User talk:Jwy/Archive/Apr. 2006 - May. 2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Apr. 2006 - May 2007 Archive
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] dab notes
Hi John, thanks your comment on my talk -- I have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks
Was this the section you had in mind? Do include a redlink when another article links to the ambiguous article with none of the disambiguation options in mind. (A list of links to an article can be obtained using Special:What links here.) The rest of the section intimates that there needs to be a good reason for a redlink, and that's the philosophy I've been following. Is there a particular edit, or bunch of edits, that I've made that you have in mind? I'll 'calm down' in the interim. Cheers, Colonel Tom 13:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- And my apologies for not making this clear (I was coming back to re-edit my comment, but you replied before I could do so) - I would be happy to receive guidance / clarification. I'm feeling gnomish, and removing redundant blue links and some redlinks seemed/seems like a good idea. The last thing I want to do is create the need for 500 reverts, though. Colonel Tom
14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would like clarification; I've been following this precept: Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. (WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries) I thought the idea was, if the topic is mentioned in the initial bluelink, then there's no need for other bluelinks in the description. You've restored some bluelinks I removed while I tried to adhere to the above. I've been doing a lot of this kind of edit lately, and I hope they won't all have to be fixed. (I don't think so, of course, or I wouldn't have done it in the first place, but as I said before, I would appreciate advice / guidance.) The examples you quoted on my talkpage, Rafael Trujillo (disambiguation) and Ragnarok (disambiguation), don't seem to meet the above criteria for inclusion. I'm going to stop editing DAB pages for now; please advise how I should interpret the above. Cheers, Colonel Tom 14:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, John. I've been looking for, but can't seem to find, a statement I've come across on wikipedia to the effect that removing these blue links reduces server load. That's the reason I've been cleaning them up. The basic philosophy, as I understand it, is that there's no point having blue links on a disambig page when those same blue links are found in the article(s) of the topics being disambiguated. eg, there's not much point having
- George Washington was a president of the United states of america
- Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United states of america
- The Washington Redskins are a NFL team
- as all those extra bluelinks are, or should be, in the articles, and the purpose of a disambig page is to steer you to the article in question. I assume this has been discussed before, but there may be merit in reopening the discussion. I do appreciate your comments, and your positive intentions in halting what may have been a runaway bot. No bot though, just me. :) Colonel Tom 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree completely; when the dab term is redlinked, keeping the most specific/appropriate bluelink in the description can be a very good idea. Like you, I want to make the encyclopedia better, not worse. I will certainly keep your guidance in mind. Cheers, Colonel Tom 00:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- re Ream, I also generally leave a bluelink per line, but didn't in this case because I didn't think caulk assisted in an understanding, as the word 'ream' isn't in that article. I thought the wiktionary link would suffice. Like you, I'm trying to apply MOSDAB, but if I don't get it right, Please feel free to revert (as I did to you, I realise after checking edit history). I really appreciate your 'discuss before reversion' approach, but if you think anything I've touched can be improved, or would benefit from a reversion, please hop in. BTW, do you agree with my above reasoning re caulk, or do you feel that the bluelink would improve the page? I'll certainly continue to consider these points in future. With thanks, Colonel Tom 22:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't feel strongly enough about Ream to change it. Since we are both MOSDABing, I'm mainly bouncing ideas off you about things in general rather than quibbling about individual pages. . . John (Jwy) 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- re Ream, I also generally leave a bluelink per line, but didn't in this case because I didn't think caulk assisted in an understanding, as the word 'ream' isn't in that article. I thought the wiktionary link would suffice. Like you, I'm trying to apply MOSDAB, but if I don't get it right, Please feel free to revert (as I did to you, I realise after checking edit history). I really appreciate your 'discuss before reversion' approach, but if you think anything I've touched can be improved, or would benefit from a reversion, please hop in. BTW, do you agree with my above reasoning re caulk, or do you feel that the bluelink would improve the page? I'll certainly continue to consider these points in future. With thanks, Colonel Tom 22:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree completely; when the dab term is redlinked, keeping the most specific/appropriate bluelink in the description can be a very good idea. Like you, I want to make the encyclopedia better, not worse. I will certainly keep your guidance in mind. Cheers, Colonel Tom 00:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, John. I've been looking for, but can't seem to find, a statement I've come across on wikipedia to the effect that removing these blue links reduces server load. That's the reason I've been cleaning them up. The basic philosophy, as I understand it, is that there's no point having blue links on a disambig page when those same blue links are found in the article(s) of the topics being disambiguated. eg, there's not much point having
- I would like clarification; I've been following this precept: Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. (WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries) I thought the idea was, if the topic is mentioned in the initial bluelink, then there's no need for other bluelinks in the description. You've restored some bluelinks I removed while I tried to adhere to the above. I've been doing a lot of this kind of edit lately, and I hope they won't all have to be fixed. (I don't think so, of course, or I wouldn't have done it in the first place, but as I said before, I would appreciate advice / guidance.) The examples you quoted on my talkpage, Rafael Trujillo (disambiguation) and Ragnarok (disambiguation), don't seem to meet the above criteria for inclusion. I'm going to stop editing DAB pages for now; please advise how I should interpret the above. Cheers, Colonel Tom 14:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another WP:MOSDAB discussion ...
I noted your edit to Red FM with interest. I utterly agree (not that you said as such) that my leaving the town/city and country did not go far enough in 'reducing' the content to meet MOSDAB. Looking at Dab:places, it suggests that there can be merit in leaving the country. I can, of course, see your reasoning behind changing Red FM (93.5 MHz) in Mumbai, India to Red FM (93.5 MHz) in Mumbai, rather than to Red FM (93.5 MHz) in India or Red FM (93.5 MHz), as it makes the most sense. You're not doubling up on the country, and you're including the city, which could be useful. However, even though the nowiki version is available on mouseover, the country is not immediately apparent.
It's my opinion that [[Red FM (India)|Red FM]] (93.5 MHz) in India (wiki: Red FM (93.5 MHz) in India) is preferable to [[Red FM (India)|Red FM]] (93.5 MHz) in Mumbai (wiki: Red FM (93.5 MHz) in Mumbai), simply because I assume that more people know of India than Mumbai (or Ireland/Cork, Australia/Adelaide etc), and that this would more effectively guide them to the station they're searching for. I didn't see the MOSDAB precept behind leaving the town but not country. I would be interested in your thoughts, and would like to add that I'm really finding it beneficial knowing that there's another editor out there looking at DAB pages who I can raise these finer points with. Cheers, Colonel Tom 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- The mindless answer would be "I'm just following orders," as in WP:MOSDAB#Piping. But I've read somewhere (and believe) that having the article links un-piped makes it easier to understand what is happening when you deal with the dab page and why you ended up on the page you do. For example [[CKYE-FM|Red-FM]] might be disorienting. The other thing is that the blue (and red) are easier to pick up, and if they include the useful dab information, navigation is quicker. You'll see (India) quicker than the India. John (Jwy) 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Faust Disambiguation
Wow, I must have had a colossal brain malfunction. For some reason I didn't notice the "Faust" link was already there, even though it clearly was. Thank you for cleaning up after me, sorry about that. Lemonsawdust 07:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hamilton-Burr duel
The Cheney/Burr shooting match is heating up again in the duel article. You took an interest last time, so I thought I might draw this to your attention. Rklawton 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beatles
"I'd drop one myself, but thought I'd leave it to those of you who have been focussing on this article more."
You sound like a genuinely nice person, and you are more than welcome to "drop one" if you like. (Don´t drop it on my head though, because it hurts...) Come on in and join the nice people at The Beatles page. andreasegde 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Uhhh... Undangle my participles? I´ll have to ask my girlfriend about that one. Sounds nice. See you around. andreasegde 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Game (disambiguation)
Hi Jwy,
I'm glad to see that you've put considerable amount of effort into cleaning up the Game (disambiguation) page. It looks much better than it did before your edits. While making changes, it seems that you deleted the Big Game James entry from the page. Was this intentional? If so, would you mind explaining your rationale?
Neelix 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] dabbing 'epic'
I gripe all the time about people providing links to disambiguation pages, and then I go and do it myself :) Thank you! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Uh-oh, dispatch Cardinal Ximinez and friends to Adelaide. (No worries, thanks for the note) John (Jwy) 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this where I talk to JohnJwy? I can't quite get the hang of your editing comments. Please help?User: Bruno Monkus.Bruno Monkus 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Bruno Monkus 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)John-regarding Linklater:the acting troupe was funded (over $800,000) by the Ford Foundation. Linklater's purpose was to experiment with her unique voice-training method in order to write about it. The troupe work enabled her not only to succeed with the method, write her first (and very famous) book about it, Freeing The Natural Voice,but it gave her exposure enough to be able to fund a permanent training ground in Lennox, Mass. Several of the American actors of the original troupe, and only them, were directly responsible for that grant, which enabled Linklater to move forward with her desires. Otherwise, the theater world may never have had the remarkable benefits of Linklater's genius. I do not think that the troupe's actions belong as a footnote or in a separate catagory, They were directly and signally involved in her success.
[edit] Humourous
No, a lot of people think it is a UK/US thing, but the correct spelling is actually "humorous" in both variants. See [1] for a very full discussion on the subject. Thank you very much for caring enough about spelling and about regional variation to message me; they are both subjects dear to my heart. --Guinnog 15:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mountain View, California wireless Internet
Yes, I was asking in case the community thought the wireless format should be part of the article. User:David Jordan
[edit] Epic
Actually I don't know either. I was hoping someone else would choose the correct one. --Easyas12c 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quiche/Kish
OK, that makes sense. The previous version "Kish, also kisshu or Kish" didn't, nor was it obvious why it was on the Quiche dab page in the first place. Shiroi Hane 20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stylistics
Thank you for helping me write the Wikipeadia article for ‘Stylistics (linguistics)’.
I think that I got the hang of things – in the end.
I’ve now finished my contribution – give or take the odd minor correction.
I hope to be able to contribute to your project again. I did feel that this entry deserved a fuller explanation.
As for the biographical note, no, I did not write this (but my agent did). I just pasted it in.
I fully accept your guidelines and will, therefore, edit it to a form consistent with your standards and style.
I do feel, however, that a brief entry about my work and credentials should be available for scrutiny, but please feel free to edit accordingly.
Thanks again for all your assistance.
Brian Lamont
[edit] Little Black Sambo
Better to bring the citations up, no? Thanks for drawing this to my attention. BTW, please add your comments to the bottom, if I hadnt known how to use wikipedia as I do I would probably never have found it, SqueakBox 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Cool, I do think the citations at the top will make for a better article, and I see now you have a message about message order at the top of your page, SqueakBox 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
We cant use other wikipedia articles for citation purposes, SqueakBox 21:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks John!
Thanks for your reply John. Upendra jariya 06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Noisettes
Your message on my talk page: Sorry, but I reverted back the note at the top of the article. If the article belongs at Noisettes, then let's WP:MOVE it there rather than complain about it at the top of the page. The variation of the name might even be interesting to note in the body of the article itself. But rather than say "due to a difficulty, we can't X," why not FIX X. If you want some help doing so, let us know.
I was not complaining a the top of the page I just wanted people to get the story straight. And I do not now how to WP:MOVE it, but if someone would do it or tell me how.--Migospia 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Siemens Bribery Investigations
The discussion (rightfully) started by you goes on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siemens_AG#Bribery_Investigation --84.150.94.129 19:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Malone Dies
Agreed Low was too harsh, however that is only based on some knowledge of the author on my part. There is little or nothing to the article to promote it's notability. Perhaps you know enough to give more weight to the article and enable editor's to give it a "fairer" view of it's importance. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Something about Pattie?
Harrison's quote isn't a reliable source given how that sentence is written, "It is commonly believed that Harrison's inspiration for 'Something' was his wife at the time, Pattie Boyd," because it is not about George's belief, it asserts that it is commonly believed, i.e., not that George thought it was commonly believed. As I said in my edit summary, I think it can be reworded so that no fact tag is needed. I don't want to be a pain, but statements that begin "It is commonly believed that" are just bad. They are passive voice, which makes weak-sounding sentences, and despite asserting that a large group believes something, they are hard to cite because they are either not true (pretty common) or no single person's opinion, nor even multiple individuals' opinions, supports the claim. Such a statement needs to cite the results of a survey on the topic. It's better, in my view, to quote one person who is a reliable source—and George certainly qualifies—than to assert that a large group of people think something. Another issue with the sentence is using the present tense, "It is commonly believed." That's what a large group of people think today? I doubt it. The vasdt majority of people don't even think about it at all, and at least some of the people who like George and his music have been disabused of the notion if they even ever had it.
I think the article is better without the "commonly believed" comment. If some intro is needed that mentions what George was responding to, something less precise would be better:
- Harrison responded to questions about the inspiration of the song by saying, "Everybody presumed I wrote ["Something"] about Pattie, ..."
John Cardinal 12:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Julie
I just put information in the box that was already on the page. Someone else already made it into that. Hmwith 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Many thanks
for the great improvement to Moore disambiguation. John Wheater 08:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Seal of Harvard, Massachusetts
A tag has been placed on Seal of Harvard, Massachusetts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
I marked this for speedy deletion because there seems to be no need for this page. The one line of information it contains is also posted at Harvard, Massachusetts. Fanra 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Julie Revisited
Your recent revisions to Julie are confusing to me. As far as piping on the list I will concede that your points are valid, however, taking links out of the main definition for Julie itself does not seem appropriate to me because it is a relevant definition for all of the links in the disambiguation. I don't see why you re-added the multiple links on the list, my first instinct is to revert many of your revisions, as your explanation in the edit summary seems inadequate, but I want to give you time to respond first. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your edits here seem to contradict you edits here. Your edit summary on the earlier edit stated: "WP:MOSDAB - extra bluelinks make it tough to target the right entry." In the second edit you add additional bluelinks to the list; I tend to agree with your earlier decision. As for the other problems, I have created a page
Julie (surname)renamed to Julie (given name) and moved relevant info to that location. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 21:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- "In the earlier edit, all the target articles were blue, so the extra bluelinks just confused the dab page." I see what you mean. Seems like we are both happy with the latest results; glad we could come to a consensus... Also, Julie looks much better now. Thanks for your civility, look forward to speaking with you again sometime. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hey there, today there has been an ongoing discussion in Talk:Julie (given name) between another user and me. Seems somewhat similar to our discussion over the past few days; just wondering if you wanted to chime in with an opinion or two... - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your edits here seem to contradict you edits here. Your edit summary on the earlier edit stated: "WP:MOSDAB - extra bluelinks make it tough to target the right entry." In the second edit you add additional bluelinks to the list; I tend to agree with your earlier decision. As for the other problems, I have created a page
[edit] Nikki Flores
Nikki Flores already had an AfD and survived, so it's hardly a candidate for speedy deletion. Put it up for deletion at AfD is you so desire. -Phoenix 20:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] thanks for helping with Emmy Noether
Thanks for correcting and sourcing the Hilbert quote. [2] --Jtir 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ada
Thank you for helping me with the link. I've gotten rid of the trivia section and fitted information about the misquote back into the article, where it talks about Antiterra. Here's what I've come up with about the misquote, and my reasoning for the placement: Antiterra is a sort of doppelganger Earth, and thus has its own (doppelganger) literature, such as "Palace in Wonderland." Perhaps there would be alternates of Tolstoy's work as well. Allyson Hoffman 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Doonys
I am just wondering why you deleted the deities list on the article for Doonys. I had actually heard that many people wanted that list to be added in the first place and were very happy that it was finally there. And now it has been removed people are complaining. It is an important part of the storyline and so I wanted to know why you removed it? Rocket-Purse 10:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
== Sting (gamer) == + While I don't have enough information to say whether Sting (gamer) deserves an article
- Reference to the arbitration, and a 'little guy' not getting screwed over by ICANN (which is unusual).
I'm of the opinion it shouldn't go into the dab page until his notability can be established within Wikipedia.
- And how would you establish notability, if you can't start an article, and you'll get editted out for irrelevence within a different article?
~ender 2007-05-19 07:31:AM MST
[edit] The Epic whale
Thanks very much for pointing out the need for disambiguation for Epic on the Moby-Dick page. I'll try to do something about it as soon as I can, but I had planned on calling it a night when I saw that I had a new message. So, for now, the Sandman has the upper hand. I'm pretty sure I'll get to it tomorrow (oops—which is now today). It's just that there's soooo much work left to do on that page.... Take care! Scrawlspacer 05:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SHA-1
While looking at the category for Wikipedians with committed identities, I realized that you are using a SHA-1 hash. While SHA1 hashes are relatively secure, it is possible for them to be hacked. I advise that you try a SHA-512 hash. A calculator for SHA512 can be found here,[[3]]. While not required, this would further add to the seecurity of your account. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia safe. Remember to use a strong password!! - Hairchrm 02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

