
Hello Noel. I hope you come back soon... User:Sj+">User Talk: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. (: User:Sj+">User Talk: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. User: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. User:Hajor 15:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- Thanks for the help with SOAP. User: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. User: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. User: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. User:JamesMLane 17:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Thanks for your response. Page is now unprotected so no big deal. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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). - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 20:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Feel free to help me out on User:Tim_Starling/Redirects_from_:_to_User:. I'm trying to fix all the talk page links before deleting them. - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 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? ;-) User:Kim Bruning 12:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) : Excellent, changing the wording is best. :-) User: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! User:Fg2 23:28, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) ---- Why did you delete my entry for September 19 on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion? User:RickKUser talk:RickK 00:25, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC) : Thanks. I didn't know about that speedy deletion policy. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 18:39, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC) ---- Thanks for taking care of the Myst redirects. User:AnárionUser_talk:AnárionAnárion 11:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- I have no objection to either Rameses or Ramesses. -- User:Lord Emsworth 20:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- Thanks for the clarification (and the support). I was simply looking to avoid any sense of impropiety. User: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 :-) -- User: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.... User:CatherineMunro | User_talk:CatherineMunro 01:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) ---- Leeds stuff - much appreciated. User: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. User: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. User: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. User:Deb 19:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ---- Not sure how to resolve this I'm afraid. I suspect we may not be able to. - User: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... - User: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. - User: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. User: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. -- User:Llywrch 23:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) ---- Nation of Islam anti-semitism: Actually, they never voted any such thing. From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nation of Islam anti-semitism: :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. User: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. --User:Smack 01:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) : Soon, busy right now. User:Jnc 20:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) : *poke poke* --User:Smack 21:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) : Done, see User:Jnc/Disambiguation. User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 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. --User: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. - User: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. User:ErikNY 12:29, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC) ---- Schismatic temperament: Why would I request such a thing? User: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. User:Duncharris|User talk:duncharris 16:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) ---- WP:RM: Thanks for pointing me to WP:RM. How did I miss that new page :) ? -- User:Netoholic User talk: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. :) -- User:Arwel Parry 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...) -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 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? -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 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 be 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). -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 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 :) -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 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)... -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 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). --User: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. User: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 [http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9369514&query=akira%20kurosawa&ct=] 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. User:GK 07:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) : Replied on my talk page. User:GK User talk: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
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) -- User:Node ue 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. User:H1523702 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! -User:Finn-Zoltan 14:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I don't think I've ever seen the form Kumeyaay-Diegueno used, except as a typo. -User:Finn-Zoltan 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. -User:Pyrop User talk:Pyrop 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! :) User:Neutrality/User talk:Neutrality 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. User:Dpbsmith User_talk:dpbsmith 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! --User:Fvw*">User talk:Fvw 16:27, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC) ---- Redirects to User: space:
There's quite a few: User:Tim Starling has made User:Tim Starling/Redirects from : to User:. 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. --User:Fvw*">User talk: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 :-)) --User:Fvw*">User talk: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 aTalk!\">User_Talk:JonMoore)">User:JonMoore|user:JonMoore | (Talk!\">User_Talk:JonMoore) 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 wikipedia:Business and economics navigation 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. User: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Slambo contribution history] shows that I haven't moved any pages recently. The great majority of my recent edits are creating new " in rail transport" pages, and adding redirects as appropriate. So, I'm a little confused, what edits are you referring to? Thanks. User: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. User: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 :-) User:Ta bu shi da yu 20:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
----
WP:AN:
Yow!
Didn't notice that... nice catch :-) User: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. --User:Fvw*">User talk:Fvw 22:18, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC) ---- Redirects?:
See WP%3ARfD#December_12 --User:Joeblakesley 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. - User: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?) - User:DavidWBrooks ---- 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 - User: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, User: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
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. User:Pakaran User talk:Pakaran 18:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- Millimetres etc and Vint Cerf:
Replies back at my talk page. Many thanks, User:Icairns 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? --User: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. :) - User: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). - User:Ta bu shi da yu 21:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- Reply notification:
Hi! I've replied at User talk:Matt Crypto. User: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) - User: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 ... - User: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. User: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. User: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). --User:fvw*">User talk: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. --User:fvw*">User talk: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. --User:fvw*">User talk: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! --User:fvw*">User talk: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. User:Jliberty 16:18, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) ---- User:68.23.101.16:
I don't know if this is the same 68, but User:68.23.101.16 may need some supervision. -- User:Hoary 02:45, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC) :The ever expanding group of fun-loving nitwits now includes User: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. -- User: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, User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 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. User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 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, -- User: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.--User:Wiglaf 14:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- It was during the fake Grunt episode:
I protected the redirect to stop the moving. - User: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. - User: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. User:Poccil (User Talk:Poccil, User:Poccil/Automation.js) 21:56, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) : I'm glad you cleared that up. By the way, could you please cast your vote in my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Poccil2? User:Poccil (User Talk:Poccil, User:Poccil/Automation.js) 22:10, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Jnc/2004B:
Jnc/2004B
Jnc/2004B
Hello Noel. I hope you come back soon... User:Sj+">User Talk: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. (: User:Sj+">User Talk: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. User: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. User:Hajor 15:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- Thanks for the help with SOAP. User: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. User: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. User: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. User:JamesMLane 17:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Thanks for your response. Page is now unprotected so no big deal. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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). - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 20:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Feel free to help me out on User:Tim_Starling/Redirects_from_:_to_User:. I'm trying to fix all the talk page links before deleting them. - User:TextureUser Talk:TextureUser:Texture 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? ;-) User:Kim Bruning 12:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) : Excellent, changing the wording is best. :-) User: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! User:Fg2 23:28, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) ---- Why did you delete my entry for September 19 on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion? User:RickKUser talk:RickK 00:25, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC) : Thanks. I didn't know about that speedy deletion policy. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 18:39, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC) ---- Thanks for taking care of the Myst redirects. User:AnárionUser_talk:AnárionAnárion 11:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- I have no objection to either Rameses or Ramesses. -- User:Lord Emsworth 20:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) ---- Thanks for the clarification (and the support). I was simply looking to avoid any sense of impropiety. User: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 :-) -- User: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.... User:CatherineMunro | User_talk:CatherineMunro 01:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) ---- Leeds stuff - much appreciated. User: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. User: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. User: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. User:Deb 19:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) ---- Not sure how to resolve this I'm afraid. I suspect we may not be able to. - User: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... - User: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. - User: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. User: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. -- User:Llywrch 23:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) ---- Nation of Islam anti-semitism: Actually, they never voted any such thing. From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nation of Islam anti-semitism: :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. User: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. --User:Smack 01:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) : Soon, busy right now. User:Jnc 20:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) : *poke poke* --User:Smack 21:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) : Done, see User:Jnc/Disambiguation. User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 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. --User: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. - User: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. User:ErikNY 12:29, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC) ---- Schismatic temperament: Why would I request such a thing? User: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. User:Duncharris|User talk:duncharris 16:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) ---- WP:RM: Thanks for pointing me to WP:RM. How did I miss that new page :) ? -- User:Netoholic User talk: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. :) -- User:Arwel Parry 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...) -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 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? -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 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 be 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). -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 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 :) -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 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)... -- User:ALoan User_talk:ALoan 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). --User: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. User: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 [http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9369514&query=akira%20kurosawa&ct=] 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. User:GK 07:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) : Replied on my talk page. User:GK User talk: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
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) -- User:Node ue 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. User:H1523702 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! -User:Finn-Zoltan 14:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I don't think I've ever seen the form Kumeyaay-Diegueno used, except as a typo. -User:Finn-Zoltan 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. -User:Pyrop User talk:Pyrop 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! :) User:Neutrality/User talk:Neutrality 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. User:Dpbsmith User_talk:dpbsmith 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! --User:Fvw*">User talk:Fvw 16:27, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC) ---- Redirects to User: space:
There's quite a few: User:Tim Starling has made User:Tim Starling/Redirects from : to User:. 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. --User:Fvw*">User talk: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 :-)) --User:Fvw*">User talk: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
Didn't notice that... nice catch :-) User: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. --User:Fvw*">User talk:Fvw 22:18, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC) ---- Redirects?:
See WP%3ARfD#December_12 --User:Joeblakesley 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. - User: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?) - User:DavidWBrooks ---- 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 - User: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, User: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
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. User:Pakaran User talk:Pakaran 18:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- Millimetres etc and Vint Cerf:
Replies back at my talk page. Many thanks, User:Icairns 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? --User: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. :) - User: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). - User:Ta bu shi da yu 21:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- Reply notification:
Hi! I've replied at User talk:Matt Crypto. User: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) - User: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 ... - User: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. User: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. User: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). --User:fvw*">User talk: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. --User:fvw*">User talk: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. --User:fvw*">User talk: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! --User:fvw*">User talk: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. User:Jliberty 16:18, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) ---- User:68.23.101.16:
I don't know if this is the same 68, but User:68.23.101.16 may need some supervision. -- User:Hoary 02:45, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC) :The ever expanding group of fun-loving nitwits now includes User: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. -- User: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, User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 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. User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 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, -- User: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.--User:Wiglaf 14:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) ---- It was during the fake Grunt episode:
I protected the redirect to stop the moving. - User: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. - User: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. User:Poccil (User Talk:Poccil, User:Poccil/Automation.js) 21:56, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) : I'm glad you cleared that up. By the way, could you please cast your vote in my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Poccil2? User:Poccil (User Talk:Poccil, User:Poccil/Automation.js) 22:10, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
J
JA | JB | JC | JD | JE | JF | JG | JH | JI | JK | JL | JM | JN | JO | JP | JR | JS | JT | JU | JW | JX | JY | JZ |Words begining with Jnc/2004B:
Jnc/2004B
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
