User talk:Jnc/2004B

Hello Noel. I hope you come back soon... +sj + 04:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a note; glad you are still around. I'm thinking of organizing another meetup in Boston soon; are you in the area? I see - Yorktown, alas. Well, come visit us someday. (: +sj + 03:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Greetings. I noted your appearance today. I added the picture of the Stata center to the MIT AI Lab descendant, CSAIL. Ancheta Wis 01:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about that page move. Unfortunately, you've got the wrong man -- the move was done, as a cut-and-paste, by User:Pjamescowie; I simply fixed the c&p and made it a real move. As to where the page should be, I personally lean towards Ramses, but perhaps not enough to start a revert war over it; I deferred to Pjamescowie, who appears to Know His Stuff. However, your comment about consistency between Ramesses and the individual Ramses II etc. articles remains unanswered. –Hajor 15:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with SOAP. Saucepan 21:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I responded to you on the History of the Internet talk page. I guess that short of a complete overhaul of the entire Pedia's computer-related pages, an interested outsider like me will have to use other sources to gain a full understanding. But it can't be all the way hopeless. Wikipedia's greatest strength is its constant improvement. Fishal 19:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

how did you manage to edit the SBVT protected page? also, are you aware that the widow of the dead skipper backs up the Kerry side, based on letters & conversations she had before his death? there's an article in the talk archives about that. Wolfman 15:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given that non-admins like Wolfman and I can't edit this article, would you at least provide the source for your addition? I haven't been following this dispute too closely since the page was protected, and I no longer remember where all the different allegations are. JamesMLane 17:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Page is now unprotected so no big deal. JamesMLane 18:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2 things:

I've reverted AnonIp I believe just twice on Killian. That is nowhere near an edit war. I have no idea why he insists on puffing up that section, but I'm quite comfortable with my opposition. Sorry if that irritates you, believe me there's lots of behavior on that page that irritates me. I do appreciate that you seem to be one of the more mature and reasonable voices around here, but scold me when I actually get into a war. That might happen on SBVT as we have a history, and I'm not wild about his alpha-dog attitude. But, 2 reverts on Killian ain't a war.

I have no problem with Bush's service. It wasn't the bravest thing to pull strings for the Guard that way; but hey, he was a kid trying to stay alive. What I've got a problem with is Kerry getting smeared for getting shot at. While Bush, who was half-assing his way through the Guard, is treated like some kind of hero by these same people. My comparison on AnonIp's page was intended to highlight that irony, not to disparage Bush per se.

As to the Killian memos, I don't much care about the issue; didn't even watch 60 Minutes. But I stumbled across the page 2 days ago, and was essentially floored by the blatant POV. A reader would have just assumed that the memos were acknowledged universally as forgeries. I pointed that out to the editors, offered links, and got the brush off. So, I decided to add a little balance. Not because the topic interests me, but because the partisanship of the editors offended me. Wolfman 02:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, read your comment to AnonIp. If you think that I am someone who feels like I have to have it my way 100% of the time, you have not familiarized yourself with my edit history. That's pretty offensive to me, and absolutely not the case. Even Rex called me "reasonable" on the Killian Talk page last night and then again later on the SBVT page -- and Rex is not known complimenting those who regularly disagree with him. I absolutely try to be fair and reasonable with those who reciprocate. Wolfman 02:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, now you can scold me. I reverted Anonip for a 3rd time. I agree with fish-man's comments on the topic, but not your reply. You do seem pretty reasonable though, so I'll let you be the arbiter of that section. Should have let it be, but that guy Anonip truly irritates me. Checking out of the Killian page for good anyway. Wolfman 05:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You beat me to the Kenneth Alan delete by seconds. I was about to delete the redirect as a candidate for speedy deletion (redirect from article space to user page). - Tεx τ urε 20:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to help me out on these. I'm trying to fix all the talk page links before deleting them. - Tεx τ urε 21:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

which order is correct? I'll demonstrate. :-)

#!/usr/bin/python
print "hello world"

Now, I suppose you might be able to figure out what the program does.

Can you now explain to me what it does *in detail*? Which machine code instructions are executed in order to do this, why? Which memory locations are used? How is the display hardware accessed? How does the display hardware translate what it has in its video memory to signals to a monitor? How does the monitor interpret these signals? How important is understanding each phase of this process in this context? How about in other contexts?

So which is harder? Programming, or understanding how computers work? ;-)

Kim Bruning 12:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, changing the wording is best. :-) Kim Bruning 12:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about the 47 Ronin. I agree, the article needs work. In particular, I am skeptical about the details of the break-in and the killing of Kira. The outcome is clear --- they killed Kira and carried his head to Sengakuji. That's the sort of thing an outside observer would know. But I wonder just who was present at the break-in and recorded the intimate details. Perhaps documents of the shogunate recorded interrogation of the prisoners? If so, it's worth knowing.

Incidentally, Kira was a kōke (高家), an official in the shogunate. This is of course distinct from the Imperial court in Kyoto. One could take the term "court official" to mean an official in the shogun's court --- so the statement that Kira was a court official isn't wrong, just incomplete. A kōke was the head of a fief less than 10,000 koku, and thus ranked below a daimyo, but his duties involved liaison with the Imperial court. That much is in the histories. The dramas always play the tension to full effect.

Also, Kira's wife was a daughter of the Uesugi, an important daimyo. The dramas usually have their son being adopted by Uesugi to be the heir to the Dewa Yonezawa han. I think this is historically true, but I can't find a source.

In any case, the research is beyond me! Fg2 23:28, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Why did you delete my entry for September 19 on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion? Rick K 00:25, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about that speedy deletion policy. Rick K 18:39, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the Myst redirects. {Ανάριον } 11:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to either Rameses or Ramesses. -- Emsworth 20:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (and the support). I was simply looking to avoid any sense of impropiety. Mackensen 14:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry; it's just habit. Too many of the lists on Wikipedia are multiple-lists where a single-list should be, and I'm used to taking out the empty lines. Won't happen again :-) -- Wapcaplet 17:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words re: John Taylor -- I've learned a ton researching this little name. (Did something similar for John Porter recently too. Been afraid to even look at John Smith....) I agree, some standardization would be helpful. Birth and death dates seemed apropos for those earlier in history, especially when there were so many "priests" etc. by the same name -- and what exactly does one call John Taylor (1808-1887) -- (LDS president)? (Mormon president)? (something else inaccurate or offensive)? But it seemed less and less useful as I got to modern figures, and now I'm thinking the dates may have been a bad idea. I did not find any guidance elsewhere on this, although fvw's point on "is-a" relationships is one that might be helpful to me.

Anyway, will clean up the JT links you pointed out tomorrow -- I do try to clean up the what-links-here list on those pages regularly, but I guess it has been a while. Thanks for your work, and for your support on RfD.... Catherine | talk 01:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leeds stuff - much appreciated. Ben@liddicott.com 04:24, 15 Oct 2004

I'm glad to hear that my rant on Talk:MIT was appreciated. I try to do that sort of thing as seldom as possible, so when it does happen, I like to do it right.

Anville 17:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Greets. Elbflorenz (Florence on the river Elbe) is just a very popular city nickname. I thought it indeed was already expressed on the Dresden page, didn´t it ? I will check this out. It wouldn´t be really important if the redirect page was deleted or not because I believe nonnative German speakers will seldom find the word and Germans already know it. NetguruDD 06:04, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Curious. Although I have no memory of the Alfred Beckley article, I checked it out and found that someone had speedily deleted it on the grounds that it consisted solely of an image. What surprises me a bit is that I took the trouble to move it in this case. Anyhow, I can restore it if you want, but you would have to get in there quick and add some text, otherwise it will get deleted again. Deb 19:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not sure how to resolve this I'm afraid. I suspect we may not be able to. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Doh! didn't realise there was the lag time for RfD! Must have missed this when reading the document. Hope I didn't step on too many toes... - Ta bu shi da yu 13:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I restored anyway as I'm a stickler for rules. And I know they are usually there for a good reason. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If some of my contributions don't show up in the page history, I won't mind at all. My primary concearn is the final product, not the process. Etz Haim 20:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Ancient Egypt Update:

Hello, I've noticed your interest in Ancient Egypt. A group of us have been discussing the standardization the names & dates of rulers in this subject. As a result of this discussion, I've put together a list of rulers & dates as a talking point for our proposed standard. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Temp, & join the discussion on the talk page. -- llywrch 23:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nation of Islam anti-semitism:

Actually, they never voted any such thing. From VfD:

Nation of Islam anti-semitism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 6 delete, 3 straight keep, 2 keep merged into Nation of Islam and 2 keep merged into Louis Farrakhan. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the article is kept.

Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation:

Hi,
I found your rant about disambiguation pages on WP:RFD. You seem to be on to something, but I couldn't quite figure out what. Please explain. I've watchlisted your talk page, so we can discuss right here. --Smack 01:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Soon, busy right now. Noel 20:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*poke poke* --Smack 21:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done, see User:Jnc/Disambiguation. Noel (talk) 19:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've long been a fan of equal disambiguation (such as the one I created just today at Chirality). Your consideration of keeping track of whatlinkshere is rather a fine point, but quite legitimate. I'll post a condensed version of your argument at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and any relevant pages on meta: that turn up. --Smack 04:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what you meant by "a fine point". The whole point of my scheme is to make it trivial to find inbound links which are bogus - and the only way to find inbound links at all is with "What links here".

PHB and MPLS:

Ah, didn't realise. Merge tags removed. Also disamiguated PHB while I was about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Franziska Van Almsick:

The Franziska Van Almsick page was to one which existed at the time of the redirect, but apparently has been deleted. I will probably get to writing her entry sooner or later. ErikNY 12:29, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Schismatic temperament:

Why would I request such a thing? Hyacinth 22:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I simply need a page move. I, myself, reverted my own edit to Schismatic temperament (from a quick check it seems anonymous creating correct and beneficial edits). I listed the page as a speedy deletion before discovering the move request page. If you could carry out the page move I would appreciate it (schismic temperament-->schismatic temperament, thus keeping the edit history from schismic temperament).

WP:RM:

By putting new ones at the top, you can use a direct link to edit the page, e.g. template:cleanup -- that is how I designed the page to work when I initially created it anyhow. Dunc|☺ 16:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP:RM:

Thanks for pointing me to WP:RM. How did I miss that new page :) ? -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

DKM:

Yes, it's a pain, but somebody's renamed the root articles to "German battleship...". In any case, I don't think the ships were ever actually named DKM.... As for Admiral Scheer, we do already have an article about him at Reinhard Scheer. :) -- Arwel 01:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP:RM:

I didn't do the Jose Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia → José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia move, I just removed its entry on WP:RM because I saw that it had been moved. I did do Crazy Horse (person) → Crazy Horse and Berkhamstead → Berkhamsted, and I think I sorted out the templates, talk pages, etc., no? I really don't have the time to double-check everyone else's work for errors either (you should see the mess the WP:COTW templates get into...) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem :) Which article lost its edit history? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the developers could recover it in extremis, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP:RM:

Thanks for the message on my talk page. You'll see that I added some comments to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, although not before I made the changes (mea culpa: too much being bold, perhaps).

Re: Montreal and Fudge - other than the argument that current policy is wrong, which I respect and for which I have some sympathy but which (I think I am right in saying) would require a policy change, I couldn't see any negative comments, and the four days were up, so I just did it (both case were so clear to me that if the requests were on WP:VP I would have done both of them without waiting for four days).

I dislike the new format too - I just wanted to try it out. As I say on the talk page, headings by subject rather than by date will be better (I can see why WP:RFD does it by date, but traffic for WP:RM in terms of number of articles will be much less, I think). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I still think article headings rather than date headings are the way to go - I've amended it again (no dates this time - that is clear from the nomination) and amended the instructions too, but feel free to revert if you still hate it :) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the single headers - I guess I am just more used to WP:COTW and WP:FAC, where article names are used for headers and the date information is in the nomination. I don't look at WP:RFD all that often, but I seem to remember that most requests go through without any discussion, so a bulleted list works fine. Where, like WP:RM discussion breaks out, a bulleted list with various discussions can be a bit difficult to follow: an article header separates out the discussions and I think makes it a bit easier to follow.

Incidentally, my move of Montreal seems to have sparked a storm - see Talk:Montreal. I may just do what you suggested: move it back to Montreal, Quebec and make Montreal a redirect to Montreal (disambiguation)... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Early computers:

Hi there. Sorry for not leaving a note on your Talk page about "my" (and many others') scheme regarding Talk threads. I prefer to have each thread on one page; this makes the discussion much easier to follow, like on a newsgroup. I've now answered your most recent comment (again, on my Talk page). --Wernher 13:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Saishu Onoe → Onoe Saishu:

I've replied to your comments on Wikipedia:Requested moves about Japanese name order. gK 21:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Japanese Naming Order:

What is the standard in the English-speaking world? Right now, because I've been doing a number of edits on Japanese Literature-based articles, I am surrounded on three sides by books -- maybe two dozen -- all written in English. In them probably 99% of the Japanese names listed in them are in Family Name-Given Name order. The only time that there is any difference from that order are people who have lived or published in English-speaking countries and often not even then. It doesn't matter if they are historical figures such as Murasaki Shikibu or popular living poets such as Tawara Machi, all the names are in SN-GN order.

I doubt that there are going to be very many people typing Shikibu Murasaki into the search field for the Wikipedia, but User:WhisperToMe actually created a redirect page (and someone else created a Murasaki redirect page). That's the nice thing about the Wikipedia is that it is easy to create redirects. But the names used for the main articles should be the order in which the person is best known in the English-speaking world, which except for leading politicians, some writers, actors and directors who have worked in English, and a few others, is still the SN-GN order.

FYI: I just checked the Encyclopedia Britanica website -- it looks like they put every Japanese name in SN-GN order. They even had Kurosawa Akira [1] instead of Akira Kurosawa, which I personally don't agree with. They also used just the pennames or haigo for several of the haiku poets that I looked at like Basho and Buson, and didn't include their surnames in the article titles. gK 07:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. gK ¿? 18:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pierce:

No, the only history was the creation of the page as a redirect, and the addition of a {{rfd}} template message. — David Remahl 16:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jozsef Attila, or Attila József, or something else:

Unfortunately your suggestions don't seem to be acceptable for me, because they seem to be contrary to the Wikipedia practice on this point. Please see my detailed explanation and examples at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#October_29. --Adam78 18:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Internet history:

I am so thankful that you've taken some of my questions to heart. It shows genuine commitment to making the encyclopedia better. At some point soon, all these pages will be splendid. Fishal 23:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Leonard Kleinrock:

I was the one updating the Leonard Kleinrock information. I saw the revocations. I have no knowledge of this field except what i was told by Leonard. Obviously you feel the information he gave me was incorrect. I don't have the time to establish what is infact closer to the truth in what is turning out to be a contentious area. I have informed Leonard of your revokations and asked him to contact you directly. So you may here from him and then perhaps this can be sorted out. By the way though - i think we should keep the nice anecdote about the login. It helps to personalizie and dramatize the moment. I may try and get that one back in with or without reference to Leonard ;->. But I would like you to consider keeping it the next time i put it in. Thanks Kim. -- User:Kim_Meyrick 23:43, 10 Nov 2004

I'm sorry i just saw that you had made a detailed response on Talk:ARPANET - ok i've just read it. Yes i did kinda blunder in there - I just thought hmmm - it's not accurate I guess Leonard should know - the horses mouth so to speak! Now i realize that this really is an area in dispute and there are a whole stable of horses - Leonard if you are reading this then please see Talk:ARPANET and read the section under your name for a detailed explanation of why jnc revoked your suggested changes. If you two do have dialog please can you detail it on the Talk:ARPANETpage. Thanks - by the way though jnc - i still think the login story should be in ! :-> Just read your biography feel quite small now haha. -- User:Kim_Meyrick 00:56, 11 Nov 2004

Can you check the ARPANET Discussion page for Leonard Kleinrock's reponse. Also it may be worth taking this offline - and talking to him on e-mail - in my dealings with him he seems reasonable and non combative - this will also save me becoming a go between ;-> I think it would be good to give dialog a go. 'Everyone deserves their day' in court etc etc. -- Kim Meyrick 18:11, 12 Nov 2004

I've just read your comments about the Kleinrock issue my discussion page (talk) . As for the go between I think you misunderstand I'm not trying to be the go between - in fact I was trying to extract myself from that role that's why i wanted both you and Leonard to have dialog either on wikipedia or by mail so that i could stop reporting to both of you. I can see that you have had enough and consider the topic to have already been thoroughly exhausted. Although i think Leonard Klienrock's input maybe of some interest to those looking at the discussion page. I had no idea about wikisource. Leonard has the links to all of these pages so he can catch up to where we are now and pursue matters as he sees fit, perhaps on wikisource. Kim Meyrick 19:52, 12 Nov 2004

Hack:

If you had bothered to look at the exercise above, you would have found that the vast majority of Wikipedia pages that refer to hack refer to the technology slang meaning. In other words, it would have been more appropriate to put the other meanings in a hack (disambiguation) page, and refer to that from the top of the hack page. If I hadn't already fixed a whole flock of them, that's what I'd do now. If I sound irritated, I am - cleaning up problems other people leave lying around is not what I really like doing with my time here. Noel (talk) 21:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the vast majority of Wikipedia pages that link to protocol refer to the computing meaning. That does not change the fact that that is stupid. The primary meaning of the word protocol in conventional English is not about electronic computing. I do not agree that the fact that the vast majority of Wikipedia pages that link to hack refer to the computing meaning implies that "In other words" it is "more appropriate" to treat that as the main meaning. Michael Hardy 21:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

... and really, isn't Wikipedia an appropriate forum for remedying the general illiteracy of computer experts? I would think they would be glad someone wants to do that for them. Michael Hardy 21:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS: It was ALREADY a disambiguation page!! But it was not an HONEST disambiguation page, i.e., it did not say that that's what it was. It was a hodge-podge of nearly unrelated topics. Michael Hardy 21:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Attila Jozef:

Well, given the time that it has been on WP:RFD, I doubt we will get much more response by re-listing on WP:RM, even though it technically belongs there.

FWIW, I think the policy is (and ought to be) to list things under the "English" name (i.e. without diacritics where they are not commonly used in English - e.g. Zurich not Zürich, although it seems to have gone back to Zürich at the moment - and with diacritics where they are - e.g. déjà vu not déjà vu - and with diacritics where there is no common English useage, and with redirects from one to the other in any event). I've never heard of Attila József, so with diacritics would be the right place, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism, apparently Phillips Exeter related:

Good move on User:204.164.70.3. I was just about to do the same. Noel (talk) 19:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I got the following email:

Hi and sorry.

I'm a librarian teaching students about using the internet. I have been showing them the wikipedia as an example of a source of information that can sometimes be useful, and sometimes unreliable. They have kind of gone crazy making changes because they found out they could. I'm not protesting the block--it's a good lesson for them--I just wanted to let someone know why all this sudden weirdness from our end.

--slowmind

So that explains it :). Thue | talk 18:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neanderthal (animal):

Ah, a week, didn't notice that requirement. In any event, I only did this particular one because it was a borderline speedy-delete candidate: it was an unused redirect created manually (not a move remnant still linked to, for example), and it's semantically wrong — I didn't believe there's anyone in the world who would still claim that Neandertals should be disambiguated as "animals". --Joy [shallot] 09:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deutschland:

I feel silly now for not checking which of the date and the description was right. Gdr 13:34, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

AAPA:

Thanks for the warning about the impending deletion of this redirect. I often put in redirects to nonexistent articles because I figure that the article will come along eventually, and when it does,the redirect should be in place. I have added a substub for AAPA. -- Dominus 15:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

References:

Hi, I left a response to your message on my talk page for continuity. - Taxman 17:23, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Zurich#Straw_poll_on_name_of_the_article:

Please cast a vote. Philip Baird Shearer 17:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Diacritics in titles:

Thanks for your raising the question and notifying me. I submitted my point with a few examples from French, Scandinavian, Czech, German, Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish languages. --Adam78 23:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Do you think there will be a resolution for this debate in the foreseeable future? Because if not, I'd rather copy the content of the Attila Jozsef article into Attila József (deleting the notice "Redirects for deletion") and go on with the existing policy I mentioned. People seem to be ruminating on this issue over and over, and don't seem to be likely to decide it. (I can't see why they have problems with it, since they could reach any article through the redirects.) --Adam78 02:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the renaming. (I didn't understand how you were able to do the move, but if I guess right, you're an admin, aren't you? :) ) --Adam78 03:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TCP and so forth:

The TCP page looks great. Really great. And you know what? The OSI model article explains the entire IP concept, and it does it in terms that non-tech types can understand. Links to that article could be made more prominent. I think I'll do that to TCP. Fishal 15:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UTF-8 conversion issues:

Although I wasn't involved in any depth in the conversion, I think you've identified the general issue. Although, presumably, all text had to be converted, otherwise browsers would misinterpret it (AFAIK, you can't say "some of this page is UTF-8, some is ISO 8859-1"). But I think the main unforeseen problems were with things like caching: after all the links had been converted, the server cache still contained unconverted versions; so when users clicked a red link in those, the page they created had a broken title, because it was ISO 8859-1 being interpretted as UTF-8 (or some hideously broken 'conversion', possibly). And broken titles can be hell for administrators, because sometimes the move and deletion pages don't work. Obviously, once you know that's going to happen, you can invalidate the entire server cache, but that in turn means the database server suddenly has far more work to do, and everything slows down. So, like I say, I think it was kind of painful... - IMSoP 14:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding factual inaccuracy in Two-state solution:

You recommended or even wondered "what is with this guy? why does he tell others to fix it rather than doing so himself?"

Wikipedia Policy Decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins

Findings of Fact
- Lance6wins in his edits to articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes a partisan perspective somewhat similar to that taken by the commentator Daniel Pipes.

Accepted 7-0

Remedies
- Lance6wins is banned from editing Wikipedia articles which concern the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Accepted 7-0

-- Lance6Wins 15:27, 23 Nov 2004

You mentioned "things will work out" I am rather surprised by this. As a read the above link, I am banned in-perpetuity....apparently for having and expressing (with citiation to articles, newspapers, papers, journals, etc) "a partisan perspective somewhat similar to that taken by the commentator Daniel Pipes." -- Lance6Wins 16:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your expression of support. There is some saying regarding "one who is not a liberal in youth has no heart, one with is not a conservative in maturity has no sense." dont remember who said it. I suspect that Wikipedia is disproprotionally populated by the young. Fred Bauder would be (another?) exception. -- Lance6Wins 17:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This one seems to have the same idea:

To be conservative at 20 is heartless and to be a liberal at 60 is plain idiocy.[2] Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

-- Lance6Wins 17:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WP:RfD:

No worries, I've stopped. I was wondering how well the RFD process would scale under a systematic cleanup of all redirects :-( If it helps, to give you a ballpark estimate of the total remaining number of redirects that'll probably be added to RFD, I'd guestimate that it's in the region of around 7 times what's been added thus far (approximately 2 out of 15 lists have been completed). All the best, --Nickj 03:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I can reduce the rate at which I go through them. There's a new batch of data for the Wiki Syntax project that'll be ready soon (the redirects were part of this, but they get processed within the first 5 minutes, whereas other things take around 40 hours to complete). I think I'll focus primarily on those other categories, and leave the redirects mostly for other project contributors to complete - this should hopefully result in redirects being added to WP:RfD at a steadier pace. All the best, --Nickj 04:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Videopac G7200:

I'm sure I had some master plan to fill in all the pages I made redirects to, but that was months ago and college has taken up most of my time since. Feel free to get rid of them. Boffy b 12:39, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

The Fabulous Lorraine:

Thank you for catching that & telling me- I had written a stub for it to redirect to, but my computer crashed while I was posting several things, and I've been trying to track down what they all were. I'll hopefully have the piece reentered shortly. -FZ 15:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've got a prelimianry stub up there, at least, though I still need to do some cleanup on it. Should I make any remark to that effect at RfD?-FZ 17:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

W&DB PLC:

Thanks for the heads up. I have created a stub for Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries PLC, as you suggested. Cheers, Noisy | Talk 18:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion problems:

You wrote:

Hi, you created a redirect from Velouté to veloute, but there's no article at veloute.

There was an article there when I created the redirect. The problem is not my creation of the redirect: the problem is that someone deleted that article as a copyright violation and didn't check for redirects or create an appropriate stub when he deleted it.

Wikipedia policy is to get rid of redirects to non-existent pages, and someone listed Velouté on WP:RfD

That would have been a bad policy in this case. All a redirect at velouté pointing to veloute does is prevent us from having two articles differing in spelling by a diacritical mark.

You need to create something at veloute (even a stub will do), or the redirect will go away.

I have done so, though my need to do so seems debatable. I leave it to you to handle the WP:RfD end of things. - Nunh-huh 19:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yashikahagi:

Hi Jnc,
I'm pretty sure I wrote content for that page a long time ago. It must've been deleted (notice that the edit history for teh redirect page said it was moved, a nonexistant page can't usually be moved) -- Node 19:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TUI AG:

I have created a stub as suggested and remove the page from the RfD page. Apologies, in hindsight I think this was a temporary redirect until I created TUI (travel) but neglected to get back to it. Mark 20:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kumeyaay-Digueno:

I've seen the compound used, but only very rarely, and never in anything approaching an authoritative or official source. We could probably skip it safely. Thanks! -FZ 14:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen the form Kumeyaay-Diegueno used, except as a typo. -FZ 20:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merging:

A question; what did you mean by your comment about "bogo-move" on RfD? I believe i followed what Wikipedia:Duplicate articles says to do when i merged List of Eva-Units in Neon Genesis Evangelion into Evangelion (giant robot) by hand. -℘yrop (talk) 22:55, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

RFD:

Well, those rules are really guidelines. I try and stick with them, but on some things consensus is pretty obvious. I'll keep those in mind, though. Thanks! :) Neutrality/^talk 00:31, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Alto manual:

I did get your email... should have answered it... I have not received the manual yet, but it is incredibly kind of you and I thank you very much. Please let me know if there is any favor I can do for you in return. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User talk:The Cunctator:

Yeah, I changed the redirect in the article page to point to Fabius, but I needed an admin to clear up the talk thing once and for all. Thanks! --fvw * 16:27, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Redirects to User: space:

There's quite a few: User:Tim Starling has made a list. Just moving the ones that have history into the users space without asking where they want it and without history-merging (and without fixing all the links in archived talk pages) cuts down on the work significantly and means I as a non-admin can do them, I'll just pick off a few at a time. If you want to join in it's much appreciated though. --fvw * 22:04, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Yay, thanks. You've feature requested moves across namespaces optionally not leave behind redirects? Is the speedy deleting of those redirects that much work compared to fixing up the links? (which on the 40 links ones is a major pain I can tell you. But I suffer gladly for wikipedia :-)) --fvw * 17:31, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I'm getting the horrible feeling there's more involved in the moving than I'm currently doing. I'm just doing "move page" into the User's namespace and leaving a note on their page; Am I neglecting something essential here? The ones I've done to date are already gone, I just stick a {{db|Main namespace cleanup}} on them and some kind admin takes care of them.

If you want to do the link fixing: yay! I don't think there's any need for coordinating our efforts, as moving pages where necessary can be done everywhere where there are no lingering links. I'll try and leave the ones with lots of links for you though :-P. --fvw * 02:43, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Yup, we're on the same page then; I'll leave the ones with lots of link fixup as redirects for you to entertain yourself with. Thanks again for joining in! --fvw * 18:39, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

I was just going top down, but whatever order you want. Everything in the non-subpages section that still has a page and is not striked through A-N (mostly M and N I think) I've tagged with "needs linkfixing, then delete"; I'm going to keep deletebecausing and linkfix-and-delete-marking the pages I've done, if nothing else then for my own ease-of-checking. I'll attack a chunk of subpages now. --fvw * 18:46, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

There, I've done all the ones involving subpages; You're getting off much too lightly this round, only a few need link fixups and most of those only a few. I trust fully that that'll change in the next round of non-subpage ones though (I'll do those when my brain starts feeling less numb again, might take a few days). --fvw * 21:04, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Ok, I just did the last of the history moves, all that's left now is link fixups. I thought I'd start link fixing but after having fixed up the links to the first one on the list (Paul Drye) I've become more convinced (and saying this will probably get me stripped of my Historian's Oak Leaves) that we should just break the links. There were about 80 pages linking to Paul Drye, and almost all of them had other already broken user-in-main-namespace links in them. I've fixed up the bulk in the pages I ran across, but I don't think we'll be able to find all the already-broken links anyway. I don't know if fixing up the ones we can will make much difference, people digging in talk pages that old will just have to face the fact that they should imagine User: in front of names in signatures. --fvw * 13:06, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Yowch, poor you. Couldn't we coerce someone into rewriting their bot to do this?

I ran into quite a few redirects with history that were marking for only linkfixing and deletion yeah. Oh well, all the history moving has been done now, so I'm happy. I'll probably take a few more minor stabs at linkfixing when I'm avoiding responsibilities, but don't expect much from me in that area. --fvw * 14:05, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Thanks:

Actually, I wasn't aware of this method of reverting pages. Thanks for the info. :-) I was literally cutting and pasting...heh, now I feel dumb...[[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 22:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Multics:

I felt Time Sharing Option (TSO), Michigan Terminal System (MTS), and MUSIC/SP were all especially worthy of "See also" listing under Multics because they were all contemporaries, and they all had historical significance in the time-sharing revolution. True, Multics also had influence on other operating systems, especially as the inspiration for UNIX, but historically those other three are (I think) worth specific mention. -- User:166.153.174.134 17:01, 11 Dec 2004

Edit summary - categories:

I usually try to provide some sort of edit summary, but for the last week my attention has been diverted from writing and editing to adding category tags. I have added about 1000 so far and have about the same number left to do before the "business section" is finished. In my mind the whole process of converting from the old navigation system to the new category based navigation system is a waste of time, but the decision to use categories has been made and someone has to do it. But I am not going to waste even more of my time with thousands of edit summaries. Please bare with me until I get these category tags finished. mydogategodshat 16:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Moving pages:

I'm a little at a loss for the reference you made on my talk page. I am aware of how to move a page, but I'm not sure which page you are referring to. The only data moving that I've done recently is from User:Slambo/Trains to User talk:Slambo and from User talk:Slambo to User talk:Slambo/Archive 0412. My contribution history shows that I haven't moved any pages recently. The great majority of my recent edits are creating new "<year> in rail transport" pages, and adding redirects as appropriate. So, I'm a little confused, what edits are you referring to? Thanks. slambo 16:28, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Here's what happened... The other user did a move on the main page, but the todo subpage wasn't automatically moved with it. Since the todo page didn't migrate as a result of the move operation, the copy/paste was needed to copy the subpage's data. I think we ran into a feature in the software that the Move function didn't move the subpage with the main page. I haven't seen anything yet that this feature has been addressed. slambo 22:20, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks mate :-):

Good advise. And I know stuff will be OK (eventually), its just when I'm feeling this way everything goes to pot. I do appreciate your kind words though :-) Ta bu shi da yu 20:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:AN:

Yow!
Didn't notice that... nice catch :-) Ta bu shi da yu 21:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar:

Thanks! A bit early perhaps as by the looks of it we've only just begun, but appreciated nonetheless. --fvw * 22:18, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Redirects?:

See WP:RfD#December_12

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 13:35, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Allman:

Articles about artists often walk a thin line between information and fandom. That one keeps falling over into the gushing category - I had a back-and-forth about it last year, if I recall, and finally gave up. - DavidWBrooks 01:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops - that was you? Sorry: since I'm become an admin I do a lot of New Page duty, which means deleting scads of vandalism and sophomoric idiocy, and I'm afraid it has made me cynical and caustic. (I thought I recalled that at the time you were adament about keeping the reference to Duane and Clapton hitting it off instantly, which struck me as something-or-other - but didn't you just remove that or water it down?) - DavidWBrooks

Two State Solution:

Noel, thank you for working on this page. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Unfortunately some inaccuracies remains.

The Peel Commission and 1947 Partition Plan proposed "internationalized" zones to go with the Jewish and Muslim zones. The international zones would have accomplished two goals: side step the issue of who gets Jerusalem, and place Jerusalem and some quantity of territory under the control of European (Christian) countries. The Christians being the only Abrahamic religion without a significant population in the area. (A demographic situation that continues to develop as Muslim Arabs attack Christian Arabs (http://www.cathnews.com/news/404/37.php). These zones were strenously rejected by the Jews and Muslims. The internationalization of the zones is a key element that should be reflected in the article.

The form of a two state solution is not clear, neither is it clear what land areas it will encompass. Jordan itself is 60%+ Palestinian and may find itself drawn in a "solution". This text:

Territories that Israel captured in the West Bank and Gaza during the Six-Day War would become a new Palestinian state. Their Palestinian Arab inhabitants, as well as Arabs in the world-wide Palestinian exodus, would be given citizenship by the new state. Arab citizens of present-day Israel would likely have the choice of staying with Israel, or becoming citizens of the new Palestine.

Should be removed or augmented with other envisioned outcomes.

It appears that President Bush will allow a two state solution that places significant Jewish population centers located in areas captured in the Six Day War to become part of Israel. The outcome is far from clear at this point. Depending upon the Palestinian Authority's decision and effectiveness in fighting terrorism, the fence may over time become a de facto and perhaps even a de jure border. It is not impossible that a three state solution could arise Gaza/Hamas, Israel, and some portion of the West Bank PLO.

So much is unclear. The uncertainity should be reflected in the article rather than the current "a two state solution will look like this". Lance6Wins 22:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keith Henson:

As far as I know he's still appealing to the Minister to stay ... I don't have much more detail. He's still posting to a.r.s, you could ask him there - David Gerard 17:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What kills whom dead:

Thanks for all the trouble. I do hope this will be the status quo for some time to come. All the best, <KF> 01:20, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar, Admin, Redirects:

Hi Noel, Thank you for the barnstar! I meant to drop you a note of thanks yesterday, but it was a bit hectic and I never got around to it, so please accept my belated thanks.

Also, thank you for vote of confidence that you would consider nominating me for admin! I'm not quite sure that I get what all the fuss is about though. Reading through WP:ADMIN, there's nothing there that I've particularly wanted to do (delete a page, undelete a page, protect a page, unprotect a page, edit the UI, block a user, quick revert). Querying the database in real-time could maybe be useful, but I've got a local copy of the database that I can use and update without worrying about performance issues or stuffing things up, which seems better anyway. Basically, the Wikipedia is egalitarian enough (in that most users can do most things anyway), that there's no reason for me to want these extra things. Also, I've usually got quite a long list of things to do, so I don't know that I'd be much use for general Wikipedia house-keeping chores. So, I most sincerely thank you for your offer, and while I may feel differently at some point in the future, at the moment I'm not interested.

With the redirects, I agree that a bot would have been bad. It seemed like a good idea at first, but as you say there are enough rejects (I'm guestimating between 80 and 90% are OK, so say maybe 15% rejects), that adding these all would have been the wrong outcome. Also, I don't want to dishearten you, but the redirects shown on that page aren't all of them - it's all the disambigs, but only 25 out of roughly 152 pages of redirects :-( ... Also, with the template:R from plural, is the idea to add these to all plural redirects (both regular and irregular?) If so, then I'll recreate the lists, with {{template:R from plural}} added where the redirect target is very similar to the redirect name (say all but the last 3 characters match), and the plural ends in a 's', and the plural is longer than the singular. This should get simple plurals (poisons → poison), and more complex plurals (companies → company), as well as singulars that already end in 's' (goddesses → goddess). Does that seem fair enough to you? If so, then I'll regenerate the redirects (but I won't change the redirect lists that people have already started doing, otherwise it gets too hard to merge the regenerated lists with what's already been done or stuck out).

All the best, -- Nickj 01:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New ability:

It is accessible from a diff of the most recent edit, there'll be a rollback link at the top. Can save a few seconds. Shows up for me in the Classic skin. Pakaran (ark a pan) 18:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Millimetres etc and Vint Cerf:

Replies back at my talk page. Many thanks, Ian Cairns 01:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: WP:RfD:

Thanks for the info on the RfD procedure and the proper way to format a disambig. The people who have different signatures (ie: you, with Noel instead of Jnc), is there a place to edit the signature in Wikipedia or is that typed in/macro/something special unrelated to Wikipedia? --jag123 11:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Redirect you created at "Muddles through":

Feel free to delete this redirect if you haven't already. :) - Topher67 00:42, 23 Dec 2004

CD redirects:

I can understand how she wouldn't like it. It may not be a biggy to her, but let's not inflame matters. It's just a pity that she feels that she now has permission to personally attack me. See my user page for the history. (She vandalised my user page). - Ta bu shi da yu 21:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply notification:

Hi! I've replied at User talk:Matt Crypto. — Matt Crypto 23:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

double dark-sky redirect:

Sounds like a teen-age dare or something ... I will fix them (although not the talk page doubles - I'll leave those, just in case they refer to the proper redirection) - DavidWBrooks 13:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I work for a newspaper, and making style decisions about compound modifiers (hyphenated? one word? two words? capitalized?) is a constant source of debate on the copy desk - no wonder it's so confusing in the wiki environment. I was stunned at how many "dark sky" variations existed, though ... - DavidWBrooks 13:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

user 68.41.239.188 etc:

Noel, methink you mean "antagonist", not "protagonist"! But thanks anyway. -- User:83.216.148.11 6:21, 24 Dec 2004

Page Ranks:

I'm not an expert on this, but as I understand it the pages in Google search results are basically sorted by the number of links that Google finds to that page. So, by your example, if all the links point to A then A will have a higher page rank. If all the links are split between the redirects and the actual article, then the page rank will be diluted across all five, resulting in a lower placing in a search. AFAIK that's why we have redirect bots and people running around "making links direct".

As I see it, and I could be wrong, redirects aren't really a problem as such. As long as people don't link to them, they serve a purpose in helping people find articles where, for example, someone's name could be written in various way. For example, Don S. Davis or Don Davis. The problem is when people create new content, add links, see that they are blue and don't check whether they are pointing directly to an article or are just pointing to a redirect. If we have redirects for every possible slight mangling of an article title then that is going to happen a lot.

My concern with Joe's redirects, and I realise I probably haven't explained this clearly before, isn't so much that he seems to create four of five redirects every time he comes here. The concern is that he adds a bunch of content, creates links within the content and when he finds that the links don't point to the actual page he was intending, he then creates a redirect to the actual page from his new link instead of just editing the link to point to the actual page. AlistairMcMillan 11:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thing is though, I seem to find links to redirects all over the place and then spend quite a bit of time fixing them. So I'm not sure how effective the bots are. AlistairMcMillan 14:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Time:

Heya, you might want to specify what timezone your times are in if you're going to list times (I get the impression timestamps on wikipedia are generally in GMT/UTC by the way, so it might be more practical to just use that). --fvw * 15:02, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

I don't think you did, or at least if you did that would mean I wasn't at my exam this morning and that would be a shame as I think I did rather well. I warned at 13:07 and 13:13 GMT. --fvw * 15:25, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

Yeah, it is suboptimal. I've just set my timezone to UTC in my preferences, at least that way it's all consistent and cannonical. --fvw * 15:35, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

Nah, I just hang out in geeky crowds, the language rubs off on you. Anyway, I'm taking the night off RC patrol, I'm off to find me some egg nog or something. Have a Merry Christmas! --fvw * 17:48, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

Lincoln Sexuality Vote:

Thanks for your help and intervention. It turns out that the last reversion (which, apparently violated policy) removed the section. Should the section be restored while the vote continues? Also, how long does the vote last, and who evaluates the vote? Thanks. jesse 16:18, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

User:68.23.101.16:

I don't know if this is the same 68, but 68.23.101.16 may need some supervision. -- Hoary 02:45, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

The ever expanding group of fun-loving nitwits now includes 209.78.172.80. Actually I partly sympathize, as His Thing seems to be to find articles that are listed (rightfully, I think) for VfD and to bugger them up even further. But he's a naughty boy all the same, tsk tsk. -- Hoary 12:38, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

3RR:

thanks. my note is still on RFP, right at the top, Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups, maybe you can look at it briefly. cheers, dab (ᛏ) 16:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thank you Noel. You are probably right about the protection -- it was just an afterthought, and was probably not a good idea. dab (ᛏ) 21:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:AN

Thanks for your note. Yes, WP:PUI seems back under control, so I removed it from "Tasks" listing. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocking:

Yes, me too. I didn't like having to do it. Only two more hours, please be patient!

No worries :-). Rules are rules, and I should have been more careful.--Wiglaf 14:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was during the fake Grunt episode:

I protected the redirect to stop the moving. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Beats me. At one point I was trying to add to the page, and it was bringing up the redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scripts and bots:

Sorry, wrong person. It was User:Netoholic who believed that my script was a "bot", while I avowedly disagreed. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 21:56, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you cleared that up. By the way, could you please cast your vote in my request to be an administrator? Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 22:10, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)