency may be less important than clarity.) Of course, the same weakness is shared by Category:Military writers, which could (much more easily than "military fiction writers", I would think) be construed to mean "writers who are associated with the military".
  1. We could save ourselves the trouble and just dump the two categories in Category:Writers by subject area and get on with our lives.
  2. If we don't use categories based on a-what they are supposed to contain or b-what they do contain, then what is the point in worrying about them at all? (It seems to me that all that is left, then, is "what you feel like putting into them".) I do actually do quite a lot of categorization work and I do have some idea what I'm talking about here, whether or not you agree with my conclusions.
  3. You said, "but what we should be discussing is how to achieve clarity", which is what I thought I was doing. If you don't think that Category:Military fiction writers would be sufficiently clear, perhaps Category:Writers of military fiction would be easier for folks to understand unambiguously. (It was just a suggestion. I like getting rid of the fiction/non-fiction distinction better, though.)
  4. Rules for hyphens are extremely complicated, rather picky, and subject to change. Science fiction is very frequently used as an adjective now (see for instance Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America). As the term becomes more familiar as a fixed unit, the need to insert the hyphen diminishes. In any case, it's a very fine point. (And if I were not willing to admit that, you could simply say "science-ficiton is used as the adjective form" and not waste any time at all. I am neither stupid nor unreasonable. I do, however, sometimes have trouble keeping my languages straight.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster[edit]

Hi Jerzy. I am tempted to make a change in your edit of the Merriam-Webster article, but I decided to consult you first. About Webster's Third NI, you wrote, "the most complete non-specialist dictionary of American English." I would replace this with, "the most complete non-specialist American dictionary of English." Oxford is more complete, but is not American. The "Third" is an American dictionary, but it does not specialize in American English, and wouldn't be "non-specialist" if it did. Correcting this would remove the link, which is not applicable anyway. If this agrees with you, you can change it, or I can.

I see that you also described the Collegiate as, "a bookshelf-sized work based on the Third International and popular for home and office use." Since the Third New International has been reprinted virtually unchanged for over 40 years (except for additions to the new word addenda section,) and the Collegiate has been much changed and revised, the Collegiate has become a separate entity. so, I would remove the "based on..." clause. And what do you think of changing "bookshelf-sized" to "desk-sized" ? I put all sizes of books on shelves. "Desk-sized" is a commonly understood term.

216.19.218.93 19:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pretty good insights IMO; i'm not sure any of the your proposed changes are necessary, but none of them seem harmful, and if they make it clearer to your eyes, they probably will to someone else's.
My recollection may be wrong, but i think the IIIrd just has not had a complete rework, and that the work on the two is coordinated among mostly a single unifed staff. Dord talks abt the revision process of the many-faced IInd a little, and i doubt the IIIrd is even as static as that one was.
Thanks, --Jerzy(t) 23:40, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Reply to above: Hi again. Thanks. I just discovered Wikipedia. I may soon learn to contribute without so much ceremony. On registering: Unfortunately, the computer I use most is screwed up and will not allow the cookie setting to be changed. I don't understand why cookies are needed if we have passwords. 216.19.218.49 06:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I dunno if it's a strict requirement or just a big convenience. E.g., i am pretty sure you need cookies for the "remember my password" check box to be effective. But i suppose it may also be that the server is smart enough to know you don't have a permanent IP#, and worry that you lost your connection since logging on, and thus feel it necessary to check a cookie to be sure someone else didn't dial in to your ISP and get the IP# you were still logged on at. In that case the cookie would be mandatory for any useful work under it. (And if you've tried it, rather than just assuming you understood exactly the intended meaning of the mention of cookies, you know that much more than i.)
But at the very least, registering would give you a single place to look for replies, even if you can't always log on. Specifically, you could leave a note at the talk page of each IP# you save edits with, urging colleagues to talk to you at your talk page: after editing the article, click "Page history". The resulting page will show your edit, usually at the top of the list. Click on the IP# link that appears just to the right of the time/date-stamp. Then click on the "(talk)" link on the line, two below "User contributions", that begins with "For " and your current IP#. Then edit that IP's talk page, named (e.g) User talk:216.19.218.49; if i were you (or rather if you were i), we'd add a line reading
Sorry, at this point i have to do most of my editing as an IP, but i am User:Jerzy and the surest place to reach me is by editing User talk:Jerzy.
(Of course you aren't i, and you, being you, would use your own registered user name in place of mine. Plz excuse my overcaution.) You'd do that once with every new IP # that you actually used to save an edit. Only once altogether, you should also edit your registered username's talk page (and probably its user page) using your registered username, to include
So far, i usually edit as an IP in the range 216.19.218.xxx
and sign that contrib with four tildes (~~~~). This makes it possible for colleagues to rule out the possibility that all of the claims that such IPs are from you were originated by some stranger "spoofing" your username. (Of course, it gives people on the same ISP the opportunity to spoof yours more convincingly than others', but you can check (using "What links here" from your registered username's talk page) on which IP user-talk pages make that link, and at least be warned if there are such messages created by someone else. Of course, once you disavow one of those IP edits, your whole unregistered identity becomes a question mark, so you'll then have lost much of the benefit.
--Jerzy(t) 19:17, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Since you contemplate changing the size description, note the error i made: the Collegiates are neither bookshelf-sized nor desk-sized, but sized for use storage and/or use on a bookshelf or desk; they can be loosely described as being bookshelf size or of bookshelf size, and (IMO less loosely) as bookshelf-size dictionaries. Actually, the OED is bookshelf-sized, i.e., the size of a bookshelf, and a desk-sized dictionary would be not smaller, but larger than even that -- stunningly large!
--Jerzy(t) 19:17, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Reply to above: Thanks for the thoughts about registering and alternatives. I will work on that. Good point about size. It's ambiguous. I might change it to "concise" or something else. Heck, it's a college dictionary, everyone knows what they look like anyway, right ? I'm most interested in documenting the special and relative values of dictionaries, their histories, etc. 216.19.218.67 04:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Sisterproject#Survey[edit]

On WP:TFD, you voted for keeping Template:Sisterproject. However, another vote is needed to ensure it is used. Please state your opinion at the above link. — Itai (f&t) 15:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reversal of VfD-sub-page Move[edit]

Since i think i followed standard practice when calling the result in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Isaac Fanous (but don't often do such calls), it would help me to know whether you think you were following some policy, or just improvising independently. --Jerzy(t) 07:50, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy! I looked at Talk:Isaac Fanous, and I thought: what if some newbie comes along, and wants to start editing the article and writing notes on the talk page? He might be confused by the "Please do not edit this page" warning.
As far as policy goes, see the deletion process, section "Votes for Deletion page", step 5b. But I guess you already know about that, as you edited that page last August, before I had even heard of VfD.
It isn't something I feel strongly about; if I was overly bold, sorry. dbenbenn | talk 14:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right on what the policy says, and it may therefore be that i am confused about the practice, which is (wisely or foolishly!) where i do most of my learning. No, i don't think you've been too bold. (And even if you had, i won't cast an "Of course no one who rv-s me should ever become an admin." change of vote!) You may, for the time being, want to start a list rather than act immediately, tho, on any similar ones you find. Lemme get back to you. Tnx. --Jerzy(t) 17:12, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Hostile interaction[edit]

Hi, Jerzy, remember when you taught me about cats? That was fun, it's a fond memory. I believe you just wasted a lot of time and good advice on a contributor with no interest in courteous interaction and a paranoia about "insider" wikipedians being out to "drive him off". From some comments he's made, he sees himself as the St. George of the ordinary reader, out to save the princess by slaying the dragon "insiders". Please see the history of that talk page, as he is in the habit of quickly removing all comments containing any breath of criticism of him, together with his own intemperate responses. (The last thing he said to me was "I wonder how many people you have driven away from Wikipedia".) Few people would frequent his talk page more than once, I guess, but since he does such a lot of categorising, unsuspecting new people are always wandering by and getting their day soured by his hostility, and for that reason I've had some thoughts about actually RfCing him for outrageous interaction style. (I know of one excellent contributor who left because of it. :-() From the comments by some strangers on my own page, an RfC like that might gather a record amount of comments. But I'm really, for myself, into ignoring him, it's a lot simpler after all. I don't exactly thrive on conflict and hostility, few of us do. If I might make bold to advise, Jerzy, remember few things on the internet are worth losing sleep over.

Hey, look, he's not ignoring me, I see--he just mentioned me on his page! I have no intention of appearing there, but yes, I am in fact proud of my interchange with him, my mother would love it (my part in it). [2] [3] [4] If this remark is mysterious, please see the history, as pcpcpc is likely enough to have deleted his own comments again. Best wishes, --Bishonen | Talk 11:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sig[edit]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'd like to keep the red link as part of my nonserious experiment, as an attempt at modesty, and as a sign that I have some sort of sense of humor. I'll try out the space between brian0918 and TM, but I don't think I can shorten the name, except maybe to 0918. --brian0918&#153; 18:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moving[edit]

Hi Jerzy--did you do the move and merge of info from Tiny Tim-> A Christmas Carol? If so, could you please note my comments at the TT talk page?

Thanks! Quill 23:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bookmarks[edit]

Current VFD is being updated by a new bot and at a different page: User:AllyUnion/VFD List. It also notifies in the edit history what articles have been added. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Victoria Chaplin[edit]

[Full discussion assembled here by copying the portion at User talk:RickK#Chaplins, and chronologizing and reformatting here, by Jerzy (t) 21:29, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC).]

I dunno if Victoria Chaplin (etc.?) are worthy of articles, but i'd like an explanation for how you think you can speedy her. --Jerzy (t) 06:42, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

I don't know etc. you're talking about, since I only deleted the Victoria Chaplin article, but I deleted it because it had no content. "She is involved in film" and two external links is no content. RickK 06:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The "etc." refers to the other 5 Chaplins that i treated similarly in the same session but didn't happen to check.
IMO, the implicit content is indicated by the lk being an IMDb one: someone (not me as it happens) thinks she deserves an article (as indicated by the LoPbN entry that i moved the ext lk from), & supported that with the fact she's listed in IMDb. IMO it is entitled, least with stub tags, to a hearing on VfD as to whether it could grow beyond stubdom.
Attacking it from a different angle, i would hope you would agree that LoPbN entries should not have ext lks. When they do, i think it wrong to throw away the info just bcz i don't have enuf interest to pursue it by creating more of an article than the one i gave her. I think putting it on a talk page for a non-existent article would be futile; better that someone with the interest gets a chance to look at the IMDb entry, or someone with the familiarity to say "Victoria? Nah, she's the least of Charley's kids, off to VfD."
In light of the presumption of good intention, "in film" is not nonsense and it is content: if her vital stats were there but "in film" weren't, adding "in film" would be an enhancement, so it's content.
Will you restore & VfD, or do i have to VfU it?
--Jerzy (t) 07:14, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

If you want to VfU it, go ahead. I don't plan on undeleting it, because I believe it's nonsense. RickK 07:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Dwayne[edit]

Hi there, It is really enjoyable to work with people like you. Thanks for fixing some things in the article, it looks fine. I took a look and I would like to thank you for consulting me. count me among your Wiki-Friends Tony the Marine

Thanks for contacting me[edit]

Hey, I appreciate you contacting me on my user page. However, I have decided at the time not to involve myself further in that matter. I will say that I think the first sentence, which I wrote, is accurate, and the second sentence is close, but needs to be qualified to avoid conflict. Beyond that, please proceed as you would if I were not involved. I hope to return to the issue, but I don't expect to in the near future. - Nat Krause 14:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jerzy: not to worry, I certainly didn't stop editing Buddhism articles. If you check my contributions, you'll see I still edit them often. It's more that there are some subjects I try not to get too involved in while living here in China. Incidentally, I finally got around to asking one of my Vietnamese friends, and she thinks that "Thich" is more like a title, so that implies that you were right. Also, how do you feel about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? - Nat Krause 13:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Müller, Muller etc.[edit]

Hi, and thanks for the long message on my talk page. I'm not quite sure I fully understand what you are asking me to do, or what you are planning to do yourself for that matter, but let me just briefly repeat my point anyway:

(1) Muller, Mueller and Müller are 3 (three) different names. Anyone can go ahead and mix them up, but it's wrong. I'm not really familiar with Øs, Œs, łs etc. so someone else would have to decide that. For the French, I believe, an e is an e, whether it is an e, é, è, ë, or ê.

(2) Unless you decide to ignore the differences between u, ue and ü altogether, you will have to make up your mind as to a consistent alphabetical order. I tried to show three ways of dealing with the problem (see User_talk:KF#Alphabetical_order_and_umlauts), adding that in official telephone directories lots of inconsistencies can be found.

(3) I won't have time to get involved in this subject again, but you may want to transfer this text to the appropriate talk page.

All the best, <KF> 22:14, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Substubs[edit]

I think i agree with your contribution on the talk page, although it is hard to read. Actually, i see no need for a substub tag altogether. If voting were a bit more effective on WP i'd propose to vote for deletion of the whole substub concept. The proponents have not been very responsive lately. — Sebastian (T) 05:00, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)


Technetium PR[edit]

Hi Jerzy. Your question about ekamanganese inspired me to expand technetium. I've now opened a peer review on that article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Technetium/archive1, in case you'd like to comment. :) --mav 02:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians who play the piano[edit]

It's a joke, Jerzy.

There are however other "wikipedians who.." categories which people seem to take rather more seriously. You may wish to register your concern with regard to these.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for fixing up my user page, I also thought it profoundly inappropriate to chop up somebody's comments, but wasn't quite sure what the convention was. So thanks a lot for the effort in cleaning it up. Much appreciated! plattopustalk 18:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm removing some of the disclaimers (but not all of them), IMO it's a lot easier to follow the discussion if the disclaimer appears only once at the top of the thread, and not within each indentation. plattopustalk 18:17, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

expos/nationals debate[edit]

There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here. Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.

Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.

If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 21:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Camillo Agrippa[edit]

Yup, the architect and the fencer are the same guy. However he is famous apparently only because of his contributions to fencing. I expanded the article a bit more and added a link to his work. You're most welcome to review it, of course. - Rune Welsh 01:10, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Bermudian[edit]

Well, being a Bermudian myself (there are only about 70K of us altogether), I'm well aware of how it's spelt! :-) The "Bermudan rig" is probably a typo or just a plain mistake that nobody told the dictionary people about; say "Bermudan rig" to anyone in Bermuda and they're going to look at with a very wierd look indeed! :-) Noel (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Discussions Since Structuring them as User-talk Sub-pages[edit]

/On the style page thinger[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

On the style page thinger

appears on User talk:Jerzy/On the style page thinger ([Edit]); the following points describe the discussion:

/parallelepiped[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

parallelepiped

appears on User talk:Jerzy/parallelepiped ([edit]); the following points describe the discussion:

Al-Khwarizmi/Al-Khawarizmi[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Al-Khwarizmi/Al-Khawarizmi

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Al-Khwarizmi/Al-Khawarizmi ([edit]); the following points describe the discussion:

  • 4 msgs, 05:21, 8 thru 12:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 2 participants: Jerzy~t~*; Khalid hassani~t~*
  • general topics: c&p moves; title spellings; user-talk protocols

Discussion is to be found on the sub-page linked by this section's heading.

"Conspiracy theory"[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Conspiracy_theory

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Conspiracy_theory; the following points describe the discussion:

Help![edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Help!

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Help!/More info/Credibility; the points a couple of sections below at #Help!/More info/Credibility describe the discussion.

My signature[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

My signature

appears on User talk:Jerzy/My signature; the following points describe the discussion:

  • 6 msgs, 20:36 thru 18:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 2 participants: Jerzy~t~*; User:RickK~t~*.
  • general topics: attrib'ing one's IP edits; false accusation

More info[edit]

(See second following section)

Credibility[edit]

(See next section)

Help!/More info/Credibility[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Help!/More info/Credibility

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Help!/More info/Credibility; the following points describe the discussion:

Proposed RfC on User:Daniel C. Boyer[edit]

I have just joined Plattopus and Classicjupiter2's efforts to construct a RFC against Daniel C. Boyer, and I was hoping you'd have something to add to the rough draft at User:Plattopus/DCB. I know you've had significant conflict with him in the past as well, and the more of this we document the better. Thanks! Postdlf 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now live at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer for you to respond. Postdlf 07:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J's Talk-subpage Experiment[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

J's Talk-subpage Experiment

appears on User talk:Jerzy/J's Talk-subpage Experiment; the following points describe the discussion:

  • 2 msgs, 18:57, 10 thru 03:28, 13 May 2005
  • 2 participants: Jerzy~t~*.
  • general topic(s): Critiquing of Jerzy's new personal scheme for talk.

Dispute Assistance[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Dispute Assistance

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Dispute Assistance; the following points describe the discussion:

  • 1 msg(s), 05:26 thru 18:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 2 participants: Jerzy~t~*; User:Isomorphic~t~*.
  • general topic(s): obligation to defend community; what's an acceptable sig format.

HI!!! i NEED SOME HELP PLEASE!![edit]

Hi!!!
I'm Claudia from mexico and I'm looking for some information about the church-turing thesis and the Turing Machine, and I wonder if you could help me with this information. I'm a student and some friends and I need to do a homework about it and we need to have a contact of another country, would you like to be our contact please?? We hope to hear from you very very soon!!! You can write us to: cala_sc@hotmail.com ...
Please we need your help!!
[reformated; from 19:38, 15 May 2005 148.240.8.177]

( please stop shouting )
Hi back.
Most of us don't generally enter into discussions of encyclopedic subject matter (other than to improve articles, or through specific questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk), nor correspond by EMail with WP users; and this is not a suitable case for my doing either.
Nevertheless, it may help you that i mention that service, and our articles that may include such information as you seek, namely Church-Turing thesis and Turing machine.
Thank you for using Wikipedia; tell your colleagues; and do come back for other information.
--Jerzy~t 00:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Margaret McBride[edit]

I'd almost surely have tried to resolve our ed-conf by merging your stub in, rather than clobbering it after rescuing it to the talk, except that i had just said "Yes, i know i said i'd wind it up quickly, and i just saved the article; it'll be 30 sec." It sounds like you may be too busy to consider it a kindness if give you the chance to come up with the right merge. [smile] But i'll put it off until the 21st, or longer if you ask me. I certainly don't mind doing the merge, but it would have seemed like a waste not to give you the chance if you prefer. Thanks in any case.
Reply here, and i'll check for any response.
--Jerzy~t 00:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy, I have no idea what you are talking about. I made exactly one edit to that article—creation of a stub—and judging by the edit history, you made exactly one edit, expanding it some 16 hours later. I have no idea what you are saying about having "just said" you'd wind somenthing up quickly. To whom? Where? It sounds like you think I somehow clobbered your edit or something, but I did nothing of the sort. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
That said, I will now make some copy edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. And thanks for fleshing out the article. If you re-read what you said on my user talk page, I'm sure you can see how I (mis-)read it as an accusation, especially because I've been getting a few of those lately. Yeah, I'm still around (about half as much as before) until June 19, at which point I will be almost completely out of here for a little over 3 weeks (I'll be attending a film festival while continuing to work a full time job, which will not a lot of time to edit Wikipedia.) -- Jmabel | Talk 04:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week for Dan Gable[edit]

Hello,

I have nominated the artical on Dan Gable for the calaboration of the week. But the artical needs as much support as possible. This will be a tough one that has potential to become a collaborated artical with help of people like you. Please place your vote at the collaboration of the week artical under the Dan Gable Section. Thank you very much for your help. ZeWrestler 17:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry for spamming you. I'll further analize contributions in the future before I contact members. Please accept my apology -- ZeWrestler 20:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party[edit]

Hi, I just added a Further reading section to the MDFLP page. I'm not sure if any of these sources are online. However, they would clear up the question you raised on the Talk page concerning HHH's role in moving the MDFLP to the Right. You posted this question a year ago. Hope you can check some of these sources out. DJ Silverfish 19:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semiconductor manufacturing[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Semiconductor manufacturing

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Semiconductor manufacturing; the following points describe the discussion:

  • 2 msgs, 16:55 thru 20:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    1. 16:55, 19 May 2005 D
    2. 20:45, 19 May 2005 J
  • 2 participants: Jerzy~t~*; User:Duk~t~*.
  • general topic(s):

Maddox page[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Maddox page

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Maddox page; the following points describe the discussion:

  • 4 msgs, 06:02, 23 May thru 05:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 2 participants: Jerzy·t·c·*; FatherGuidoSarducci·t·c·*.
  • general topic(s): His quirky & busy Web site

Below the following blank line begins the material to copy to the various talk pages. (Remember to remove the close-comment markup following the word "discussion" in about the fifth line.)

Richard J. Doscher[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Richard J. Doscher

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Richard J. Doscher; the following points describe the discussion:

  • 4 msgs,14:45, 27 thru 15:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 2 participants: Jerzy·t·c·*; Rdoscherca·t·c·*.
  • general topic(s): His auto-bio art; "vanity"; copyvio issues

==I do not understand the format of this page.== UrbannaChampagne 00:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continued exchanges this terse will be unproductive. Please ask a question. --Jerzy·t 15:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: LoPbN[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

LoPbN

appears on User talk:Jerzy/LoPbN; the following points describe the discussion:

  • 9 msgs, 19:30, 1 thru 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 4 participants (counting an article's talk page): Jerzy·t·c·*; Slambo·t·c·*; readership of Talk:List of people by name·*; Aecis·t·c·*.
  • general topic(s): Links to non-bio articles; lengthy description of bio's subject; purpose of LoPbN

Richard J. Doscher[edit]

I've reverted the copyvio notices on Richard J. Doscher and the acocmpanying image, the Chief has convinced me that he is also the YCPD's webmaster, so the release of the text to GFDL is ok. But somebody keeps removing the vfd header. We need to get the Vfd vote revived now. RickK 66.60.159.190 17:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of people by name: Ste[edit]

Hi, I've added some people named Stephens and Stevens to the List of people and I'd ask you to fix the subheadings, something I'm not really good at. Thanks, and all the best, <KF> 11:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Capability Brown[edit]

+ ext lk rm-ed from LoPbN

?!? Now let me see, I wonder whether I can decipher this — external link (easy).. rm - remove, so rm-ed = removed — added external link removed from .... LoPbN ... (digs around in contribution history) ... ah List of people by name — that was fun, and still clearer than many edit summaries :) -- Solipsist 08:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apologies! I meant LoPbN! --Jerzy·t 08:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh I see, I didn't realise there was a shortcut. Perversly, I had tried linking to List of People by Name, but there the capitalisation breaks it. :) -- Solipsist 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mood Indigo[edit]

Hi, I just made some edits to Mood Indigo. From the history it looks like you were the one who put in the claim that it was first recorded by the Boswell Sisters in 1933. From my discography I see that the first of Ellington's multiple recordings of it was from 1930. Perhaps you were quoting some misinformation? Or is there something significant about the Boswell Sisters recording that merits mention in the article? (I'm a Boswell Sisters fan, but I don't see any first in their recording of it). I'm mentioning this in case you wish to go back over the article or your source. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bricks[edit]

You fired the first shot, son. Apparently your point is that the "Red Brick Road" fact is too much of a trivial detail for this lengthy article. You could have said that up front in plain English, and everything would have been peachy. >:( Wahkeenah 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following your point at all, but it doesn't matter, as I have removed the line about the Red Brick Road that offended you so much, and have thus made that overkill article way much shorter. Wahkeenah 02:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, FYI, I didn't read any "politeness" into your comment "("red brick road" non-notable, speculative)". I saw it as terse and judgemental. Maybe terseness passes for politeness nowadays??? >:( Wahkeenah 02:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm finally getting it... you're not the same guy that wrote that original comment. Whoever that was, did not see fit to refute my original question. By your unsolicited but well-intentioned interjection, you got me all confused, sir. I just assumed you were using an alias. I do apologize.

OK, break's over, back to work. :( Wahkeenah 03:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bauhaus[edit]

There is material in Talk:Bauhaus that would enrich this good article. I edited remarks of yours, crediting you in my Edit Summary. I wish you'd vet what I've done at the article History. --Wetman 05:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

[5] -- What? 24.224.153.40 29 June 2005 20:32 (UTC)

  • The response you deserve is "It's stood for 11 months, so opening a discussion on it requires more than 'What?'." But might you be confusing "pedophile" with "pedophilia"? --Jerzy·t 30 June 2005 02:36 (UTC)
    A pedophile is someone who has the condition of pedophilia. What difference does it make? How is a pedophile a "criminal"? How is it a "rare" condition? 24.224.153.40 30 June 2005 12:09 (UTC)
  • You said the following, and my responses are indented below each.
    A pedophile is someone who has the condition of pedophilia.
    • But pedophilia also refers to acts typical of pedophiles.
    What difference does it make?
    • None, if i missed, in the stab i made into the darkness that your note left behind. But notable pedophiles are much rarer than pedophilic acts, bcz so many notable pedophiles perform many pedophilic acts.
    How is a pedophile a "criminal"?
    • You'll find no reason to put that question to me, once you thoroughly learn how to use the Page history tool on the article you referred to (or develop the discipline to do so before sounding off).
    How is it a "rare" condition?
    • Ah, a palpable hit! I dunno the stats, tho you could look it up, subject no doubt to some controversy; my common sense says to me that acting on it is well below 10% of the population, roughly in the range of suicide, about which i think there was a similar question on WP. If you think unexpressed pedophilia is too common for "rare" to apply, consider asking for the cat to be renamed, or -- much less effort, (especially since long Cat names are usually unwelcome) -- change the description to specify (since only notable pedophiles will ever be listed in it, so unexpressed ones are unnotable, and the membership of the Cat will not be affected by that criterion) that
      the rare class of people who get caught performing or attempting pedophilic acts is intended by this category.
But i see someone has taken it out of the Cat. That is a problem for the same reason that originally led me to put it in: every article about a pedophile is indeed an article about a person, as whoever originally put the Cat "Pedophiles" in the Cat "People" observed. (At that time, i think there were around 100 Cats in People, with no way available to visualize, from looking at a dozen, what the others were likely to be, and no order helpful to searching them. The number was sufficient, in light of the miscellaneous selection, to be a real impediment to usage; taking even a handful of them and moving them into a new "rare condition" Cat was part of a significant reduction in the People Cat's population. (Tho the Cat "People by occupation" was a bigger part of it.))
But there's another new subcat of People since then, and my step just now, of making Pedophiles a subcat of that, once again exhausts my interest in the subject.
--Jerzy·t 1 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)


Charles Chan[edit]

No problem. The notability here is a bit marginal and you may want to list the article for VfD--I'd have no objection although I probably would not vote either way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 30 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)

Autofellatio in mammals[edit]

Hi Jerzy, I'm not sure why you reverted my edit in autofellatio using Tony Sidaway as your backup, since Tony was the person who first mentioned that the discussion of animals ought to have a citation were it to remain at all. People can put whatever they like in an article, but, if it's not general knowledge, they generally need to be able to back it up with references if they don't want people to remove it
Also, I'm not sure why I've been labeled a "monomaniac" on the basis of my first five edits, when your first five edits were all to do with grade, and so someone might equally well have leveled the term against you. Not that they would, because it would seem pointless and insulting. Warbler1 9 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)

Well, i did err in assuming that Tony had added it (although i don't think i said he had, and the fact that he was satisfied to let it stand still seems the most pertinent fact). I'm not going to thoroughly pick the event apart, but
  • you falsely claim you have 'been labeled a "monomaniac"...' by me. What i I used with reference to you was 'untested apparent monomaniac', and not in a context of categorizing anyone but of explaining an edit. IMO no redress is called for, since it is implausible that anyone would treat my qualified snap judgement, made in that single-purpose context, as being persuasive for judging your qualities.
  • your suggestion that our respective first five edits are, or look, significantly similar in any relevant way is IMO absurd and (even if not 'pointless', still) 'insulting'.
--Jerzy·t 23:31, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

Jerzy & Superm401[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Jerzy & Superm401

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Jerzy & Superm401; the following points describe the discussion:

  • 6 msgs, 17:37, 12 thru 04:49, 14 July 2005
  • 2 participants: Jerzy·t·c·*; Superm401·t·c·*.
  • general topic(s): Wikipedia techniques

List of people by name: Ja[edit]

Hi again, I just wanted to add Gustav Jäger to the alphabetical list of people, but the above list is empty, and it says it's an "Index-Only page". Where am I supposed to put him? Where have all the other Ja-people gone? All the best, <KF> 09:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! <KF> 21:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

Why do you find me offensive? --Hottentot

Ignored for lack of context. Jerzy·t 03:35, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. Let me rephrase this: You posted a long paragraph on my talk page a couple days ago on how you don't like me and you went on and on about it. Why? Is is something in particular? I believe my comment has context... --Hottentot
Now it does. I didn't recall the talk page part, nor exactly what i said re some effort of yours to impose your moral or esthetic standards on WP. I'll go look at hx of yr tk pg &c. & perhaps enlighten myself.
--Jerzy·t 04:02, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
  • _ _It seems that in conjunction with yr editting/summaries re Autofellatio i responded under "Vandalism on Autofellatio" by speaking of
What offends *me"
(by which i surely meant "What offends *me*" or as i would write it with Wiki markup available, "What offends me") and saying
  • _ _Different things offend different people, and different places tolerate different kinds of offense. WP firmly tolerates the photo that offends you, but it doesn't tolerate either censorship of that photo or people singling out what offends them as needing special labelling. Your energy would be better spent letting people know how far outside your standards WP is. Those belonging to the 700 Club and the Taliban will care; my family and i, and WP's dedicated readers and editors, will not.
_ _You know what offends me? People who think they've discovered the central secret of the universe, and have so little respect for their peers that they want to cram that secret down their throats. I.e., you offend me. That doesn't make me want to erase your account, nor label your user page to warn about how offensive you are. Nor is your offensiveness reason for blocking you from the unacceptably aggressive editing you have been doing; the reason for blocking you will be the effect of your behavior on our work. But (since i am confident you are going to push things beyond the limit of WP's tolerance for disruption) when you get blocked or maybe even banned, i'm going to take pleasure in the frustrating of an offensive jerk -- in doing it myself, or seeing colleagues do it. The good news (for both you and me, actually) is that here we don't get rid of people whose offensiveness we're done tolerating by elevating a tank's main gun, that their neck is tied to.
--Jerzy·t 2005 July 9 08:35 (UTC)
_ _ I doubt i would be successful at fully reconstructing my train of thought, even if i were inclined to try; the time i gave Autofellatio was far from the most interesting intellectual stimulus i've had in the last five (not "couple" of) days, so much of it has sunk deep into my mental outflow pond.
_ _ I'm pretty sure that what offended me first (and perhaps most) in connection with you was it taking 6 reversions of your edits by 5 different people to get you off trying to single-handedly change the article into one you would find more acceptable than the considered consensus of some very competant and dedicated people here. That strikes me as evidence of Possessing the Secrets of the Universe syndrome, whether of a religious, Bolshevik, post-modern, or other kind.
_ _ Altho the primary "secrets of the universe" that plague us are religious schemes, i can see nothing i would have been likely to take for evidence that religion was at play in your tantrum. So i assume i dragged in the Christian right and the Taliban because
  • they both share your apparent assumption that resistance to your view should be met with righteous anger, and that news of the role of sex, and/or of sex that is unenlightened by the Secrets of the Universe, should be suppressed (even in the Information-Wants-To-Be-Free safe zones), and
  • i was pretty sure that being lumped with both of them (and IMO undeniable common elements with them both) would embarass you (as you deserved) at least from one direction if not from both.
(The slow-strangulation hanging-by-tank image refers to Christopher Hitchens's report of what must have been at least brain-storming by the Taliban about how to handle male homosexuals, if not their settled policy.)
_ _ IMO, that's a big explanation for the investment you've made; you'll need to ask some pretty cogent questions to get more out of me.
--Jerzy·t 05:35, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. :-) --Hottentot

World Champions[edit]

[Response from Antonio Curiosity Martin has been moved to Talk:List of people by name/Individual Entries#Rm Micro-Bios ("world champion").
--Jerzy·t 15:29, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

...[edit]

Please don't post nonsense on my talk page. By the way, I think you're abusive. ‡ Jarlaxle 19:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:20-cen[edit]

Template:20-cen has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Grammatical Error[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Grammatical Error

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Grammatical Error; the following points describe the discussion:

Codex Sinaiticus & Jerzy[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Codex Sinaiticus & Jerzy

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Codex Sinaiticus & Jerzy; the following points describe the discussion:-->

Eschatology[edit]

Sorry about the cats in my userpage, I forgot about that. Thanks for remedying it. -- jiyTalk 04:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've never had the probem happen to me before until now - the server said it wasn't responding so I just kept going back and clicking save until it would. I will keep this tip in mind for the future. Nipping a rose in the bud, eh? Thanks -- jiyTalk 20:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
And coincidentally, I got another "the server didn't return any response to your request" while posting the above response, but it went through anyways. Weird -- jiyTalk 20:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Your response was so long, that I postponed reading it then forgot about it altogether :) Now I've finally read it—it is helpful to know what happens in the background during those different types of saves. Thanks for explaining it. —jiy (talk) 10:55, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Just a quick thanks for the effort you are putting in on the category:mythology work. FestivalOfSouls 20:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard of Oz edit[edit]

Well that just sucks about the reverting of my edits back to the old page. I put in quite a bit of work on that. You know, there were several things that weren't wikified at all that really should have been. And as far as redundancies... that's a pretty big article. Does it really make sense to have to scroll all the way back up to the top to find a link for Dorothy when her name is used all over the place?

Have fun editing. I'm done. I'll leave it to the professionals... or should I say busybodies? 

Jason 14:24, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jack Black (disambiguation)[edit]

Thanks for the kind comment, but I can't quite interpret from the talk page whether or not you thought it was a good idea!? Rob Church Talk | Desk 22:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not obtuse. Thanks for the praise. I wasn't sure at first whether or not I should just mass change links, but...well, this sparks a renewed Disambiguation Drive. Cheers. Rob Church Talk | Desk 23:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Genung[edit]

figure out what establishes her notability

"Ida decided to cook one apple pie for each of their friends, but, when she went to get the apple pies, she found that her cow had eaten them all"? :)

Thanks for the comment about the Elizabeth Porter cleanup; she turned out to be far more interesting than I'd expected. Tearlach 02:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people known by incredibly long title[edit]

Hi, List of people known by given, middle, and sur-name seems to me to be a distinct "dis-improvement" (to Newspeak it) on the older, shorter title. I'm inclined to move it back to plain old "full name". What's the problem with that form? Noel (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

You'll be pleased to hear that I've made it even longer: List of people known by more than one given name (in combination). The trouble with full name is that it includes people who only have two names, and excludes people who are known by (say) three out of four names. The parenthesis is necessary in order to exclude people known by one forename to one group of people and by another to another group. The previous name had far more serious problems than just its length. Your discussion page is the last link to that, so I shall now get rid of the redirect, as I can't imagine anyone looking it up in that form.

On second thoughts, maybe I'll leave it. I've just read When should we delete a redirect?.

Grant 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Portals[edit]

I left a note on its talk page, but the reason the Template is not grouped is because when wikiportals first started an alphabetical list was enough, and when more were added a grouped template was created at {{main portals}}. Wherever you would like to see the sorted template instead of the alphabetical I think it would be a good idea to switch it over. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 01:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squodge mcdodge[edit]

Hi, thanks for the checking on the Ethan Hawkinson thing. I now have another one Squodge mcdodge. It looks fake. This morning when I checked it out I could find no info so I put a delete notice on it which got removed. Later after I asked for references the blog link was created. The blog was created in August. There was also three email contacts. One was not valid and eventually I got replies from Steve Harris <stevharris@gmail.com> "If this is about the wiki thing, then Squodge wasn't really a major thing, surprised it was put on wikipedia. Suppose i could get pics and stuff if you relly wanted" and Chris Sawyer <sawychris@gmail.com> "i can provide images. blogs arnt good enough apparently". Even if this stuff is true then it's non-notable as it's only available in Northern Ireland. Thnaks. CambridgeBayWeather 23:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Knee (disambiguation)[edit]

A discussion whose topic is

Deletion of Knee (disambiguation)

appears on User talk:Jerzy/Deletion of Knee (disambiguation); the following points describe the discussion:

  • 1 msg, 18:58, 2005 August 31 (UTC) thru 00:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    1. 18:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Jy
    2. 19:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC) JFW
    3. 00:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC) Jy
  • 2 participants: (Jy) Jerzy·t·c·*; (JW) Jfdwolff·t·c·*.
  • general topic(s): Improper deletion
  • relevant reference(s): Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

David Gestetner[edit]

How do you figure this is a Babelfish translation? It appears to be a legit article to me.Gateman1997 00:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "knee"[edit]

Jerzy, I will not respond to your posting. If you are unhappy with my conduct as an admin, you are free to request comments, but your odd style of interrogation is not what I would call normal inter-Wikipedian conduct. It would have helped if you had expressed your disaffection in 1-2 clearly phrased sentences. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Template:BioCOTWvoter==[edit]

I just saw what you posted on talk(I don't have it on my watchlist sorry). Is it ok now or not. I've never had problems with the template, but apparently MikeH did. Falphin 21:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likud[edit]

Noticed my remark in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Likud. Thanks. Av.P 21:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Crowell article[edit]

Hi -- Thanks for your comments on the Russell Crowell article. I've done some edits, which I hope will take care of your concerns, and I hope that after you take a look, you'll be willing to take off the clean-up marker. I realize that the fact that he's a relative of mine makes me biased and may sound suspicious, but I honestly think he is far, far above Wikipedia's threshold for notability. I've added a few comments on the talk page as well.--Bcrowell 22:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Enemys?"[edit]

Hi Jerzy, just was welcoming people then discovered Untimelydeath. Do you have any opponents that this user likely is? The only edits are to their own user page, and your's. It would be good to identify this as a sock puppet of a particular user. -- user:zanimum

Speedy deletes[edit]

Sorry for my recent over-zealousness with tagging articles as speedy deletes where they didn't accurately meet the criteria. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction - constructive criticism taken on board! CLW 18:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-maintaining cleanup template[edit]

I'm not enuf of a template hacker to be clear whether a completely self-maintaining text for Template:Cleanup is feasible, but i set up something for myself.

In any case, how would you (oh, yeah, and our colleauges) feel about a template that generated either: 

 Please replace this transclusion call to {{cleanup}} with 
   {{cleanup-date|September 2005}}
 Thank you.

or 

 Please replace this transclusion call to {{cleanup}} with 
   {{cleanup-date|09 2005}}
 Thank you.

Or a tag you could use in a template, that would cause a transclusion call to be treated the same way a subst call to the same template is already treated, so cleanup could be rewritten so that any call to it automatically generated a translusion call to cleanup-date with the currently appropriate month name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Ideally, you'd want {{cleanup}} to automatically turn into {{cleanup-date|September 2005}} (or whatever the current month is), not necessarily just insert the text from cleanup-date. (In case someone wanted to change the cleanup-date template.) I don't think either are possible without changes to the MediaWiki software. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to have the software rewriting wiki text like that, but it does seem like it would be useful in this case. You could try filing a feature request for it in bugzilla and see what happens. Personally, I'm happy enough having Pearle refile requests as needed. -- Beland 04:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Carlson[edit]

Independent-Republican WAS the NAME OF THE PARTY in MINNESOTA. Arne Carlson was elected as a member of the Minnesota Independent-Republican Party. He was NOT a political "independent" at the time of his election. This is an important aspect of understanding Minnesota political history in this period. EdwinHJ | Talk 16:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Hammond[edit]

Probably just a transcription error. I'm pretty sure what I was doing was moving all the "Hammonds" from the Hammond article (my basic opinion is that one complete list of people is better than two incomplete ones), so checking what was originally there might explain my thought at the time. It's pretty clear it was a simple mistake, maybe from the person who made the other list, but probably mine. -R. fiend 15:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myla Goldberg copyvio?[edit]

Hi - why did you put a copyvio notice on Myla Goldberg now, after I rewrote the whole thing? I thought the purpose of copyvio listings was to flag material that we may not have permission to use, but that we might want to keep if we did get permission, or if it turned out that it wasn't really copied (e.g. if it turned out that the other website had taken it from WP). But that text would've had to be rewritten anyway; it was author promo copy, not WP-ish at all. I've never heard of putting a copyvio notice on text that's no longer in the article, but maybe I just don't understand the process. ←Hob 22:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, yes, that makes sense... I think. To avoid confusion on the part of whoever reviews these (if anyone; another article I copyvio'd stayed untouched for weeks, and I finally just wiped the offending text, since I didn't understand the history part), and to avoid accidentally losing the new text, I'll put a pointer to the offending version on the talk page, and copy the new text to a temp subpage, redundant though that may be. ←Hob 01:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I understood - but now, reading Wikipedia:Copyright problems more closely, it seems like leaving the bad version in the history is not such a problem after all: "Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can — and you're done! The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it." The next paragraph says to use the {{copyvio}} template and review process only if there's no good version to revert to. ←Hob 18:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:AllyUnion/AFD List[edit]

The AFD List has returned! Please update your bookmarks accordingly. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Final Fantasy articles[edit]

Jerzy, please stop moving Final Fantasy related articles: the standard naming convention used by the FF WikiProject states that, when we need to disambiguate article titles (along the lines of "Foo (Bar)"), then we do so by specifying the game title. Hence, Zack (Final Fantasy VII) and Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII). If a character or concept appears in multiple FF games, only then does it get the general "(Final Fantasy)" notice, and "(video game)" only applies when a concept is not specific to the FF games (and, in any case, it should probably be "(computer and video games)" as that is the standard CVG terminology. Thanks! – Seancdaug 04:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

response at his talk
I'm honestly curious as to what "overall WP standard documentation" you think is relevant in this case, and what "cluelessness" you believe Hibana has exhibited. Our standards are clearly outlined on our project page: Sephiroth is a main character of Final Fantasy VII, and his appearances in other games are cameos (which, you're right, should be better explained in the opening paragraph). I'm also not clear as to what "failure to clean up" you were referring to, as I'm not aware of any double redirects or dead links that resulted from any of the moves, and looking at the edit history of the relevant pages, I'm not getting anything either. I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational here: I'm honestly confused as to what you are referring. – Seancdaug 05:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CP[edit]

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

Due to the less than flattering conjectural remarks regarding Chris Gibson (who was in fact a living member of a real--not virtual or abstract) community only a short time ago, I repeat my request:

I have blanked the discussion for the following reason: as the original submitter of this article, I would like for this article to be removed from wikipedia.

Those wishing to review the history of this article may do so, but out of respect for Chris' memory and the feelings of his family/friends, I request the article not appear here any longer.

--Daniel Lotspeich 23:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Per your comment on Brian0918's page:[edit]

  • No worries about bringing me further grief. My posting the article in the first place was nothing more than the misguidedness of a newbie. The sooner the better for it to come down, in my opinion. It does not matter to me who deletes it, I have saved the text and may forward it to the people who put up christopherbgibson.com a couple months ago. (Hope that will not violate any wikipedia copyright rules protecting deleted content). --Daniel Lotspeich 02:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Lynch Speech[edit]

Have this barnstar for your work on WLS

Image:Working Man's Barnstar.png

I added some tags on it, I hope it can be put in a better standard.

P.S. Your talk page is really confusing. Molotov (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image reduced to image reference by me. --Jerzy•t 04:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new Mike Church sock[edit]

I see you've been involved before in dealing with User:Mike Church and his many sockpuppets. He's back, as User:Flaming Cow. I've added him to User:Jerzy/Church & Supporters or Socks your user sub-page dealing with the issue. RSpeer 20:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?[edit]

Jerzy, I posted this on village pump. Any advice hos to handle this? The technicalities of reporting this elude me at the moment.

Crummy

While researching material for an article, I stumbled upon this page, which appears to have linked directly into wikipedia, to repost it with banner adds in a commercial format.

http://www.dangeruss-industries.com/results/Pipe_organ.html http://www.dangeruss-industries.com/results/Talk:Pipe_organ/refactor.html

--Daniel Lotspeich 05:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • That would be a non-compliant mirror. They need to link to Wikipedia and mention it's GFDL material. Please report it at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks or send them one of the standard messages you can find there asking them to comply. - 131.211.51.34 09:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

--Daniel Lotspeich 01:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Dates as qualifiers[edit]

tk
I've given this a good deal of thought and realize that everything else being equal, ultimately what is needed in the name field is for it to be unique. For people, as the inventory gets larger, location or occupation will eventually be the same, especially for common names. I am even running into it my small efforts, see Nicholas Van Dyke, father and son. B/D date will almost never be. This is really a database management issue, not a lookup convenience or data entry issue, although it may not be readily apparent as such to to an individual writer working on just a few people. This approach is not original to me, but was suggested by another writer who acknowledged it was not the Wikipedia norm and had given up trying to explain, see William Bradford. Not surprisingly he is an IT professional as well, used to working with large databases. I hope this helps explain. I have put some other nutty ideas I have about bios on my talk page. I love writing these articles and am learning things everyday. All of my ideas can be exchanged for your better ones, so your comments are appreciated.

stilltim 02:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Off on the wrong foot?[edit]

I've established a new username and hope to establish myself as a worthy contributor and member of the community here. --Gaff talk 06:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize to "(Australian politician)"?[edit]

I'm having a little trouble following some of the bases of your objection. Specifically,
  1. It's two words - no more, no less - this seems to me to largely eliminate the potential for distraction. Articles on politicians are relatively common on wikipedia; for those who have common names, it's likely that we'll require nationality disambiguators (Mike Ahern comes to mind here). One downside of inconsistently using nationality disambiguators is that some politician articles get saddled with the "long, distracting and potentially confusing" extra bit, while others don't. More common names will require more extensive disambiguators than less common ones, which is undesirable.
  2. I believe it does work for people who cross domains; John Latham (Australian jurist) and Denis Murphy (Australian politician) come to mind. At any rate; redirects are cheap - eg. John Latham (Australian politician) already exists. If we settle on a few standard terms to use (eg. politician, author, journalist) etc, but not "Nobel-prize winner", "human rights advocate" etc, confusion is reduced.
  3. I don't see how the fact that non-standard links are hard to find is a basis for not eliminating them. It's precisely *because* they're hard to find that they must be eliminated. Slac speak up! 03:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Mallory's death[edit]

Jerzy, my question to you at Talk:George Mallory remains unanswered. The fact that you hedge your bets about his date of death supports the fact that we simply do not know when he died. All we know with certainty is the last time he was seen alive, the 8th. If you say he might have also died on the 9th, why not also say he might have survived till the 10th, or the 11th, or whenever? Sorry, but I find this sort of edit really irritating, particularly from an Administrator. It is essentially a re-write of history, based on assumptions. JackofOz 04:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I made a few changes that I think you'd be interested in at the William Lynch Speech article. Thanks. Molotov (talk)
22:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have both the tags, and we will both look bad thought. I quit. Molotov (talk)
22:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually most of the article had been changed since I began it back in May, so much of my writing is altered. And the speech is not copyrighted. Molotov (talk)
23:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far you have ignored the facts that i offered you about the nature of copyright. I have formally studied copyright, and read big sections of the statutes on it. The only things your comments with regard to copyright have shown are that you have not, and that you are a yawning abyss full of misinformation and baseless self-confidence regarding the subject. I hope you are responsible enough to change that, even if only by shutting up about it.
--Jerzy•t 23:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read No personal attacks. I really hate being on this site sometimes. DO what you want. I really don't care anymore. Molotov (talk)
23:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that noone had a problem with the site until you came along.Molotov (talk)
You know what, I though about it and I am not going to back down. I don't know who you are or about your knowledge of copyrights, but I do know that the William Lynch Speech is not copyrighted. And until you can prove otherwise, there is a debate. Molotov (talk)
23:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


From my talk page[edit]

Copyright[edit]

So far you have ignored the facts that i offered you about the nature of copyright. I have formally studied copyright, and read big sections of the statutes on it. The only things your comments with regard to copyright have shown are that you have not, and that you are a yawning abyss full of misinformation and baseless self-confidence regarding the subject. I hope you are responsible enough to change that, even if only by shutting up about it.
--Jerzy•t 23:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read No personal attacks. I really hate being on this site sometimes. DO what you want. I really don't care anymore. Molotov (talk)
23:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ I write this not to continue an arguement, but to clarify that no offense was intended. I think if you'll re-read WP:NPA yourself, you'll find that its thrust is not to inhibit negative criticism, but to avoid language whose primary purpose is abuse rather than information content.
_ _ I suppose "yawning abyss" standing alone might be abusive, and perhaps that hyperbole was unwise on my part. My point was to make clear how thoroughly misinformed you seem to be on the subject of copyright. If (in spite of my restrictive phrase "regarding the subject", which was intended to make it clear that the critique applied solely to the info you have and your estimation of its completeness) it came across as an attack on you and i seemed to impugning your personality or worth, i do regret that, and consider that my care in speaking should have been a little greater than it was, with that possibility in mind.
--Jerzy•t 00:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this site for nearly a year now, and when I think of some of the strains I have went through here it makes me wonder why I stay. I do not feel that the WLS article needs a cleanup - most of my writing had been altered over time, but I consider your approach as an insult to my writing - and to me personally by your language, despite the apology because it is clear that you feel that I am intellectually inferior. Secondly, I find it very hard to assume good faith when you apparently peep out of no where to make edits to the article, and I thus believe that you had preemptive notions against the subject before you even started editting. I have stated that you may add/deplete/do whatever you wish because it above all seems unwise to fight over. I really hate the fact that I have editted this site for so long to not even receive a modicum of respect. THanks for trying to raise "standards" but I don't see what on earth you could be pointing to by telling me that the text of the speech should be depleted when it is the core to the article. My work here is not appreciated, so my work here might as well be done. Molotov (talk)
00:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix up the article, but you won't be satisfied and never will be.

Bio-related response[edit]

Your "shoot from the hip" is prone to lead to your "shooting yourself in the foot" by discouraging people from contributing ... as I'm sure there are many folks you've scared or frustrated off. From some of the comments and actions I've seen, though, it is not unlikely that you would welcome this. As to your "outrage" ... get some perspective, please. If you don't want people contributing and doing things that are not exactly according to your whims, then put the pages in your user space. Otherwise, please consider the pages in the main part of Wikipedia and prone to the same costs and benefits of that placement. Courtland 20:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point[edit]

Since you expressed confusion at my message in response to yours, we'll take this point by point ... I'm not going to map my comments above to this new thread, though.

I probably look fairly proprietary in reversing some of yr chgs on LoPbN, but please know that i give myself license to shoot from the hip there, only on the assumption that almost no one has the experience and overview that i do of that tree. So don't assume i would resent discussion of the de-facto standards that i pretty much enforce on my growing list of LoPbN pages that i've applied a number of (barely stated) principles to. In fact, i'd welcome more eyes on the big picture, about equally with welcoming the other eyes on the details like missing dates (or bad ones, thanks!) and add'l names.

This is a Wikipedia resource, a valuable one, that should not be without a set of guidelines. A Guidelines page should be written to accompany it. A WikiProject with the sole role of maintaining and expanding it according to those guidelines should be initiated. As for bad dates ... I am suspicious of some as they look too much like vandalism, a type that is extremely difficult to detect.

An example is the comma between the lk & the vital stats, which i restore despite agreeing with the sense that it is illogical. I generally do so with "pending LoPbN-tree-wide plan" in the summary, hoping for some moral support for the shift. (The plan needed is just start at A, use a global replace in Win Notepad on each page, and not lose track of how far i've gotten!) It's been long enuf w/o anyone responding to my solicitations on the LoPbN talk pages that just putting a msg saying i'm going ahead is getting close to the head of my queue.

If you look at my editing behavior on the pages, you will find that the variance between edits and your personal guidelines decreases over time. The comma business I believe you explained on the basis of utility as a delimiter for parsing; it is strictly not necessary because the parse could detect the {{{anycharacter}}}' ('{{{anydigit}}} as a regular expression; for manual exports to spreadsheets, it has utility, though (auto-interpretation of effectively a CSV file by Excel, for instance). Instead of replacing with notepad, you should solicit someone to construct a bot to assist in maintenance of the pages, which could be one goal of the WikiProject mentioned above.

So, bottom line: don't pretend that the micro-justifications i may put in summaries where i disagree with you are sufficient; if you have any doubt at all, let's work it out. The only priniciple that i have trouble imagining giving up is this: many or most alternatives in the handling of individual entries are much better ideas if applied consistently thru-out. And as i've suggested already, i operate under a (highly rebuttable) presumption that no one has looked at enough of the pages long enough to grasp, as well as i usually do, the implications of consistently applying any approach to the whole LoPbN tree.

I'm thinking you assume in writing this that I'm either a newbie or just a fly-by who would come in, wreak havoc for a short time by being bold but recklass, then move on never to be heard from again. If you play by the numbers, that's a fair assumption, but it's not an effective way to win friends and influence people.

BTW, i was pleased to learn, at Biaggi or Biaggio or Biaggo or (ah, yes) Baggio, that section targetted rdrs finally work. Yay! That probably makes your rdr to an LoPbN section a good idea (contrary to my initial state of outrage!), and one that may be the answer to the Jack-Spratt problem of some people updating only Dabs & some only LoPbN.

First, the functionality you are looking for does not work yet, at least not in all circumstances, as far as I can tell. The reason why I did it (and had intended to do more of but not in a systematic or urgent manner) are several and relate to the business of disambiguation pages that consist only of a surname and people bearing that surname. There's a long discussion to be had there, but not one I want to get into here. That discussion belongs at one of several places, such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) or Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation or (from the suggestion above) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject People Lists/List of people by name.

Regards, Courtland 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

Discussion I initiated a few days ago ... Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Usage_of_List_of_people_by_name. Courtland 02:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: LoPbN rdr-bypasses[edit]

Thanks for pointing this out (linking a bio list to a non-bio page), I didn't look before leaping. But yeah, the page in question probably didn't need to be there at all. The pop-ups work for me in general, but I usually use Firefox on a Mac. I hadn't noticed anything unusual in Windows, though. My problem lately is when I'm already at the end of a page, the pop-up goes past the bottom of the screen and I can't scroll down further to see it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might have seen the same (or similar) problem with pop-ups: the "action" menu pulls down, but when I move the mouse away from that link to select one of the menu items, the menu disappears. For some reason, hovering the mouse over the article's name and then trying it again works OK (for me). Yeah, the pop-ups can be slow, but the weird thing I've noticed is that when articles are taking a long time to load (lie about an hour ago), the pop-ups take the same amount of time. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titled people on LoPbN[edit]

In regard to your message. I cannot accept your contentions. I note you do not support them with any Wikipedia guidelines.

1) Richard, Lord Attenborough will be looked for under “Att”. That’s where he is in the LoPbN. The fact that the piped version commences with “Ric” is irrelevant. He’ll be found in “Att”. I agree he will not be looked for under “Ric” but don’t see why the LoPbN entry cannot be listed after Attenborough, Sir David and before Atterbom, Per Daniel Amadeus – exactly where it will be looked for, even though it commences "Ric".

2) A knight uses the title “Sir” immediately before his name. In a sense it becomes part of his given name. To write, “Bloggs, John, Sir” simply looks clumsy. It is an accepted cataloguing method to place an entry's last name first, followed by his other names and titles in the order they would ordinarily be used if given before the surname.

e.g. "Bloggs, General Sir John". (Because the general would be called “General Sir John Bloggs”.

The entry would be placed in LoPbN as though the entry was “Bloggs, John, General, Sir” or “Bloggs, John, Sir, General”; but it wouldn’t look like that. Isn’t that what piped versions are for?
Avalon 09:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See List of English people

Avalon 06:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re : AfD 5-day standard[edit]

Hi Jerzy,

Thanks for your message.

Basically I rely on two tools, 1. WP:AFD/Old and 2. WP:AFD to determine whether the discussions are placed under Old and can be closed.

Usually, the AfD bot does the procedure, which allows the passage of 6 days as you've mentioned. However, 1 November's AfD was placed under old by Woohookitty :

  • (cur) (last) 17:10, 6 November 2005 Woohookitty (→Current discussions - november 1 is officially old)

I did a check at WP:AFD/Old, which did state that 1 November had open discussions and started to clear. I assumed that all discussions that are placed under /Old (by other sysops or bot) are at least 5 days old, but I guess I'm wrong in this case.

I have no intention to unfairly cut short any AfD debates than actually specified. I was thinking more of cleaning up the discussions at first opportunity to avoid accumulation, as the day before I spent numberous hours trying to clear nearly a week's backlog of old discussions.

Regardless of the reasons, I offer my apologies if I've caused any potential problems as the result of "early calling" of the AfD in question. I point no finger at anyone for this, and accept full responsibility myself. To be honest, I'm quite personally very surprised by what has actually happened.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:54 & 17:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • It's okay, I've dropped a note at the other sysop's talkpage already :) I believe this is more of an one-off incident. Don't be harsh on him. :P - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize[edit]

I apologize for causing all of this trouble. I won't add dates every again. Thank you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Titled People on LoPbN II[edit]

Thank you for your condescending reply. I always enjoy being patronised.

You have stated,

“I wish I had some sense of the extent that you agree or disagree with me, that this is about navigation and that conveying information … can be left to the bio articles.”

In answer I would say, I agree it’s about navigation but say that “Newton, Sir Isaac” is of equal facility for navigation and superior in conveying information to “Newton, Isaac, Sir”. it is also less clumsy, IMHO, in the sense of being less, “awkwardly constructed, unwieldy or lacking grace”.

Given four imaginary entries, the order they are arranged should be, IMHO:

  • Frederick Smith, (1711-1800),
  • John Smith, (1422 – 1466)
  • John Smith, (1912 – 1981)
  • Allan Smyth, (born 1960)

However, the entries might appear like this:

  • Smith, Lord Frederick, (1711-1800),
  • Smith, Sir John, (1422 – 1466)
  • Smith, Dr. John (1912 – 1981)
  • Smyth, Admiral Allan (born 1960)

However, that’s just my view.

Sir, I understand that you have an attachment to the LoPbN. Life is too short to argue about these matters so I’ll leave the list to you and will not attempt any more edits of the LoPbN pages.

Avalon 21:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

[Content moved to User talk:Ceyockey, where i sort of respond to it. --Jerzy•t 04:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]

MicroBios[edit]

Could you clarify what page(s) you referred to on my Talk page? I do not hold any pages of LoPbN on my Watchlist any more as I've already over 1,200 pages on that list as it is. Courtland 17:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jerzy! :)[edit]

See my talk. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetation in tropical desserts of austrailia speedy[edit]

Your speedying of Vegetation in tropical desserts of austrailia with the summary "(Nonsense)" was a blatant violation of your admin responsibilities: WP:CSD makes it clear that the meaning of "nonsense" in this context is given by WP:PN, and if you are going to carry out speedies, you are responsible to understand how to apply "is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it". The revision you deleted, while hardly polished and at least in part better suited to a talk page, is full of perfectly sensible information that you should not have speedied for that reason. Please reread the relevant portion of WP:CSD and all of WP:PN, and respond here on your talk page User talk:CambridgeBayWeather.
--Jerzy•t 17:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I was going to redirect it to Eucalyptus as it's a copy of the overview section, without the pictures. The deleted version can be viewed at User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox. Thanks for catching it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mills Gayley[edit]

Only just noticed this got deleted. I'm not sure I agree this was a speedy candidate to be honest, it certainly asserted the notability of the subject. That said, it probably would not have survived afd, although I would have liked to have seen how it got on and at least had the chance to argue its case. Still, c'est la vie. Steve block talk 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, very measured, thoughtful and kind after my rather churlish outburst above. I think I'll just leave it and rewrite it better. I'm not sure being the University of California's best loved professors is a claim of notability. I'm fairly sure he did notable things though. One of his books appears to be in use today as a textbook, he wrote lyrics for a song and there exists a Charles Mills Gayley fellowship. There's supposed to be a marble statue to him at Berkley. If it had gone to AFD I would have had to rewrite it to survive, so there's no real damage done. It's just the first thing I've written that's been deleted, and I always imagined when such a thing happened it would be after an afd. However, yes, the speedy clause needs debate, and perhaps I'll look at that too. I might have a trawl through the delete logs and pick better candidates for a fight. This probably isn't the right case though. Steve block talk 07:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheridan Wyoming[edit]

Alvarado bio[edit]

Thought I'd err on the side of caution on this one, but if he's not that notable, the article should go. Looks like it already has. Thanks for letting me know. - Lucky 6.9 16:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. I jump the gun and I get users angry at me. Take a look at my dialogue with User:Roman Soldier to see what I mean. Give 'em the benefit of the doubt...and the article turns out to be pure booshwah. Might be vacation time again.  :)) - Lucky 6.9 17:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comic stub templates[edit]

I've responded to your removals at Template talk:Marvel-Comics-stub. I'd appreciate it if you could respond, as I'm unconvinced by your arguments, but neither do I wish to engage in an edit war. I'd also appreciate it if you could moderate your tone, it doesn't really aid the discussion. I can't really see the need to tell people they suck. Steve block talk 21:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if my chronology is confusing. I saw your message at Template talk:Marvel-Comics-stub first. After responding, I saw your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates, which I then responded to at Template talk:Marvel-Comics-stub, since I felt it best to address all messages in one place so as to keep a continuation. I was then unsure if you would see such messages and dropped a line on your talk page to briefly summise my points. I apologise for any confusion, inlconvenience or misunderstandings this has caused.
Regarding the Letterman reference, I'm afraid I must plead ignorance, but maybe that is a United States specific reference? I appreciate that insult was not your intent, but your chosen words conveyed a tone which seemed condescending and superior.
An approach I favour is to simply point out the appreciation that the edits were made in good faith, but that current consensus indicates that such links are not included, providing a link to where the current consensus was established.
I see you have refactored the discussions and indicate you will address the civility matter seperately and privately. That is your choice, and I am happy to respect that. I will appraise myself of points you have made in that refactoring and respond accordingly anon. Thank you for your response, and I apologise for not imparting an assumption of good faith on your part as well as I could have done. I look forward to your citing of a link where I can appraise myself of the consensus that links to WikiProjects are spam and should not be placed in the article space. Steve block talk 08:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the least, sure, i can pursue it in other cases without dragging you back into it. But are you asking me to think thru whether i can drop the issue completely where it stands now? (That'd be a lot easier to do, if it turns out to be very hard to find the instances elsewhere! [grin])
  • Put it this way, if you want to drop it where it is right now I don't mind either. I'm not sure what would happen if someone else complained, I guess we'd take that as it comes, but I'm certainly not bothered if we shake metaphorical hands on things as they stand now. Steve block talk 23:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
== LOPBN ==

Hiya Jerzy! Just wanted to say you do great work on List of people by name. I've been visiting there more often as I work on cleaning up disambiguation pages per Manual of Style (disambiguation pages); I'm also cleaning up issues I find while working on Missing Encyclopedia Articles, so I'm encountering more people disambiguations.

I'm trying to follow the conventions for LOPBN, changing my copy-and-pastes to match existing styles, but sometimes I miss things. Thank you for cleaning up my additions; I'm learning even more by watching your corrections. I'll get better with more practice! Anyway, please let me know if I ever do anything to make life harder for you; it's a big job you do there. Thank you, and best wishes! — Catherine\talk 05:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Malinowski[edit]

I noticed that you deleted that article which has been tagged as a "nn-bio". Looking at the text, he's described as "one of Canada's most notorious con artists". Well perhaps not most notorious, but he's been featured in a broadcast by Global TV, British Columbia. There is quite a lot of verifiable information out there about him. This Better Business Bureau report, for instance, mentions that Saskatoon Police report that he has been charged with 15 counts of fraud over $5,0000. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do run sysop and if I get time I'll do a short article from available resources. Nothing much of use in the deleted article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of people by name: Ande[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your message. Since I asked you those questions I have gradually arrived at the conclusion that (a) you know what you are doing and (b) I never get the whole picture. Thanks again, but there's really no need any more to try and answer this for me. (I don't know about User:Alter Ego though.) In retrospect, I sometimes find it amazing what made me curious and/or furious. All the best, and keep on the good work, <KF> 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnie Baker[edit]

I've done some edits to Arnie Baker, making it conform more to Wikipedia style. Not sure what else you think I should do. Bakerbs 18:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)bakerbsBakerbs 18:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

František Brikcius[edit]

The article feels like blatant self-promotion and its author spammed several other articles (reverted already). I asked the User:Cellist to clarify more on Brikcius' notability.

If he doesn't answer in some time perhaps you may nominate him on WP:VfD (these days I do not have much of time for Wiki to do it). Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look at it say week or two from now. Pavel Vozenilek 00:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{db|OB, OR.}}[edit]

Hi Jerzy, yes, I mean "author requests deletion". The page has been superceded and so is now obsolete and effectively orphaned. I'm new and I think I got it a bit confused with something else! Yellowspacehopper 12:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ellis[edit]

Thank you for your compliment in your edit description, but I'm sorry to say that I'm not happy with your change. In particular, I don't see why you created a new article for "Jim Ellis (politics)". Now this is a name no one ever called him - and it even doesn't distinguish him from the other activist! By contrast, "James W. Ellis" is at least used in some cases. Now we have a handful of links that all point to the redirect page. (Unless you're already working on that.) My apologies if there is a policy that articles should follow this format of which I'm just not aware. Common Man 22:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. Your wordiness is excused - I now realize I could have made it easier for you if I had stated my questions/problems more explicitly. I will do so on Talk:Jim Ellis (politics) and Talk:Jim Ellis. Common Man 01:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. Even after my concise explanation you still haven't fixed the problems you created, and your answer is still beating around the bush. Do whatever you want. Common Man 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of People by Name "id=toc"[edit]

The simple answer is that I cannot assist in this task since what was there before - for me - was nothing. This is why I removed the id=toc. I use the classic skin (No TOC and No "Edit box") to get a clean readable style on Win 98SE/MSIE6. What I see now for the LoPbN pages is fine - I see 2 categories, 3 links (Main/Root page | Compact index | Exhaustive page-index), the 26 link letters of the alphabet, 26 link 2letter alphabet and a selection of 3 letter options. What is wrong with that? -- SGBailey 08:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Good luck. -- SGBailey 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: LoPbN[edit]

Hi Jerzy, a reply is on my talk page, few additional comments and questions here:

1) What is your threshold for forking off a new "People named X" section. From [6] I'd say you don't want to create them in advance. For example, would my recent additions under "Horner" or "Grimaldi" qualify for their own section? (In fact I created one such section yesterday but right now cannot recall exactly where it was...)

2) I also do following transformation to dates: b. -> born, d. -> died, circa -> c.<space>, ca. -> c.<space> (with occasional c. -> fl. or c. 1968 -> 1968/69. Any comments on that? Are there any special cases that should be handled differently?

I haven't looked simple pedia that much, but did you know that Wikiquote also has a LoPbN, in a woeful state of no-maintenance? I'm not trying to pile more work for you, but have you ever considered combining all of these lists under the EN WP LoPbN, say by adding small iconic links like (s) and (q) to entry pages in simple and quote? Call it the "ultimate LoPbn" for all English language projects, like some people are planning for the "ultimate Wiktionary" (that would cover all languages in one database). Cordially, jni 12:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People named X[edit]

_ _ Big subject. Two reasons for existence:

  1. First, possibly, in time but certainly secondary as to justification the long run, was for users to be able to jump over e.g. the couple of screens of Sma - Sme... and Smid - Smir... names, and the people named "Smit" to get to the Smiths that most of them would be looking for on List of people by name: Sm (which got split 3 ways earlier this month, and ceased being such a good example). That is, there was a time when (don't ask why) there was no ToC on the page and the "People named Smith" heading could have been the target of a lk from above all the entries. By the same token, there have long been a few pages that link into LoPbN; one lk similar to the current one on Stein that reads
    List of people by name: Ste#People named Stein
    may have been the first i was aware of. (I made a point of not fixing it (after looking just now) to point to
    List of people by name: Stea-Steo#People named Stein
    on one of the pages Ste was broken up into; ask if you're interested.)
  2. Whatever the historical order was, IMO they have to be there for the purpose that usually decides when i will group people with same surname together. Look at the Stein section or the Smith section, whichever of the two pages is more convenient for you. In each case, there are also entries for longer names that start the same way, and the combined group is too long to fit on very many users' terminals as a single screen visible at one time. The only approaches i was willing to consider for dealing with this were
  1. A "People named X" sub-section at the same level with (say) sub-section "Xa - Xz", under the higher-order section X, and
  2. Leave out the "People named X" heading, so that the Smiths or Steins don't have a section to themselves, but are in a section that contains subsections that, as usual, contain only names and no further subordinate sections.
I have chosen approach 1 for reasons i could lay out if you care. (Another version of approach 1 can be seen on simple: in the A pages; under it the Steins would be under "Stein" and the section called "Stein" on en: would be named "Stein..." instead, with the ellipsis meaning "with or without further letters, and the lack of ellipsis meaning "without further letters. Much clearer and more intuitive when you see the page than when i describe it.)

_ _To make a long story short (as if it were not already to late for that [wink]) i would let Grimaldi stand as is for now; i would subdivide Horn but not break out Horner. Below "Horn", "People named Horn" is IMO overdue. Subdivision of "Hornb - Hornu" requires a subjective decision involving guesses about the statistical distribution of lines-per-screen and users' desires to have non-maximized windows with LoPbN pages displayed, and value judgements about how far to go in accommodating small user populations (the ones using windows with unusually small numbers of lines). But my subjective judgement is that "Hornb - Hornu" is far from needing to be broken up in a way that would lead to a Horner-only piece. Finally, since we have no names longer than Horner that begin with Horner, i would group them only in "Horner" or more inclusive sections rather than "People named Horner" until that changes. _ _ If you feel like it, "get your hands dirty" and see what you think and feel when you start subdividing "Horn" into pieces that can each be displayed on a single screen by clicking its ToC entry. (You don't supress WP ToCs, do you? IMO, that's an especially bad choice w/ LoPbN.) _ _ Finally, Friend is such special case that there is about zero to be learned from it.

  1. I think its only entry was a non-notable vanity or vandalism one, and the editor was probably motivated by a selfish desire for visibility in giving it a hdg.
  2. It was out of order in the alphabet.
  3. In its proper place next to Fred Friendly, it would be in a section nowhere near needing subdivision for the sake of quick accessibility.

_ _ No, i would create only section headings containing at least one actual name, except one per page, on pages that do not yet contain any names. (Tho i previously created multiple headings on some such pages; i'm reducing them to a single one as a previously unadvertised part of my GT.) _ _ If i think i've stumbled on yr new hdg, would you like me to comment on it? [smile]
Jerzy•t 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember what I did, see my edits to List of people by name: Daw-Daz. Feel free to adjust the headings there any way you like, I don't have any strong preference one way or other although I think Dawson is quite common surname. I promise to read all talk I can find about LoPbN structure at some later time, until that I will be adding headings sparingly, focusing on single entries and their immediate neighborhood most of the time. jni 09:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That page is artificially small, obviously due to being "squeezed" between a great mass of Davids and Davies and Davises, and the end of the Dav portion of the list. So an extra hdg is relatively benign on that page, offering no harm except muddying the water around the question of whether sections should be created for a name when all notables with the name are already a fully accessible group.

MoS (LoPbN vital stats)[edit]

None of those transformations offends me. If i were participating in a policy decision, i would argue that b. and d. are clearer in that context than c. is, especially when "b.c. 2005" arises, and therefore argue for "b.", "d.", and "ca." in all cases. Was ityou who cited in a summary a specific prescription for "c." over "ca."? Good enough for me until someone asks me to help change that prescription. I am inclined to continue using "b." except next to "c.", out of laziness rather than preference (unless "born" is in my paste buffer), bcz it keeps me moving & gets the information down so that someone to whom it matters more than it does to me can fix it; i don't anticipate changing what others do unless i revert someone for eliminating the styles you are favoring.
Jerzy•t 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for favoring 'born', 'died', and 'c' is twofold:
  1. Pragmatic argument: Most entries already use that format so it is easier to change the various other forms to conform with this than other way around.
  2. Uniformity argument: Note that both Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) use 'born', 'died' and 'c.' and the latter even explicitly calls attention to c. with the Note the use of "c." rather than "circa", "ca." or a question mark sentence. While this MoS page does not mention LoPbN, it influences the first line of all biogaphical articles we have. Therefore I believe it would be good for LoPbN to present the stats in same format as articles do, to minimize burden of reader to parse many different formats. It also makes life easier for us "writer end-users", who might want to cut-and-paste LoPbN entries into article space, say for purpose of creating new disambiguation pages for persons with same surname. (I'm not arguing we should include whole dates in LoPbN instead of plain years, because such detail does not facilitate the task of locating an article.)
Also, of minor importance, but certainly possible is that some (especially non-native) readers might interpret b.c. 2005 as 2005 BC. I hadn't thought of that before you bringing it to my attention. The 'born c. 2005' does not have such a problem and still avoids the ca. MoS does not like. jni 08:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
_ _ All of yr reasoning is sound, and especially in light of your clear MoS citation i applaud your close attention to both the policy and in your editing. I think the related MoS spec is very significant. I might favor minor differences if it were under discussion, but i would more strongly favor explicitly extending the MoS to contexts as similar as LoPbN is (despite my general impression that MoS has it wrong).
_ _ My only reservation of any real significance is that i'm not resolving or committing to comply when i add birth dates, believing that getting the info down in relevant places is more important that getting the format perfectly compliant, since confusion is unlikely. I'd rather leave some burdens for others to fix (especially since there are IMO very few sections so perfect that there's no other work to do along with extending b. into born) than increase the rate of fatigue i experience in my adding of missing birth dates: as it is, i frequently stop without checking all of the missing dates.
--Jerzy•t 09:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, WQ, and even wider horizons[edit]

Fascinating. we must discuss further, but not in the next 8 hours.
Jerzy•t 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
_ _ No, i hadn't ever thot enuf abt WQ to note that it obviously needs an LoPbN, and to therefore ask myself if it was adequate. I don't know how much interest you have, beyond doing me the favor of bringing this to my attention. Is "ultimate Wiktionary" the only thing you've seen that seems relevant, and is that an exact enough quote that i can search for the discussion with

site:wikipedia.org "ultimate Wiktionary"

?
_ _ I'm not sure how you see an "ultimate LoPbN" looking, but i have three concepts in my head of differing ambitiousness, stated here in case you have enough interest, and in any case to refine my own thinking adjacent to the stimulus you've provided.

  • My working title for the middle one is "the Hyper-LoPbN suite". The Hyper-LoPbN Wiki would be a Wiki whose main namespace consisted solely of LoPbN-tree pages; the rest of the suite would be the three Wikis you've mentioned. The ambitious parts of it are that editing the corresponding pages in any of the other three Wikis could be done in either "partial" or "complete" mode. In partial mode, an entry might -- omiting the inter-wiki lks you suggest -- look like
    * [[Alexander]] (fl. 1st millenium BCE), Greek Macedonian monarch & soldier
    but in "complete" mode it would look like it does in editing the Hyper-LoPbN Wiki, namely something along the lines of
    * [[Alexander]] (fl. 1st millenium BCE), {{en-simp-WQ|Greek Macedonian monarch & soldier|king & soldier from Greece| Macedonian conqueror}} . Doing a partial edit would give you what you saw on the same Wiki, but would also change both the non-template portion of the entry, and that Wiki's corresponding paramter within the template. And the inter-wiki lks, which i think make a lot of sense, would be red or blue according to whether the other Wiki had the page in question or not. (This contrasts with ordinary interWiki lks, which are really just compactly codable URLs and provide no functionality based on the two copies of MediaWiki communicating with each other before a user actually follows the lk.)
  • The most ambitious one would be more like a true data base: it might be flexible enuf that the same data base could support all the Wikipedias, providing for different transliterations of names depending on the language involved, and for different orders of the list depending on the sorting algorithm appropriate to the language. Perhaps it would be smart enough to autonomously generate the page-, section-, and bullet-level structures of the list, and to change just the affected portion when entries are added or dropped, or when the spelling of a name is changed.
  • The least ambitious can be done with current MediaWiki. Changes to any of the three LoPbNs are ported to the other two by the editor, or by someone following up on single-Wiki LoPbN changes, with the goal of keeping the markup identical on all three. The markup looks something like the Hyper-LoPbN-Wiki markup in the most ambitious case, and the difference in rendering between Wikis follows simply from each Wiki having a different simple markup for its version of Template:en-simp-WQ. If interest is sufficient, relatively low-impact new features would include buttons for viewing another Wiki's potential rendering of the page you are editing, and a tool for comparing (diffs) markup in a revision on one Wiki with a version of the same-named page on another Wiki.
    --Jerzy•t 08:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few quick comments: "ultimate Wiktionary" (they used that phrase) was discussed in Wiktionary-L mailing list at some time (and somewhere else but I have forgotten the source). I'm not a regular participant of the Wiktionary community so I cannot really comment on this much further. However, the issue how to coordinate with other languages than english should considered at same time when designing any of the your three ideas. It kind a adds a new dimension to the problem. Note the recent de-merger of wikisource.org to multiple language wikis, they are moving into a different direction than the "ultimate Wiktionary" idea (and it is just an idea, nothing concrete exists). I especially liked your idea about a Wiki for solely names (wikinames.org?) These ideas certainly needs to be discussed in more detail and with more people at some later time. jni 09:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. Yes, probably wikinames is better than wikipeople, since "name" helps clarify that it's not trying to encompass the bios of the people named. And perhaps bcz of an (irrational?) notion on my part that "Wikipeople" reeks of the BBC Domesday Project and the idea that a list of 8 thousand million people would be superior to a list of 100,000 or a million notable ones.
--Jerzy•t 09:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A passed CfD verdict[edit]

Hi again Jerzy! Have you by chance seen Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 18#Category:List of people by name index-only pages to Category:Lists of people by name index-only pages? Can LoPbN live without that vestige or is it time for the deletion review? jni 11:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Thanks for the heads up. I only noticed, last nite, a couple of edits that looked like they were done by a sloppy bot, that changed only white space, but referred in a summary to something that IIRC was consistent with what you describe. I never figured out what that Cat was for, so "it don't bother me none". I think i've been faithfully including the tag nevertheless when creating such pages, and i guess i should change my boiler plate or template accordingly. And on general principles i'll read the debate. Hmm. Sounds like a clueless change:
Category:List of people by name index-only pages
Category:Lists of people by name index-only pages
so strike "on general principles".
_ _ I am assuming you prefer this response on my page as before, but i'm going to try to remember to rattle your doorknob if you don't rattle mine to confirm you've been watchlisting this page for the last few hours. Tnx again.
--Jerzy•t 14:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the resolution was to get rid of it completely (which is just another way of saying: "merge to Category:Lists of people by name" which is already a superset of the affected category) by the "consensus" of three voters, not change one 's' in it like originally suggested by CfD nominator. Currently most index-only pages contain a redlink to cat. that needs to be fixed some later time. BTW I have always thought that index only cat. as some implementation artifact of yours and was surprised to learn it predates your custodianship of LoPbN. And yes, I do check back conversations I have initiated, so no need to normally spill them over to my talk. Cheers, jni 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Noted. In fact, in the next few hours & probably the next half hour, i'll comment negatively at Category talk:Lists of people by name, and invite the admin who called the process to reverse it. It still don't bother me none personally, but it's a lousy result, and bad process even if nobody's fault.
_ _ The rdlks are a good reason to see it reversed.
_ _ No, my predominance in this work in fact predates Cats by a few months. My guess is that the assignment of LoPbN pages to a Cat was part of an effort to avoid Cat-orphan pages. As i will say in my comment, i have no idea what the Inx-only Cat accomplishes, but i can imagine it being useful, esp since they are so different from the others. (As i write this, i'm wondering if it might have had to do with the very-short-pages watchers recognizing that the inx-only pgs were a special case, from nearly all others (and at least theoretically, from those names pages that are probably perpetually empty). Steps have been taken to artificially pad both kinds of short LoPbN pages with comments!)
_ _ Good, i thot i understood that.
--Jerzy•t 16:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote on my talk page[edit]

I didn't edit any Lopbn pages; I just moved a few pages to actually be consistent with what the lists actually are. Georgia guy 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pancho Gonzales[edit]

There seems to be total confusion about this, depending on your source. The best info I have, from someone who wrote a long article about Pancho and who knows his brother, is that he was born Gonzalez but was commonly called Gonzales during his lifetime, or at least during his playing days. The resurfacing of Gonzalez has occurred later....
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hayford Peirce (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that there was also a boxer named Pancho Gonzalez. He was named after the Tennis champ. The boxer challenged John John Molina for the world title. Antonio Bravo Martin

Jose Basora[edit]

Hey Jerzy: Thanks for your message on my page! I appreciate it. About Jose Basora, I have known a lot about boxing since I was about ten. It's funny because it wasnt until recently that I found out how important of a fighter he really was. Until then, I knew him only as the man who lost to Sugar Ray Robinson in 50 seconds for the title..lol

Anyways, any way that you want to describe him in the article is fine with me, as long as you make sure to note that he is Puerto Rican. My dad and I talk about my dad's case (similar to Basora) all the time, dad has told me he's Puerto Rican-American. Even through he wants Puerto Rico to gain it's independence.

Thanks for your note and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Sexy As Martin

Some unusual names[edit]

Hello Jerzy, I think we need List of people by name: ? or something to correctly alphabetize a few people: 2 the Ranting Gryphon, 7 Aurelius, and ?uestlove. Any help with those three would be appreciated. I found these articles from Category:Living people while I was investigating a potential input category for a LoPbN updating bot I'm currently planning. BTW, have you seen List of unusual personal names and List of personal names that contain numbers? Pretty amusing stuff, I just added Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 to LoPbN!

[In subordinate section, the preceding 'graph is copied for a continuing discussion there.]]

Also, while we are talking about LoPbN, would you mind if I hack off the ugly List of people named Bacon translucion experiment that also adds Bacon (disambiguation) to main LoPbN cat, a (minor) distraction for a bot navigating the category. Regards, jni 15:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Wow, this is bound to get talk-Jerzy contrib of the month, hands down! Thanks.
  1. (LoPbN ? or something). My first reaction was "Easy, these guys are non-notable, goodbye. WRONG! Yes, but the "something" option, AFAICS. These cases are IMO each of the same kind as alpha'g "St." with "Saint". (You may have inferred my philosophy, implicit or stated perhaps only in seriously obscure places: Everything reduces (bcz any other approach is impracticable) to 26 letters (and the various other things that are significant only as establishing breaks between groups of letters). Commentary on this includes
    "A diacritical mark doesn't make it a different letter.",
    "A Latin-alphabet letter, that is neither an English one or English plus a diacritic (i.e., ß, Ð/ð, Þ, Œ, Æ), always has an equivalent digraph (Well, we'll worry later about yogh, if and when it ever turns up).",
    "A trailing Roman numeral represents an integer, to be sorted in increasing order.", and now
    "A leading number spelled with numerals, or leading punc'n mark, has an equivalent alpha spelling."
    None of those are truly cast in concrete, but in my experience something is needed for each case, and in my experience so far, these work well.
    2 the G... goes under "Two t..." and "Two, G..., the", tho those dupes are surely adjacent and collapse into one entry. (But 2 Pac goes also under Tup...)
    7 ... goes under Sev..
    ?ue.. gets dupes under Ue..., and (caps inserted here just for readability; note however that remaining dupes will surely be adjacent and thus collapse into one entry) under QuestionMarkUestLove, QuestionUestLove, QUestLove, ... i probably got them all but shouldn't matter).
    Feedback, please.
  2. (2 specialized name lists) Cool! And IMO a useful LoPbN-building resource.
  3. (Brfxxccxx...) Ugh! I might have broken my principle that if it's about a real person and it's an article that i have reason to doubt is already on LoPbN, i add it. But you did the right thing.
  4. (List of people named Bacon) It strikes me that
    1. the problem is either you or Docu misconstruing the Cat, and which is right should be settled at the Cat's talk page.
    2. the frmt of all page titles in the LoPbN-tree is (IIRC, and if not it probably should be changed) eminently testable by bots, so that one test that would program out this case is worthwhile even once there's a Cat-only solution to what you are doing.
    3. It's a little tacky to leave a maladapted structure around. On the other hand, it serves a slight function if it was (as i suspect & perhaps recollect) used as an example in a discussion; in that case the ideal cleanup includes placing the URL of the old version into the discussion it illustrated. But no one should feel obligated to do that, especially if being overscrupulous about it is a barrier to undertaking or completing more important things.
    [In subordinate section, the preceding numbered item and its subordinate items are copied for a continuing discussion there.]]
  5. (Your bot)
    1. Would you be so kind as to tell me at least a little more about your bot & its tasks? I have things on my To Do list that would come sooner if i were running a bot or someone doing so shared my concerns. I will say much more if you want.
    2. A now banned editor built a bot that rough-counted the entries (and was working toward building a database echoing LoPbN). A one-time census of LoPbN entries would be interesting and perhaps useful. A census on the same day every 4th week would be useful in clarifying what the significance of this work is, and projecting future needs and problems.
    3. That editor & i discussed some minor LoPbN format & feature issues that i at least worked twd adjusting for the sake of his bot, and there are some i would change now if it convenienced you or your bot.
_ _ Thanks at least x5 for the note i am replying to -- make that closer to x5x2 in light of both substance and entertainment/emotional satsfaction. [big smile]
--Jerzy•t 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Re: reduction to 26 letters. Wow, that sounds like han unification on steroids. Potential drawbacks: 1) The sorting order is no longer lexicographical, making it hard for machines to read LoPbN in sorted order. Collating 'a' with 'ä' is easy to program, but numbers and punctuation is an awkward special case. Most entries sorted by pronounciation will be labeled as misplaced entries. 2) Ambiguity. You are sorting the rare entries by how they are pronounced using language (English) where pronounciation of words is almost always unrelated to how they are written. And also punct. characters have dozens of names: '/' can be called slash, solidus, virgule, slant, obligue, and so on.

[In subordinate section, the preceding 'graph is copied for a continuing discussion there.]]

Re: bot. It is still in planning stage. See User:JniBot. First goal is to write something that when given a set of biographical articles automatically suggests a matching LoPbN entry if it is missing. User can then approve the change, if deemed correct, by just pressing one key or cut-and-paste the suggestion and modify it by hand with less mousing/typing than normally. Later I intend to program an autonymous mode to add entries without human operator present. I don't trust my code to repair existing entries based on any heuristics on its own but just adding missing entries automatically should be doable. I only started learning about bot writing few days ago and I'm quite busy with other things right now so getting this operational might take a month or so. I got about 10% of it coded. I'll tell you when I post a request to run this on wikipedia talk:bots. Feel free to compile a wish list of tasks you'd like a LoPbN bot to do, I can't promise to do all of them but maybe some can be fitted to my bot.

Re: statistics. As of yesterday LoPbN had 36993 entries (double counting all names that are listed multiple times and 'Bacon' still broken due to me being too lazy to fix this special case). For rough distribution of entries by page, see User:JniBot/Reports/February 2006. My bot compiles it's own cache of LoPbN pages as text files on my machine so I can inspect them by standard UNIX tools. Report generation is currently not automated so it might take a while before you get updates or more details than this. jni 08:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction to 26 Letters[edit]

At 15:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC), jni wrote in part, in the section enclosing this one:
I think we need List of people by name: ? or something to correctly alphabetize a few people: 2 the Ranting Gryphon, 7 Aurelius, and ?uestlove. Any help with those three would be appreciated. I found these articles from Category:Living people while I was investigating a potential input category for a LoPbN updating bot I'm currently planning. BTW, have you seen List of unusual personal names and List of personal names that contain numbers? Pretty amusing stuff, I just added Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 to LoPbN!

At 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC), Jerzy•t replied in part (also above)
(LoPbN ? or something). My first reaction was "Easy, these guys are non-notable, goodbye. WRONG! Yes, but the "something" option, AFAICS. These cases are IMO each of the same kind as alpha'g "St." with "Saint". (You may have inferred my philosophy, implicit or stated perhaps only in seriously obscure places: Everything reduces (bcz any other approach is impracticable) to 26 letters (and the various other things that are significant only as establishing breaks between groups of letters). Commentary on this includes

  1. "A diacritical mark doesn't make it a different letter.",
    "A Latin-alphabet letter, that is neither an English one or English plus a diacritic (i.e., ß, Ð/ð, Þ, Œ, Æ), always has an equivalent digraph (Well, we'll worry later about yogh, if and when it ever turns up).",
    "A trailing Roman numeral represents an integer, to be sorted in increasing order.", and now
    "A leading number spelled with numerals, or leading punc'n mark, has an equivalent alpha spelling."
    None of those are truly cast in concrete, but in my experience something is needed for each case, and in my experience so far, these work well.
    2 the G... goes under "Two t..." and "Two, G..., the", tho those dupes are surely adjacent and collapse into one entry. (But 2 Pac goes also under Tup...)
    7 ... goes under Sev..
    ?ue.. gets dupes under Ue..., and (caps inserted here just for readability; note however that remaining dupes will surely be adjacent and thus collapse into one entry) under QuestionMarkUestLove, QuestionUestLove, QUestLove, ... i probably got them all but shouldn't matter).
    Feedback, please.

At 08:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC), jni wrote in part, in the section enclosing this one:
Re: reduction to 26 letters. Wow, that sounds like han unification on steroids. Potential drawbacks: 1) The sorting order is no longer lexicographical, making it hard for machines to read LoPbN in sorted order. Collating 'a' with 'ä' is easy to program, but numbers and punctuation is an awkward special case. Most entries sorted by pronounciation will be labeled as misplaced entries. 2) Ambiguity. You are sorting the rare entries by how they are pronounced using language (English) where pronounciation of words is almost always unrelated to how they are written. And also punct. characters have dozens of names: '/' can be called slash, solidus, virgule, slant, obligue, and so on.

  • _ _ I am ashamed to realize i have let this go 10 days without replying!
_ _ I assume han unification is abt creating the (temporary or continuing?) fiction that Chinese is a language of which Mandarin, Cantonese, and others are dialects. I'm humble enuf not to assume that's a compliment. I'm arrogant enuf - or do i mean also humble enuf? - not to assume it's an insult. [wink] I'll go read that by and by; i'd like to know more.
_ _ Changing from the order you asked in:
  1. Multiple names for non-letters. Not just punctuation marks; there are some Black Muslims with surnames like "13X", presumably read "Thirteen X" (or "ThirteenX"?). There should be lists of the names. (I presume "obligue" is a slip of the pen or eye for "oblique".) Adding editors may ask, bcz only specialists and those really determined to find a particular entry are likely to learn the convention; IMO not only are such entries rare, but they are not likely to be sought by this means. The usability is low, but fortunately so is the volume of such entries, so IMO we'd be wrong to obsess abt them, i.e., give them bulletproof mechanisms. But, especially if we have a bot spotting them for us when random editors add them, the small volume should make it feasible to add duplicate entries for all the variations (but bear in mind that George $/ is unique enuf that all his entries will be adjacent, and should thus be collapsed into one ambiguous entry.
  2. Lex ordering. I think this amounts to 3 problems: diacritics, digraph equivalents, and what i prefer to call "equating of non-letters to their names".
    1. As you say, should be a simple programming problem. As i assume there are canned solutions for ignoring case, i hope there may be some for diacritics, and i would hope there is some good open source code that could be customized.
    2. Diacritics should have a less efficient but still simple table-driven solution.
    3. The non-letters are the biggest problem, bcz the question the software faces is "which of the names for this non-letter is the one that justifies its alphabetization here. But the adjacent entries usually will give a big hint, since most possibilities won't fit between the previous and next entries; where more than one will, it is usually the ambiguous case where all the possibilities have been collapsed together and the distinction has no force. The "tough" case AFAI can see is when different multinamed non-letters are involved in two or more adjacent entries. The processing time should blow up rapidly in response to large numbers of names for a non-letter and/or large numbers of adjecent entries. An answer may be (since, in contrast to Cats, the piping of lks is already in use) to put special comments - perhaps just before the lk - intended for the scanning sofware to take advice from.
_ _ I'm too exhausted to recall if there's more to say; i'll look again after sleeping, but i'm glad i got this far first.
--Jerzy•t 11:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Hague[edit]

I have now found in my own records that Mel was born in 1943, and have corrected your edit. I may soon hear from Mel what his precise birth date and place were; if so I will improve the article further. You can now see why (with 22 years difference) I didn't think your "approximation" was very good. SMeeds 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism of Templates[edit]

Please explain the following comment that you used to discribe your vandalism: "Remove spam of all WP mirrors about WikiProject which unlike WP no one has heard of". So your ratioinal is that if you haven't heard if it then it dosen't belong on WP? Have your sharerd your views about the elimination all of wikilinks? The puropose of the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges is to increase visibility to the project to those that edit bridge articles. If you would like to make changes to our template, please comment on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges. I'll go ahead and revert all of the other templates that you have changed without even an attempt at consensus. Cacophony 19:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC) < br>[reply]

Copied to Template talk:Canberra-geo-stub where this is already under discussion.

That edit[edit]

I don't recognize that edit at all. It's obviously out of character for me. I do notice that the "Bright Noa" person does not need to be there, though, because it's a fictional character from a cartoon series. I'm thinking that maybe I removed "Bright Noa" (if I did at all) and another IP's edit clashed at the exact same time. You should assume good faith of others. Mike H. That's hot 20:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Obsolete Tl[edit]

Plz see Template talk:SeanMackTestTemplate. Tnx for yr concern for cleaning up.
--Jerzy•t 17:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I didn't realise I had to go and look up a proper reason to allow something to be deleted. I was trying to figure out how transclusion worked and firstly tried that with a template, however I then saw that it can be done with a page that hangs off a User page so I did that. The template I created was therefore dead before it started... I just wanted to make sure that like any good programmer - the resources were cleaned up. I will never use it and it's not part of any project so what would you suggest the delete reason is? If I was an admin I would probably just deleted it, but because I'm not I tagged it so that it could be removed.. Cheers SeanMack 08:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be excessively compulsive, so don't take too seriously the reservations i imply in the following:

  • G7 clearly applies, if you state the "mistake" as being "i wouldn't have created it i'd known abt the template sandboxes."
  • G2 is IMO (IM silly O) shakey, bcz one example is not enough to hint at how broad the full range is intended to be. If i checked your G2 speedy of that Tl, i'd leave the tag intact for another admin to review. My WAG is that the next one to do so would decide that tests of what a TL can do are sufficiently like tests of what a WP editor can do.

All my carping is likely to prove is that awareness of speedy has outstripped awareness of what it should involve, which is certainly not your fault. This discussion helps me determine what changes in "getting started" pages might be worth considering. Thanks for your help.
--Jerzy•t 14:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for a suggestion then? Have text inserted when tag is inserted that provides all possible parameters. Then if an editor uses an inappropriate tag - when the view the preview they can see the most appropriate parameter to use. IMO this would help editors and admins all over wiki. What do you reckon? I'm sure this can easily be added? Cheers SeanMack 15:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I don't think, tho, (unless i am misunderstanding) that the list of parameters should show up after the tag has been properly coded, and turning Db into a soft redirect that lists the criteria names and urges the editor to use an appropriate one as arg of Df (let's say: "Delete for" instead of "Delete bcz") is not a long term solution, bcz eventually everyone sees Df but not Db and never considers using Db. I don't think Tl's are probably smart enuf (nor likely to be so soon) for a single Tl to work within the non-spam criterion i stated. I'm picturing, instead, something like inserting/substituting

for the [[WP:CSD#Common sense does not suffice|policy-specified]] reason that

into the existing language of the {{Db}} template.
--Jerzy•t 15:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to explain the spam scenario to me. The way I see it the point is to alert admins where things need deleted. If only one tag becomes used predominantly and another dies this is evolution and increases usablity. There are too many things to read before being able to do things 'the correct way' in my experience. For example the javascript clickable insert functionality when in edit mode is a leap forward in usability (think about the advantage of intellisense when typing code in .net for example - I don't need to remember syntax to be able to use it).
Is it possible that secondary information can be provided by viewing edit mode of a tag on a page? I don't know much about it at all - I'm just wondering... My understanding is that cient = tag --> server ... server sees tag and sends back appropriate options based on some sort of look up. Whether this is sql based or transclusion based is something I have no feel for. I am a developer but know nothing of how mediawiki works behind the scenes. Have I completely the wrong idea here? Your concern maybe could be taken care of by also listing related functions so that as well as educating about parameters it also educates about related funtions. Cheers SeanMack 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to step back a little:
When you said

Have text inserted when tag is inserted that provides all possible parameters.

i took you to mean that {{Db}} would contain a list of appropriate values for the single Db parameter, e.g. "n-n band" and "patent nonsense", perhaps set up via

Nominating editors: if your tag does not cite a criterion from among the following, that the page satisfies, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without further attention.

And in

Then if an editor uses an inappropriate tag - when the view the preview they can see the most appropriate parameter to use.

i of course took "the" to mean "they", but i'm concerned about what comes next. The spam i refer to is the continued appearance of the list in the tag's box after the nom'g editor is done reading it. On reflection it occurs to me that this is less egregious on a speediable page, even when it's an article, than elsewhere, but some of them do linger, and i prefer a cleaner solution on the general principle that everything (except to a great extent talk pages), and especially standard messages, should look neat and efficient, to avoid the general impression of slap-dash work. In view of that concern, i blithely assumed you intended to give instructions to the nom'r about how to "shut off" the list after it has done its job: e.g by using a different templt Df; my point was that many editors learn (as you did, if i understand) from seeing other editors' saved work, and having seen {{Df|patent nonsense}} (but, since they can't look over other editors' shoulders at their preview screens, never the Db tag) used, would use {{Df|obsolete}} -- or use {{Df|patent nonsense}} without ever consulting WP:PN. While evolving new names presents some problems, my concern was not with that, but with the fact that it would make quite transient any benefit of a Db/Df combo, such as i assumed you intended.

BTW, when i said Tl's are not smart enuf, my point was that the only options are transclusion and substitution as chosen by the Tl user. Maybe they should be that simple, given the social model of WP. But it might be valuable for a Tl to let the Tl-writer default and/or force its use to be one or the other, or to have features like a "preview-msg" tag that displays, say, as part of (and overwhelms) the "Remember that this is only a preview; changes have not yet been saved!" msg, but does not affect the rendering of the saved page.

I have been developer of H/W-S/W systems, but the field has left me behind, and i am not a WP developer (which is what "developer" overwhelmingly means on WP talk pages). I don't think i grasped half of what you said in your last. I could sort out the understood from the mystifying if it matters, but my own incomprehensibility may have simply led us off-topic.

Finally, i should perhaps have said earlier that in WP deletion of pages is the death penalty in contrast to our general free-wheeling open-ended-ness. In the general context of things here, it would be quite surprising for speedies not to be so constrained. But my discussion w/ you is more a matter of encouraging informed nom'ns, so admins working on speedies see fewer invalid or mis-stated noms, and can concentrate better on doing a thoro job of judging the borderline ones.
--Jerzy•t 18:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop recycling my page[edit]

I have chosen to withdraw from the project. The 3RR had been punished with a block without warning, and in a very unfair way. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_unfairly Since it is already some time ago I have the full right to get my pages speedy deleted. 84.59.79.243 17:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly Get-back-world-respect)[reply]

I do not know what is going on, now my page even got protected. I want out, what is the problem with that?
84.59.79.243 18:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[I failed to save the following before, in the confusion. --Jerzy•t 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)][reply]
That's Get-back-world-respect (talk · contribs) being referred to. If it's really the same person, they have over 4000 edits, mostly from a period of 8-9 months. (But BTW, they feel free to leave the above edit at the end of an apparently random section on my talk page. That sounds to me like either an ignorant newbie or someone being intentionally offensive. As to having withdrawn, they have over 250 edits to articles alone in January and February, including 5 article edits in the last 24 hours. This is not a former user, but an abusive current one.
--Jerzy•t 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want out, get out. As to the rest of what you want, i'm in the middle of an edit to address that at User talk talk:Get-back-world-respect, as the protection box loopily suggests. It was not i who protected your talk page. I infer that it was bcz your blanking was regarded as vandalism, which i think is accurate, tho i think protecting it was a bad choice.
--Jerzy•t 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not assume good faith. I have no idea how I ended up at that random page section, you have a page setup I am not used to. Users have the right to get their pages deleted, and I asked for it YESTERDAY, so no point arguing what happened before, and it was already deleted before you recycled it. At the very least the statement that I want to withdraw and prefer emails rather than messages on my talk page should be included. I do not want a page where people without manners throw mud at me. 84.59.79.243 19:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly Get-back-world-respect)[reply]
As you refuse to answer and delete my questions I ask for a mediation. 84.59.79.243 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{RFM-Request}}

please see this link[edit]

[7], GBWR is screwing up the namespace system again: now it's Talk:User talk talk. Please stop this madness. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my user talk[edit]

I like what you're suggesting, but it's a little muddled up. Could you implement the suggestion you made on my user talk, and if for some reason I don't like it I'll just revert it back? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking into GBWR and our's pending ArbCom case? I'd like you to at least post an opinion there. It's at WP:RFAR. 2nd one on the list I think. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Thanks for the work on my page, it looks good now. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity?[edit]

May I ask what you meant in the importance of brevity in moving the Dwight Foster (hockey player) article back to Dwight Foster (hockey)? I have good reasoning (or at least I think) for moving the article, but I just want to clarify what you meant first. Croat Canuck 03:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait never mind, I looked it up at dictionary.com... So If you mean you don't like the length of the article title, keep in mind that most hockey player articles where there is a name conflict do go by (hockey player) and not (hockey), because for various reasons, (hockey) is just not specific enough. There are more kinds of hockey than just ice hockey, (ie. field hockey), and that itself can bring more conflict in itself. Then there are also many ice hockey people who share the same name, and thus we can separate them by (hockey player) or (hockey coach), depending on what they are most famous or notable for doing, if they've done both. If you have any more comments on that, please put it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey then on my talk page, so that other people in the WikiProject can discuss it as well. Croat Canuck 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fair enough, and well said. Now here's my problem. For the sake of problem and error, before I even started renaming those hockey articles to (hockey player), 70%-80% of those hockey articles that have naming conflicts have (hockey player) as their status. And no I'm not talking about 20 articles that need to be corrected here, this is a good chunk of all the articles. That is why I started moving them to (hockey player). I can agree with you that (hockey) is perfectly suitable, however it would force me to undertake a project of gigantic proportions (and for me to revert all the edits in this I've already made, made easier that I'm a sysop, but still tough enough as it is) to put all of these hockey bio articles under the proper naming conventions and make sure that all links to it are proper. Now my question to you is, is there a speedier way to do this (bots maybe?), and how would I go abouts doing this in a faster way. Croat Canuck 05:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Popes Stephen ==[edit]

Please present at Talk:Pope Stephen whatever evidence you have for your change there and at List of people by name: Step. Don't repeat it, as it merely sows confusion even if you are correct in thinking a change is needed.
--Jerzy•t 02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All is explained in details on the article Stephen (ephemeral pope). What else must I add to this? Švitrigaila 10:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on my talk page[edit]

Hi Jerzy, I have no idea what exactly you tried to explain on my user talk page [8]

Anyhow,

  1. if you think you can improve the common names guideline, and you need to talk about it, please use Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). It's not as if such things need to be discussed between you and me as only participants in the discussion.
  2. I'm not convinced by your digression regarding the English language. Might be so, might be not, I've got no idea. If I write guideline I usually ask a native English wikipedian to check. I can't remember if I asked expicitly for the passage you find at fault, but be assured that enough native English wikipedians read it before you found it to be faultive.
  3. I'm going to revert your changes to the common names guideline. I can't see where exactly you improved it: on the contrary I think your version reads less fluently. If you think I shouldn't do that revert, please use the guideline's talk page as suggested above.

--Francis Schonken 22:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonvanity[edit]

Either someone has changed the speedy deletion policy again or the previous shortcut "vanity" for "Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" has somehow changed. - Skysmith 14:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Vanity" is often used in Afd, yes, and sometimes without justification. I mainly mark clear-cut cases of self-promotion (even in third person) as "vanity" - Skysmith 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me - Skysmith 15:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler briefs and Hitler controversy[edit]

The delete tags were clearly not invalid and the {{hangon}} text allows for deletion in such cases; criterion R1 (redirect to nonexistent target) applied in this case. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replied further at my talk page. Thanks for your civility - it makes all the difference in the world. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDefender Barnstar[edit]

Image:WikiDefender Barnstar.png
For your contribution in exposing suspected hoaxes, I award you the wikiDefender Barnstar. Thank you!--Vsion 06:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda[edit]

Hi Jerzy. Thanks for letting me know. I've no objection to the edit, and it's a credit to you that you felt the way you did about it. I actually didn't intend the description to be heavy-hitting (I thought it was just the natural way to describe him) but I can see how that kind of thing taken in general can lead to edit wars and overly-verbose descriptions.

But the "extra-neutral" policy for LoPbN does cause some logistical issues. There's no trouble with calling Kabuga a businessman, and that's even sort of connected with his more unsavoury role. But for some of the genocidaires, there's just nothing especially remarkable about them other than that. Any ideas? I guess "Rwandan man" will do. --Saforrest 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I really don't see the harm of putting images on the LoPbN pages. Errabee 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jerzy[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your comments on my page about the politician. The reason I made the edit was not to upset you, but simply because I have never heard the phrase "American Puerto Rican", specially among those that were born in the island. If a person is Puerto Rican but born outside, specially when it comes down to the United States, they are nicknamed "Newyorrican".

I didn't try to make a point of view. It's simply that you hardly ever hear native Puerto Ricans, even those who vote for the PNP, describe themselves as "American" and even those born in the States usually identify themselves as Puerto Rican, even if they know they are widely known as "Newyorrican" in the island.

I hope this doesn't hinder our friendship. I didn't try to make a point of view.

Thanks for letting me know on my user page and God bless you! Your friend, Antonio Flying Man Martin

rembrandt[edit]

replied on my talk page. —Charles P._(Mirv) 06:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Thanks for the nice message on my talk page. I'm not quite sure how that revert managed to not catch all the vandalism. as you can see here [9], it reverted one of that IP address's edits, but not both of them. my only explanation is that i had just put in a new javascript revert button and it didn't seem to be working properly at the time (i didn't actually write that edit summary, it was automatic). It's working fine now, so I'm not sure what the problem was originally. Anyways, thanks for noticing and fixing the problem. I'll be sure to double check next time i make a revert where there are two edits by the same IP address since the last good version. Cheers, --B.U. Football For Life|Talk 12:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike[edit]

Jerzy, I noticed that our friend is still around and still hasn't grown up. Should you or others want to, feel free to update User:Isomorphic/Minions of the Church. Isomorphic 04:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawnmowerman[edit]

I almost moved your msgs to your shorter talk page, so we could keep it all together there, but on second thot, let's leave it & keep it all together here; i'll leave you a msg on yr tk to look here.
--Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trusty Help, What is a mock battle?, Period Places[edit]

Jerzy, thanks for editing & disambiguating Crawford Castle (and all the other related projects you found that I had touched). Please let me know how I attracted your attention so I can get such trusty help again. What was "mock" combat when David Lindsay won "a single (mock) combat with the Englishman Baron Welles"? Also, shouldn't a period be inside an end quote when it occurs at the end of a sentence? It seems to me Americans (who are not trying to put on heirs to be more like their UK brethren) put the period inside the end quote and Brits put it outside. I have several American grammars that insist the period goes within.--Lawnmowerman 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thoroughness
    I don't recall making a point of checking everything you did, but i have vague memories of thinking the two dabs you'd mentioned implied other things needing attention. So maybe it amounted to "looking over your shoulder"/"stalking you".
    --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When LMM met Jerzy:
    _ _ Not much to it. (Glancing at yr contribs, i see that it was on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation that i noticed you. I think i caught your requests bcz i was looking at the page for the first time, and at least scanned the ToC to get oriented. I think most editors would avoid a request for Dab'g help there as off-topic (look at WP:VP for better ideas), so i looked at the content. When i did, the dates suggested the wrong end of the page.) We add msgs at the end of page, as you've now picked up, so it's a shame when someone asks a question at the wrong end (and is likely to go unnoticed). I moved yrs to where they'd be seen by more of our colleagues, without deciding whether i was interested enuf to answer.
    _ _ There's a "don't bite the newcomers" ethic here, but not that strong a "train them" one; on the other hand, the lifeblood of WP is collective editing. In this case your (list-server-style) additions at the top marked you as someone who might (however innocently) have left some messes in the course of your article edits. Indeed, they included such a thing: a suite of the longest disambiguating phrases i've ever seen, which very much needed another editor's attention (for the sake of WP, whether or not for yours). (It sounds like you see why they needed it, but if you don't, please do ask me.)
    --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lindsay/Welles:
    I don't remember the exact phrasing of what i found, but when i tried to reconcile it with what you wrote, it seemed clear to me that the event was not what i'd inferred from your editing, but the one-on-one equivalent of a medieval "tourney" or tournament (medieval). I feel sure that you'll quickly find whatever i did if you search on
    Lindsay Welles English chivalry
    (or if necessary use quotes and ORs to put in fuller names for one or both men).
    --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to put on heirs " & one way of doing that
    _ _ I actually started my Google test, in order to check my own spelling, before it occurred to me that the logical way "to Wiktionary:put on airs" in genealogy is to put on not heirs, but ancestors who are not your own. Clever of you, but there's of course nothing new under the sun: Genealogy Shoppe for $7.50 each.
    _ _ In any case, i was aware, from a WP discussion, that putting the period outside was a Briticism. Its appeal to me, however, was its being more logical (unless the quote is direct and includes the end of the quoted sentence), and i hope for both increasing familiarity with formal grammars and increased written communication between Brits & Yanks to erode the use of the "always inside" approach. Despite the clear policy that WP is not a specifically American 'pedia, my doing it is still a bit of resistance to WP:MoS. When we get to the point when (to paraphrase the dialog between Dr. Zhivago's commander & his zampolit) the war against lack of content has been won and the one for uniform punctuation can be undertaken, we'll presumably find out if my hope is reasonable.
    --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating About WP[edit]

Jerzy, perhaps you can help me understand something about WP. Why are footnotes used infrequently? I used them in my article on Crawford Castle for an obvious reason - I have no personal knowledge of those events and wanted everyone to know where I got the information in case I was in error or to further someone else's research effort. In addition, I much appreciate the work you did, but I do not know where your information comes from. I now know (or think I know) that there was some "mock" battle but don't know where you have that from. I also know something about John de Welles, 5th Baron Welles (1352–1421) but have no idea where you got that either. Bibliographic references should not be good enough for the WK project, we need footnotes. Clearly there are many recurring phrases in WP that are lifted directly from some other published text (and I want to know precidely where). Best regards, --Lawnmowerman 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dearth of footnotes
    _ _ Y're probably right, and WP is probably wrong (-- or at least in a stage that will eventually have to pass). In my casual opinion, there's more urgency being given, except in specially intense controversies, to increasing coverage of topics. That doesn't necessarily mean that any individual has decided to put off proving the verifiability of what they are satisfied is verifiable, in favor of more, longer, and more diverse articles (tho i conjecture that many have done so, to varying degrees).
    _ _ I've been known to joke about my assignment editor, and the underlying truth is that WP thrives on editors working on what gives them a kick. Individual editors' commitments to meeting the overall goals that are routinely attributed to the project as a whole may actually be much less significant. That means that we do some prohibiting, and more of discouraging, but in very few cases to we say "Yes, A is good, but if you don't do B to complement it, you're a bad colleague." The strongest exception i can think of is the "code of honor" about bypassing the Dab you create in everything that lks to it. I tried doing that for battery in my first month or so, and have pretty much not bothered since. (Note that this is distinct from something much more important, bypassing the double redirects you create in a move, including a move needed to set up a Dab.) In fact i think discussion of dbl-rdr bots at Wikipedia:Double redirects may explain my failure to find the "code of honor" language; i may still be apologizing for acts that are the subject of an amnesty.
    --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welles data (an example for my point as well)
    _ _ One reason i didn't bother to record my source was that i didn't have much trouble finding it. If you're good with Google (or as, probably, you become so as you work on WP), here's the only info from me that will help you: i put a high priority on getting a date for Welles, to confirm my suspicion that that paragraph described a later period from that of the capture of the castle: you know what info i was working from (by being more familiar than i with the last revision before i started), so you're closer to finding the same source that i did than i am to re-finding it.
    _ _ I'm not very comfortable with the footnote scheme, and hope that if it becomes more used, there'll be a switch and a preference setting for "hide footnotes", as there already is for the ToC on pages with enuf sections. But in any case, you like them and i can't see anything wrong your adding more, e.g. after using my results to help you find, more quickly, the same support i found, or its equivalent.
    --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Now I'm Intrigued[edit]

Being a lawyer, I thought I was good for something (e.g., research, writing) but not I see I am not nearly as good as I thought. I really need your help retracing the steps you went through to find the dates and the "mock" you added to the following sentence in the Crawford Castle article - "In 1398, Robert II gave the castle and the title of Earl of Crawford to David Lindsay, who had won great praise in 1390 for bravery in single (mock) combat with the Englishman Baron Welles." I have now spent almost 2 hours at work (I bill $320 hour) trying to figure out where you got that information on google using pre and post edit information and still have not found it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make me keep trying but I am intrigued at how and where you found that information. Can you take a few moments to do either or both of the following, the first being the quickest but the latter being the more important: (i) send me the link to where that info comes from, and/or (ii) tell me how you found it. Best regards, --Lawnmowerman 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, but in the spirit of chivalric preening, i wanted to show a quick result (despite the dentist's receptionist calling to interrupt) at 16:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC):
Hit #3 of the search i suggested looked promising so i clicked on it. It doesn't seem to be one i saw before; in any case i MS-IE searched within the page, for chival, IIRC, & landed in this 'graph, with more info than i saw before:
It was Sir Alexander Lindsay of Glenesk who, during John of Gaunt’s invasion of Scotland, attacked and put to the sword the crew of one of the English ships which had landed above Queen’s Ferry, and his son, Sir David, was one of the most famous knights of his time. It was he who rode the famous course at the tournament at London Bridge in May, 1390. John, Lord Welles, the English ambassador, we are told, had at a solemn banquet ended a discussion of doughty deeds with the declaration: "Let words have no place; if you know not the chivalry and valiant deeds of Englishmen, appoint me a day and place where you list and you shall have experience." Sir David Lindsay accepted the challenge, and Lord Welles appointed London Bridge as the place of trial. At the first course, though Lord Welles’ spear was broken on his helmet, Lindsay kept his seat, at which the crowd cried out that, contrary to the laws of arms, he was bound to his saddle. Upon this he dismounted, mounted again without help, and in the third course threw his opponent to the ground. Another of Sir David Lindsay’s exploits, which ended less happily was the encounter with the Highland marauders under Duncan Stewart, son of the Wolf of Badenoch, at Gasklune, in which many of the gentry of Angus were slain and Sir David himself was grievously wounded, and narrowly escaped. Sir David, married Elizabeth, daughter of King Robert III., and in 1398 was raised to the peerage as Earl of Crawford.
I'll see if i can come up with a more direct answer to yr question, tho.
--Jerzy•t 16:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • _ _ OK, i'm pretty sure that i read hit #2, & maybe #3, from searching with the search spec
"David Lindsay" Baron Welles
_ _ I either reconstructed that search (the likely case), or hit on another with similar results, by getting close enuf & catching a little luck. My method was rereading your revision that i started from, which i picked out from the page history (by clicking on the " 15:04, 8 March 2006" link). I asked myself "What search would i do in this situation?", and knowing myself reasonably well, decided that the exact name of Lindsay should be expected, since his title seems to have come later, but that i couldn't count on "Baron" immediately preceding "Welles", which is why i used no more quotes in the search spec.
_ _ Hit #2 seems to be one of the first i succeeded with, and i may have been smarter the first time in searching at an early point for "1390" since it appeared in the extract. (This time, i don't understand why some of the in-page searches i tried failed, but never mind.) That gave me
DAVID LINDSAY, 9th Feudal Lord of Crawford, b ca 1360, d 1406 (or perhaps 1412), fought famous duel in 1390 with JOHN 5th Baron WELLES on London Bridge, created 1st Earl of CRAWFORD, m ELIZABETH (CATHERINE) STUART, dau of King ROBERT II (see under Scotland, Kings, for ancestors)
-- enuf to satisfy me that i had the right encounter.
_ _ In hit #3, my successful search this time was for "lost" within the page, which got me to
At a banquet in Edinburgh and presumably after too much alcohol he issued as Champion of England the challenge: “Let words have no place; if ye know not the Chivalry and Valiant deeds of Englishmen; appoint me a day and a place where ye list, and ye shall have experience”. This resulted in a memorable jount on London Bridge the following St George’s Day, 23rd April 1390, in which he lost to DAVID LINDSAY, afterwards 1st Earl of Crawford
(I don't recall reading about the alcohol, perhaps just bcz of skimming. On the other hand, i know my research in preparation for editing produced something with "third course" in it, that i haven't since found again, so i'm not sure i read this one then.)
_ _ (The word "mock" was my own paraphrase, and hope i didn't lead you to assume otherwise.)
_ _ I gave you bad advice bcz i remembered "the Chivalry and Valiant deeds of Englishmen" as "English Chivalry and [something]". Sorry about that. (Hmm, or what i recalled was not directly from there: i thot i recalled "chivalry" being much more explicitly stated as the purpose, and not just of the word being at the inception of it, but that comes to just speculation, as i'm not turning up any hits that support it, after significant effort.)
_ _ So: i haven't studied your wording carefully enough to know whether your skills fell short, or i doomed your efforts by trusting my memory about the exact word "English". My apology in any case, and i hope your $640 of effort produced some valuable experience. (The possibility receiving bills in the event of my behaving tortiously was not one of my reasons for being pseudonymous on WP, but.... [wink])
_ _ I'm gladder for that exercise than i expected; i think i implied "the same sources can always be easily found again", but the gaps in my second try suggest i've been overconfident.
--Jerzy•t 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, having knowledge, it is impossible to go backward, but I don't recall coming up with your hits 2 and 3 at all in my searches. Which made me think google doesn't produce the same results in every country, but I tried it here in the US and it does. Perhaps I was too specific in my searches. I don't know where you're from but I suspect the UK because of your ". usage and because you have the kind of mind that wrote the OED. In any case, I don't know how you would have known to search for "chival" or "English" or where you came up with "the Chivalry and Valiant deeds of Englishmen." I also don't know if I would have been as tenacious. Thanks for the education. Have you read The Professor and the Madman? Come to think of it, the OED was perhaps the first publication assembled from free contributions, much like WP, except without the help of computers, just scraps of paper sent in from all over England. The analogy stops there as the free will contributions were then sold to the public in the form of the OED.--Lawnmowerman 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may also support the point that footnotes are needed in WP (as you allude to above). If we want to make all human knowledge accessible, we need footnotes. Knowledge is not knowledge unless it can be verified and sources weighed for persuasiveness. WP should not be a place to regurgitate and cut and pase all hearsay on the web. The article for Crawford Castle already included a cite to Blaeu Atlas of Scotland, 1654 which I am confident only recently became available on the web in digital form. Now, I can make reference to "ANCIENT ANCESTORS with MODERN DESCENDANTS (7th Edition)" at www.pcug.org.au/~ronwells/index.htm but would still like to know where he got his information - he doesn't even have a footnote! :-) I am now quite aware that my searches must be done very carefully to avoid queering results. Curious - How long did it take you to find the information on the duel and edit Crawford Castle?
  • OED:
No, not read, but heard of the bk several times, so i appreciate the reference. Not Brit, but Yank, and i question your cultural determinism. In fact it makes you sound Latin American to me. Whoops!
Chival:
_ _ Sorry to be obscure. You asked where i found it was a tournament or mini-tournament, and i couldn't remember. But i did (mis-?)remember a phrase like "for the sake of English chivalry and honor", and felt sure you'd find the same source by including the two words "English" and "chivalry" along with appropriate names in yr Google search.
_ _ (Note that didn't say search, or shouldn't have, for "chival" in Google, bcz Google seldom finds whole words when a portion of the word is used as a key. I am unsurprised when it's asked for "artistry" and finds "artistic" (neither word part of the other, but two standard words known to have closely related meanings): Google apprently tries to exploit such relationships of meaning. I have never seen Google find a real word when i specified a non-word as a key -- except in cases where it detects a spelling error, and in that case, it asks whether meant "trivial" when i typed "trival", before serving up the hits on it.
_ _ (On the other hand, once i was viewing a very long page, i didn't want to scan it by eye and MS IE is not smart enuf to equate chivalic, chivalry, and chivalrous, but it will find any of the three for the key "chival".)
_ _ "The Chivalry and Valiant deeds of Englishmen" was a surprise to me, since i was so confident of a different thrust to the passage with "chivalry" in it. I think i retain a relatively large amount of detail, but not as much as i tend to imagine that i do.
Time spent searching: To answer that beyond "more than i expected", i'd have to look back at my "user contributions" log, which other users can also do re me. I'm not sure it will have useful info, but it could be a valuable exercise to see what you could deduce about that search.
--Jerzy•t 08:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people by name confusion[edit]

Why did you replace the contents with List of people by name: Gar with those of List of people by name: Gam-Gaq? What does your cryptic acronymic edit summary mean? JIP | Talk 08:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

Jerzy, I need some help. First, where do I go to request help with a disambiguation? Here's where I'm at. I wanted to create a page for CANMORE - its a database maintained by The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland but there was a page redirecting me to Canmore, Alberta - a city. I deleted the info on the redirect page but can't seem to get rid of the page itself. Can't create the CANMORE database page til I hear from you. Thanks --Lawnmowerman 20:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • _ _ I'm inferring that your worry was that since typing "CANMORE" or "canmore" takes you to Canmore, the existence of that page was a problem. The deletion of Rdrs is rare, largely on the premise that "if someone thought it was useful",
  • it's likely to be bcz they tried getting to something by typing it in, and it would have been useful to them, and
  • even if they had some other reason for expecting it to be useful to someone, they're probably right even if others have trouble seeing that usefulness.
Also because Rdrs both get copied by other sites and become hits on search engines; both will lead people to try to use them on WP (in their old context), so they shouldn't disappear.
_ _ I put a Dab "on top" of the old Rdr; the dab does the Rdr's job (except for the automatic transfer part), but gives the choice of your sense as well. You could have done the same, but it sounds like you wanted a different title, perhaps CANMORE, for the dab.
_ _ CANMORE can be a rdr to the Dab, or a rdr to the article you want to write, or can be the article itself. If it's a rdr to the Dab, i doubt it accomplishes anything; if it's a Rdr to the article, it may have a bad effect and have to go thru the Dab; if it's the article, it may need a top-of-page Dab line to the town (but not to the Dab unless the Dab gets more than these two entries). (However, me fine Scotiophile, be aware that the capital D inside MacDonald means that Macdonald is needed as a redirect to MacDonald even tho the obvious rdr at kevin stewart would serve no purpose.)
_ _ I put a rd lk into the rdr i made. (I hope that's not the title of the article; forget legal names: WP:MOS calls for common names, and a bad guess at the common name is far better than a name that long.)
_ _ I may be missing the point of your question; if so write again.
--Jerzy•t 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Byp rdr vs byp Dab[edit]

A Dab is not a form of redirect, as you seem to assume in yr edit summarized as "Redirect bypass from William Burges to William Burges (architect) using popups". If yr popups enforced that summary, please don't use that tool in that way, and tell me where you got it so i know which toolmaker to complain to. Plz don't confuse your colleagues with false terminology.
--Jerzy•t 06:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved William Burges to William Burges (architect) in order to make room for a disambiguation page. The act of moving created a redirect from William Burges to William Burges (architect). Before I overwrote the redirect with a disambiguation page, I used popups to bypass the redirect. It was convenient to use the tool in that way, and the summary was perfectly reasonable. Snottygobble 11:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Authors Question[edit]

Hi Jezy. I also left this question on Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. I have an idea and was hoping someone could give me some guidance on whther its a good one, whether its permitted in WP, and if so, tips on how to do it. I have recently begun helping my children write some articles and stubs on WP. I would like to create a notation for articles that denote them (or flags them, if you prefer) as having been written by a "young author." I see WP as a fantastic way to educate my children in significant ways and hope perhaps the movement will catch on. In connection with the effort, I would like to have a special page for the "young authors project" etc. I would define young authors in some very generic way so as to protect identities. What do you think? Do you have any tips on how to do this or an "administrator" that would be particularly knowledgeable about how to do this? Thanks in advance for your help. --Lawnmowerman 14:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put your response here as well as on my talk page:

_ _ Not remotely feasible -- in contrast with your concern abt documentation, which merely has no clear path to reality, even tho you may help it take place as the nature of WP evolves.
_ _ I recommend you concentrate more on studying WP documentation & looking at how experienced editors handle the situations you encounter in yr own editing. (In particular cases, recognize them by looking at least at their earliest contribution (for the date), and perhaps learn to use the edit-count tool tho you should take the cautions & reservations seriously; there are also 2K+ of experienced eds listed at WP:1000.)
_ _ In the long run you may find a role in improving verifiability standards, but Young Authors is the smoking gun re what was already my opinion. (That doesn't make me prescient; it's virtually inevitable for someone with so little experience in this unique environment.) Namely, you have far too little insight into the WP process to soon have any role in the kind of ambitions that you're feeling about the future of the project. And at this point neither you nor i has the remotest idea of what your long-term prospects for that are. But i hope you'll stick around and find out.
--Jerzy•t 15:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your unfortunate response to my question is truly disappointing. Please consider Cactus.man's response as more appropriate and helpful. You should also consider a role in life that limits your contact with people. Your arrogance is a black mark on the WP community. Though I have appreciated your edits and help in the past, you are clearly an editor that should be marginalized. You are the type I hoped not to find in WP, but unfortunately those who exaggerate their own worth are everywhere, even in the best of communities. Your value may lie in trying not to author articles, but sticking to the most banal aspects of the project. My opinion of you should of course have no bearing on your continued efforts, as yours of mine will not. I hope you will keep trying to make a meaningful contribution to life. Your editing skills are outstanding but you are deficient in the kind of character that will make you a success in life and give you a meaningful legacy. Best regards, --Lawnmowerman 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar username[edit]

Hello, sorry for late responding. If your kind offer to block any potential use of the Buldozer username, I would appreciate this. Re: John Fisher descripions, if that has nort been corrected yet, I'll do it right away. Many tahnks for your valuable advice, offer and comment. Buldożer 10:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were certainly not mine. Well, OK, let's leave that as it is. Many thanks for your interest and help, but it looks that we just can't do anything with it. Cheers, Buldożer 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the page move[edit]

Thank you very much for moving Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism. You've made my day. -Silence 03:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That bloke what had it off with Eloise[edit]

Er, should this article really be called Peter Abélard? Pierre Abélard, fine. Peter Abelard, also OK (I'm sure the MoS tells us which). But Germanic first name, French second? Uh-uh. Do you mind if I fix this? Cheers, JackyR 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ As a matter of mechanics, it looks like anyone can make a move back to Pierre Abélard, but it may take an admin to get it to Peter Abelard.
_ _ I don't find your reasoning conclusive: i think there is a greater tendency to anglicize given names than surnames, and w/in WP, i think the Zürich debate shows we don't think a dicritical mark makes a name anywhere near as foreign as a foreign-language spelling does. But i'm not settling on any strong opinion.
_ _ Bear in mind also that like Confucius and [[Copernicus], his English-language familiarity is probably mediated via Latin -- not sure which of the three sides of the argument that leans toward.
_ _ You might want to consult with User:Ceyockey, whose LoPbN edit led to mine there, and thence to the move you are concerned about; my guess, based on their edit, is that they'll probably agree with you. Also, consider some Google tests restricted to English-language sites, so at least you'll be in a position to anticipate criticism from others who may feel more strongly about it than i.
--Jerzy•t 04:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replied there. Cheers, JackyR 18:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And there. Cheers, JackyR 23:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages with no content[edit]

I've been looking over the "short pages" list, and I see that User:EGGS has tried to nominate some pages for deletion. They seem to have no content, so why do they need to still exist? Thanks, Ardric47 06:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owain Glyndŵr[edit]

Wow! Whatever happened to assuming good faith!? Regardless of your personal suspicions, bandying phrases like "disingenuous", "troll" and "nationalist PoV vandal" around are very unlikely to achieve anything, and I resent your using them.

Getting back to the main point, though: insisting on keeping the listing at "Owen Glendower" instead of "Owain Glyndŵr" is untenable, I think, since the article is at Owain Glyndŵr, and which is also the name used almost universally these days (much has changed since Shakespeare's time). Having a duplicate listing might be tolerable, but if everyone were listed at every possible spelling of their name, the list could get very cluttered indeed (e.g. Shakespeare, Shakspear, Shaxpir, etc.). I assumed there was one listing per person, and moved "Glendower" to "Glyndŵr". I thought you must have overlooked the second copy when you reinstated the "Glendower" listing. There must be, at least, a listing at "Glyndŵr"; any further spellings are optional. That said, the current situation is fine by me. --Stemonitis 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart[edit]

Well, shit happens. I did look into some recent history, but recent users like AndriuZ (talk · contribs) were not at all vandals. Fortunately there are many of us here. `'mikka (t) 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, don't you find that having this huge name list in two places leads to troubles? I suggest to leave it only in the "List of..." article. `'mikka (t) 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerzy/Archive_05&oldid=1145836467"