User talk:Jnc

Old stuff moved to:

• Ship names to User_talk:Jnc/Ships
• Village Pump stuff to User_talk:Jnc/VP

• Old stuff from 2003 in User_talk:Jnc/2003
• Old stuff from the first half of 2004 in User_talk:Jnc/2004A
• Old stuff from the second half of 2004 in User_talk:Jnc/2004B
• Old stuff from the first half of 2005 in User_talk:Jnc/2005A

Inactive Stuff

Block of entire Lithuanian ISP:

Hi, how are You? I'm patient & creative :-) --AndriuZ 21:02, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

---

Gdansk:

Oh dear, this has nothing to do with my nationalism. The vote result is very specific here: the trace does not have to be significant or substantial. There has to be a trace at all. Also, if the rules are so strictly and pedantly obeyed in case of Polish cities, then why not in relation to German ones? Is it some sort of German phobia to see Polish names where they should be (at least that's what the community consensus is)?. If so, then it's not my nationalist bias.

There are people here in wikipedia, who use the same interpretation of the vote outcome I am using currently. For almost a month we've been trying to reach a compromise on all relevant talk pages (namely Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion and Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice) to arrive to a diferent community consensus, yet to no effect. Unfortunately User:Chris 73 was less cooperative than most of us and he continued to enforce the rules on all sorts of WP articles, be them related or not (check articles on Amber or Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, for instance). So, in other words, the current interpretation is common and it's perfectly in line with the outcome of the voting I don't like it either, but rues are rules. If you want to question it please do on the respective pages, but do not accuse me of nationalism. Please. Halibutt 18:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Or articles like Szczecin-Grabowo, Lechia Gdansk, Bialystok, Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc. Should I like Chris add Polish names to articles about Lithuanian, Belorusian, or Ukrainian political parties, football clubs, or suburbs of cities etc.? :)--Witkacy 18:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Szczecin is well-known in the English-speaking world as Stettin (indeed, that's the form of the name I'm most familiar with), and you are completely out of line removing it."

We are talking about the suburbs of Szczecin not about the article Szczecin...

"Keep on reverting it, and you'll wind up keeping Zivinbudas company"

Because i removed German names in Polish suburbs articles?? Come on... Chris is the one who acting like Zivinbudas.

I wonder why you dont say the same to him (Chris)? Is the adding of German names in articles of Polish political parties or Polish football clubs not nationalism? Why do you not say to Chris that he will wind up keeping Zivinbudas company if he dont stop that? ... --Witkacy 19:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Just my 2 cents. Adding german names to a handball club was a mistake of mine, I do not think these are needed. I was reverting a large number of edits of Witkacy (which I believe to be an emax reincarnation), and the handball club must have slipped in. About articles like Szczecin-Grabowo, I believe neighborhood of the city of Szczecin (German: Stettin) is useful and in accordance with the vote. Thanks for your help -- Chris 73 Talk 19:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes a mistake...., also on Bialystok (east Poland)? [1], [2], [3] (the last one by User:Calton--Witkacy 19:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After looking at Bialystok, I don't see the point of including the "German - Bialystok", since it's the exact same spelling. Having said that, it was part of the Prussian Empire for a short time, so I can see the case for giving the German name; however... it was for such a short time (and I get the sense that the cultural connection - i.e. German-speaking population - was small, although that is just a guess) that I would say it falls beneath the threshold for needing the German name anyway.

All of which points out something that I think it being overlooked - each one of these articles is a case-by-case decision, and one has to (if one is being reasonable, IMO) look at the specific facts of each case before making a decision. I can't give a blanket rule to cover them all; in some I will agree with you, in some I will not. Noel (talk) 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But is the behavior of Chris better then mine? See for example the history of Szczecin-Grabowo.

• An anon removed the German name (whis was befor added by User:Juntung - a friend of Chris) - the anon edit was correct, because the article is about the Grabowo suburb of today.
• User:Boothy443 (sockpuppet i dont know of whom) began to revert him.
• Both the anon and Boothy443 broked the 3rr (for which only the anon was blocked, Boothy not...)
• Chris 73 joined the edit-war and reverted the anon.
• Halibutt jointed the edit-war and reverted Chris.
• Chris reverted Halibutt...
• I was joined the edit-war and reverted Chris..
• User:Calton (friend of Chris) joined the edit-war and reverted me...

But you only accused Halibutt of nationalims, and me of acting like Zivinbudas...--Witkacy 19:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW. he reverted again tons of articles, and broked the 3rr inter alia on Szczecin-Grabowo--Witkacy 20:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there is so much going on (and so many posts being made) that I can't keep up. If the edit wars would stop, then if you could point me out specific things you have a problem with, then I can look at them and see what I think, and if I disagree with the call made by the other editor (e.g. Chris 73), I will be happy to tell them so and see if I can get them to change their mind. The same goes for his behaviour; I have a limited amount of time, and I'm so busy keeping an eye on you and Halibutt (not to mention dealing with the people who have a problem because of the block on the Lithuanian ISP to stop Zivinbudas) that I don't have time to look at everyone else (let alone do what I'd really like to to do, which is work on articles about early computers, like ACE). Noel (talk) 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Amber/Amber Room:

I know you "don't care about the fine details of Baltic history" but if you insist of inserting a reference to "Danzig" in the Amber article, then you should know that Royal Prussia was a name of a province of Poland (1466 -1795) and that in 1701 Gdansk was a Polish city. Space Cadet 21:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ethnic Germans", who have not seen Germany for generations. We don't know what they called it, but if they were loyal citizens of Poland (and with Polish being "lingua franca" in the region at the time), they probably called it "Gdansk". The original vote was for "Gdansk" in this time period, but then Chris falsified the outcome by eliminating some votes. Space Cadet 22:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't even trying to be sarcastic! All I meant, was that in XVIII century there was a lot of "ethnic Germans", whose families emigrated to Poland at least 2 centuries earlier, in the region. The vote is not a policy and 3R applies to you as well. Space Cadet 02:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Didn't you just violate the 3R rule?Space Cadet 02:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noel - I've edited the page myself, and am viewed with great suspicion by Space Cadet and Halibutt, so I probably wouldn't be the best person to protect. (I won't even get into the specious arguments Space Cadet is making here...) john k 04:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I edited Amber, not Amber Room. But I am still very wary of protecting these Polish articles, since I can very easily be accused of bias. john k 04:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I know. They don't care in the slightest what actual books in English about the period call it, so far as I can gather. They either vaguely claim that things are changing very quickly towards calling it Gdansk (Space Cadet has done this in the past, and never provided any evidence to back this up), or else ignore the issue entirely (most of the others). I hate how an issue which is essentially one of English usage has to become a nationalistic football for people who dodn't have any idea what English usage on the issue is. john k 04:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to keep up, and I'm hoping that I've caught all the changes by now. What a mess this is. By some miracle I haven't broken the 3RR, but if this keeps up someone else is going to have to step up. Mackensen (talk) 05:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In past discussions on Gdansk I have cited numerous sources - I did a JSTOR search for mentions of "Gdansk" and demonstrated that the name is never used for 1793-1945, and only very rarely for pre-1793. I looked at all the various early modern history textbooks I had at the time and noted that they all called it Danzig. And so on. It didn't do any good, because they don't care about usage. john k 19:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check my compromise version on Amber, Amber romm, Albrecht Giese, Luise Gottsched etc. and let me know if its acceptable. Contrary to the popular belief I'm not after edit wars. It's just that the previous versions hid the fact that these people were born in Poland. Space Cadet 20:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Piotrus broke 3RR rule:

Piotrus broke 3RR rule in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Please block him. 85.206.194.51 19:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just reverting vandalism. In case you want more detals, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas aka 'the Wikipedia against Zvinbudas'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom is involved so we can get a non-disputable permission for long term ran ge ban. This is not a content dispute - at least, not unless you give every vandal the right to claim he has all rights to do what he wants with any article. Check Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zivinbudas for some evidence - Zvinbudas is breaking 3RR often more then once per day, majority of his changes are not supported by anybody except him, he fails to provide a sigle source, he engages in scores of personal attacks AND as a result he forces the protection of many - more then 10 IIRC, including at least one FA - pages, some of them for over a MONTH now (actually, some of them, with short breakes, for 3 months - just go to Wilno for prime example). Now, usually I'd simply protect GDL, but I was in a hurry and just reverted, as I don't want to give Zvin the satisfaction of one protecting one more page (actually, he was vandalising 3-4 new pages that day, and I was considering protecting them all). This is nothing but a vandal-prevention reverts. Although as it appears he has found a way to use that to waste yet more of our time, I guess I will have to simply revert and protect any page he edits from now on :( At least, until ArbCom start doing something and issues a ruling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I guess I should be more careful in the future. Any idea when ArbCom can do sth? I mean, seriously, having that many articles protected by that long (and both number of protections and their lenghts are increasing) is shocking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Kiev:

"...please "just say no", and just turn around and walk away and work on adding good content somewhere else."...

Yes, you are right :) But... some users removing Polish names in articles of cities which once were part of Poland, and on the other hand they adding foreign names in articles of Polish cities... And even in such non-important like Rumia.--Witkacy 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Massachusetts:

PLEASE calm down a bit with the new redirects; while I may admit some are useful, you don't need to make TALK page redirects. Yes, someone may incorrectly search for Commonwealth of Massachussetts - but they will never search for Talk:Commonwealth of Massachussetts. --Golbez 04:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh hm ok :) --Golbez 05:03, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

---

Redirs:

Ok, I see no real harm in cross-namespace redirs anyway. Radiant_>|< 12:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

---

Hans Nusslein:

Hi! Yes, what I meant was that there should be a *link* at some point from the Hans Article to the Pro Championships. And vice versa. Not a redirect, I guess. I'm sorry for the confusion -- I stopped playing with Wiki for a while and I forgot a lot of what I used to know. Thanks for your help in clearing this up.... I also mean the same thing for the little articles about Vinnie Richards and Karol Kuzelof and their listings in the Championships. Hayford Peirce 15:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Apartheid:

Protection on apartheid has been tried--for weeks--and it didn't help. It's just one user and he's going absolutely bonkers. He's had two warnings and if he reverts again he'll be blocked and that'll be that. Up to you though, I won't release the protection but I ask you to consider doing so as it's in Wikipedia's interests to keep our articles editable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't spot the earlier use of different IPs. I'll give it a go because his IP ranges do look blockable for reasonably useful periods. This guy isn't going away so I think we should tackle him head on and see what comes of it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Re: WP:AN/3RR:

My bad. Thanks so much for reminding and fixing it. — Instantnood 06:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

---

Rules that promote unethical behavior:

If you review the recent behavior of Squeakbox, you will see he has stalked Rexjudicata on Wikipedia, and made changes to any page edited by Rexjudicata. He has claimed that Agwiii and Rexjudicata are the same person. They are not.

Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute.

It is important to note that Squeakbox knows nothing of these topics, and the sole purpose of his changes have been to harass Rexjudicata. As Squeakbox is an "old" member of your clique (aka Wikipedia community), he rallied his friends for support and they joined him.

Your code of conduct notwithstanding, the fact remains that the behavior of Squeakbox is a violation of the Cyberstalking Laws of Florida, many other states, and a growing number of other countries. Your Wikipedia S.O.P. is in conflict with these laws, and that should give you pause. Why are your members allowed or even encouraged to break the laws in a growing area of International regulation?

If you can get past the fact that Squeakbox is "allowed" to make edits -- as are all Wikipedians -- and examine why and what he has been editing in his attack on Rexjudicata, you see that he has used your rules as a vehicle to harass Rexjudicata. The choice is yours -- ignore the stalking and harassing by claiming the rules permit Squeakbox's behavior -- or look at the unethical behavior of his stalking.

Consider what we call the ethics transparency test. Ask, "Could I give a clear explanation for the action, including an honest and transparent account of my motives, that would satisfy a fair and dispassionate moral judge?" Squeakbox's behavior fails this test.

Consider what we call the ethics Golden Rule test. Ask, "Would I like to be on the receiving end of this action and its potential consequences? Am I treating others the way I’d want to be treated?" Again, Squeakbox's behavior fails this test. If Rexjudicata had behaved as Squeakbox did, he would have gone to all of the substantive pages that Squeakbox edited, and made changes to them -- this did not happen. Instead, he posted his complaint about being cyberstalked and erased harassing comments made by Squeakbox on his page.

The choice is very clear. You may intervene and stop the unethical, stalking behavior of Squeakbox, or you can stand behind a technical interpretation of your rules, ignoring the fact that they permit unethical and illegal behavior. This is not about suggesting that Squeakbox or any other Wikipedian stalker be prosecuted, but about the fact that your rules are increasingly out of step with both ethics and laws. Philanthropists and investors are very careful about such issues.

Rex - Rex Judicata 07:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The only clearly illegal edits in this case are this and this. If you pump the IP address into Google you get this cached version [4], note the reference to Spam & Kook Killers are Us, the company Rex admits to working for on his user page. Here, in another cached version, we see this is actually Grayson Walker, with a connection to this, which I used in the Grayson Walker article, and which is whois registered to Grayson Walker. So it appears to me clear that it was Rex who was impersonating me. Calling me a paedophile, from a new IP address, is typical of his past behaviour on other sites. I would welcome a police investigation of this case, as I believe the facts speak for themselves. Have a nice day, and keep the sensible advice coming, SqueakBox 15:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

---

Re: redirects for deletion:

Sorry about that... I should have read more thoroughly. Well, I've fixed it now and I have a stub article up. You (Talk) 17:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

---

Put-in-Bay, Ohio:

Just thought I'd say 'Thanks a lot' for protecting Put-in-Bay, Ohio. --Silas Snider (talk) 22:05, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

---

Minor edit flag:

• Yeah, I know, it was an accident - that is, the minor edit check box is right above the save page button... I have done this a few times. Sorry. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Jake007:

Thanks SO much for blocking that, uh, user. He ran us through the freaking wringer over on VfD with his nonsense and when I saw both his threat and the fact that RickK was giving up less than a day after returning from my own Wikivacation, I saw red. Also, thanks for not pussyfooting around. Lowering the boom right away was the right thing to do. Take care and stay in touch. Best, Lucky 6.9 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I know what you mean. In fact, I was just reading his talk page when the message flag came up. Good God, when are the powers-that-be going to tighten these ranks? Why must an admin vote be an 85% consensus? We need more vandal slayers with broader powers, not less. This is just wrong. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Wikipedia is one of mankind's great achievements...but it's not without its warts. Warts can be cured. We persist... - Lucky 6.9 18:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Karel K, however it's spelled:

Thanks for moving the article. The reason I didn't try to move it myself is that there were about a zillion warnings at the top of the page telling people not to, among other things, try to move it. This Wiki business can be complicated sometimes. In any case, I will take your advice and, in the future, move an article rather than starting another article.... Thanks for the tip. Hayford Peirce 22:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Karel's tennis record:

Thanks for your eagle-eyed scrutiny. When I first wrote the brief article I did it under the impression that K. had had almost no notable amateur background. It was only after all this back-and-forthing with the names etc. started that I discovered he had actually once been a quarter-finalist at Wimbledom (1927, I think). That's a pretty fair showing. So I changed my words to say he'd been a "fine amateur" and forgot to revise the earlier statement. I'll fix it all up tomorrow. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 04:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten the Karel Kozeluh article to reflect everything I've said in the other two stubs. I wish someone would expand it.... Hayford Peirce 28 June 2005 04:34 (UTC)

Total madness! I've just discovered that there was a Jan Koželuh who was a Czech contemporary of Karel's and who was an equally good player. Apparently they were not related. It is Jan who was a Wimbledon quart-finalist twice and Karel who was the successful pro (as well as being a great ice hockey and soccer player). I've rewritten the Karel Koželuh article and started a new article about Jan. What next? A third Kozeluh mebbe? Hayford Peirce 29 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)

---

Archiving on WP:AN:

Are you using automated software to archive Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? You appear to have removed a large number of discussions from the page, but you have not added them to the proper archives. An example is [5]. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive28 has not been edited since June 16. I'm afraid this is going to require a large amount of cleanup work. If you're using a bot to perform the archiving, please turn it off until it can be fixed. Rhobite 05:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

---

American Nihilist Underground Society:

Hi. You recently replaced the redirect at American Nihilist Underground Society with {{deletedpage}}, but didn't protect the article, so it's still receiving periodic vandalism. If it was an oversight not to protect it, could you please do so? If it was intentional, I think the page is doing more harm now than it was as a redirect, and I would appreciate it if you clarified your intentions. Thank you. —Cryptic (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Endocentric:

You seem to have added to Endocentric the phrase

For example, if a has a "lion house", that phrase is endocentric since it functions as a noun, as are its two constituent words.

I'm afraid I can't make any sense out of

if a has a "lion house"

which I assume was an editing error of some sort --Trovatore 05:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Lithuania:

Ok, thanks DeirYassin 08:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

---

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21).:

Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of abuse against me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, etc. are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Good to see you again:

You're right probably. :-). Still, I'm an admin and have some responsibility to stay up-to-date and weigh in on new policy. (Luckily no-one managed to create a policy for the automatic de-op'ing of admins after an arbitrary amount of time...). Your advice is appreciated! — David Remahl 03:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Reply to comments on my talk page:

Noel, I am sad that you consider me to have committed what you consider to be an offense against your authority. (Although, of course, not one against Wikipedia rules.) I take my responsibilities as an admin very seriously, and I am quite upset that you are calling into question my good faith, and, in particular, my ability to keep my roles as admin and editor separate.

Let me explain my actions. I did two things: First, I unprotected the article, which had been blocked for over eleven hours to keep out a 3RR sockpuppet editor, to allow anyone to edit it, as is normal. This was a purely technical action, and quite in accordance with policy; protecting pages to temporarily halt edit wars is only intended as a temporary measure, and is not intended to be used for long periods.

Then, almost two and a half hours later, I went back to the article, wearing my normal user's hat and edited it, in what I considered to be good faith and in a way that was fair to both sides, and also reflected other editors' discussion in the talk page -- note, for example, that I replaced the list I removed with a cite to the original source of the removed text -- and left the article unprotected as before, still available for anyone else to edit. Note that the article was unprotected both before and after my editorial edit.

Now, if I had wanted to abuse my admin powers, I could have simply edited it whilst protected, or used any of a number of subterfuges to hide my actions. As you can plainly see, I did not, and all of my edits are clearly visible, and are as explained above. I can only imagine that when you made your comments, you had not checked the timestamps.

Please calm down before you begin describing other people's actions as "egregious" or an "offense". May I suggest that the way forward with the IP sockpuppet is to deal with them by blocking their IP range, rather than indefinitely blocking pages, or taking issue with other admins? -- The Anome 23:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

---

Celebrating:

Hi! I've just crossed a symbolic milestone. Three thousand edits! I feel like celebrating. Have a cigar! Don't worry, I don't smoke them either, but it's all good :)! Cheers, Redux 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Pi:

I apologise for creation the reditrects for partial representations of Pi, Noel. I left a message on the Pi talk page but no-one answered. Can I either see the page where it was discussed or can you explain briefly the reasons. Redirects are cheap after all... --Celestianpower ^talk 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

---

COTW:

Actually, I may have done somthing without knowing the details. Thanks.--Bhadani 02:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Re: Wikipedia error message on save:

Thanks. Yes, I'm very well aware of that and I did check the history between each save and even waited about a minute each time to see if they were saved. But this time it took even longer than it usually does on these save-errors (about 4 minutes from my first save, it turned out), so I thought the saves hadn't gone through, which also happens sometimes. Shanes 19:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Active Stuff

Akhenaten Aten

Hi Noel, you asked about my removal of "Aten's cult was the target of considerable official hostility after that." from the bottom of Akhenaten. I felt it was not only superfluous (covered by "the Aten cult he had founded almost immediately fell out of favor." earlier in the para) but rather weak given abandonment of Akhetaten, Tutankhaten's name change etc. And the sentence disrupted the flow of the paragraph about how Aten fell out of favour.

And though there's more to be said about Smenkhare, Tutankhamun and Ay's attitudes to the Amun and Aten cults (eg Smenkhare may have intensified persecution of Amunism; Tutankhamun and Ay may have been Atenists who reverted to Amun only for public show), I didn't want to go into the (murky) details. Rd232 11:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protocol

Hello. I don't really have any ideas on the computer-related protocol pages. Apparently protocol comes from a Greek phrase meaning first leaf and refers to the first draft of a treaty. What I had thought of as the primary meaning was the ettiquete of diplomacy, but apparently that's not the original meaning. Maybe a protocol disambiguation page should have one line that points, not to protocol (treaty) but simply to treaty, with an explanation that that's one of the meanings of the word. Treaties are of course products of dimplomacy, so maybe protocol (diplomacy) is ambiguous. But even so I suspect protocol (diplomacy) is far more likely to be construed as being about the ettiquette of formal diplomatic encounters than about treaties, so for now I'd go with that. If experts in that field join Wikipedia, then maybe we'll do better. How 'bout something like this:

---

Protocol is derived from the Greek words προτο-, meaning first, and κολλα, meaning glue, and originally meant the first leaf of a bound volume.

• A protocol is the orininal draft of a transaction, negotiation, or agreement, and by extension, a protocol is a treaty. See treaty.
• A protocol is a detailed record of the procedure and results of a scientific experiment. In particular, see protocol (medicine).
• Protocol comprises the ettiquette and rules of formal ceremonial state occasions involving heads of state, ambassadors, and the like. See protocol (diplomacy).
• blah blah blah blah ..... protocol (computing)
• Network protocol
• Communications protocol
• Protocol (cryptography)
• etc., etc.

{{disambig}}

Michael Hardy 01:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

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

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

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

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Two State Solution

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

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

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

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

Should be removed or augmented with other envisioned outcomes.

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

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

Edit summaries

Here are your comments and my reply from my user page.

I'm afraid that is not realistic in my case. I am engaged in a huge project to make the United Kingdom menu a complete set of all relevant articles, or as near as I can get it. I have made thousands of edits in a month - largely doing other people's work for them. I consider this to be a very valuable project, but I am not prepared to make it even more time consuming. I note what my edits are when they are sensitive. Philip 23:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I usually tick the "minor edit" box for minor edits. I may have forgotten a few times because I am fallible like anyone else. I do provide good edit summaries where appropriate; in fact I have made 23 in the last 24 hours. On numerous occasions I have had to prune them to make them fit within the 30 word or so limit. I think I am actually well above average among Wikipedians in this regards. "Minor edit" really is enough of a description for a minor edit, and the page you linked to merely says that providing further details for minor edits would be, "nice even then". Well I agree, but I don't have infinite time, and I am hardly alone in not doing it - and I am making more edits than almost anyone at the moment, so I have more time to lose.

I will try extra hard to make sure that I never omit to follow these practices, but I am not going to change them. Philip 03:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

African American

I usually prefer to respond as you do -- on the poster's talk page. But if someone doesn't yet have a page set up, then I respond on mine.

Actually, I wasn't "sticking up" for RickK. I don't know him, have never (to my recollection) had an exchange w/him. Just thanking him for restoring the talk threads for AA. That other guy's a real jerk.

"Some" isn't necessary, because you're speaking of African Americans as a collective. The same is true for the use of "and" instead of "or." What about in my case, as I can "claim" all three? The use of "or" would not be appropriate. You're speaking of the whole, them as a collective group, with members among them who belong to a particular subset. (Ever taken a logics class? Simple, finite math.) deeceevoice 17:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but in an article devoted to African Americans, we are, indeed speaking of the group as a collective -- and not of individuals. When you say "or," that means one, but not two, or two, but not three. Yet, there are many African Americans who fit all three categories -- so, the more appropriate word is "and," speaking of the collective. Among African Americans collectively, there are all three heritages represented (no either/or implied -- just a whole characterizing a whole). An exercise in basic logic: "There are red, orange and purple balls in the boxes." Does that mean that every, single box has at least one of each color? One might assume that -- but no, not necessarily. But it does mean that in the boxes, regarded all together, there are balls of all three colors there? Yep. As I said, if one approaches the statement based simply on what it says (not what one might erroneously infer), it is completely correct. Well, enough of that! (I hated logics class.) deeceevoice 19:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I went back and deleted "Many," because that confuses the issue; the sentence is more correct without it. Perhaps you see my point now? Anyway, I think you're probably as bored with this by now as I am! :-p deeceevoice 19:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How to comment on a specific contrib on a talk page

This is to explain my reformatting of two of your contribs on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard.
(In progress. While it looks like you're probably off-line, i'm not going to rush this & make a mess of it; this prelim is to let you know i think you deserve an explanation & will provide it fairly promptly.)
--Jerzy(t) 00:04, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure i understand what you had in mind: each of the two times, you were commenting on contribs by A that B (and perhaps others) had already commented on, and not commenting on B's comment. So you put your comment directly under A's, and indented it further than B's in order to avoid the impression that B was commenting on your comment.
There's a lot of logic to that, but it's a bad idea for a number of reasons.

1. If others follow your logic, and in turn want to comment on the same contrib you did, the first of them should post above your comment, still further indented. The second should post above both of you, yet further indented. There are times when its hard to avoid indenting far enough that the column gets indecently narrow, but the situation we are discussing is not one of them: What is normal on WP is that the first person (B) to respond to A indents, and everyone else commenting on A's contrib indents to the same extent B did, following the last person who responded to A. And no matter how many multiple responses a single contrib gets, that doesn't push unnecessarily far to the right.
2. Those commenting on A's contrib usually have read all the earlier contribs before framing their own comment, lest they waste time being repetitive, and that's a good thing. It's also a good thing if the later readers read those responses in order: then when they read C's, D's, and your contribs, they've just read B's (as C, D, and you did), and don't have to waste time wondering why C, D, and you are so dullwitted as to bring up these minor points after having overlooked the major points that should be obvious to anyone whose contrib is worth reading. But if everyone formats it your way, later readers either read the comments in the reverse order of their occurrence, or go to extra trouble to go down to the end of the comments on A's contrib, and repeatedly read down and scroll back up to read the next one. (And then scroll back down over what they just read.)
3. If some do it your way and some not (nearly all in fact don't), the only way to read the comments on A's contrib in order is to search thru the datestamps to deduce the proper order.
4. In fact, in that mixed-method case, the effect of being the last to have used your method is the same as being the one rudest one forcing your way to the front of the line and yelling, "No, read mine first."

So i trust you'll understand why i adjusted your formating & positioning.
Thanks,
--Jerzy(t) 02:58, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Thanks for response, J,
It doesn't seem to me these cases were like what you're talking abt, but let me comment on that anyway:
The case you stated, using normal WP style

• Any fool can see X.

And Y follows from that.

So we all should Z

--User:A

• I've indented this to show i'm responding to what A said; specifically Z is an unsuitable response to the realities of X and Y. --User:B
• I'm indenting this to the same level that B did, to make it clear that like B, i'm responding to A (not to B). There's no reason to consider Z, because X just isn't true. -- Anon.

The case you want to distinguish that from, using normal WP style

• Any fool can see X.

And Y follows from that.

So we all should Z

--User:A

• I've indented this to show i'm responding to what A said; specifically Z is an unsuitable response to the realities of X and Y. --User:B
  • I'm indenting this a level further that B did, to make it clear that unlike B, i'm not responding to A (but to B). B is right to some extent, but made an important mistake. -- Anon.

More elaborate example of WP style: I nominate Bad article for deletion, on grounds of mopery and dopery. --A

• Delete for reason 1. --B
  • Reason 1 violates the Pauli exclusion principle. --C
    • My art teacher says it doesn't. --B
      • Art teachers rock! --D
    • My gym teacher says it doesn't, and everyone knows that gym teachers rock. --D
  • Reason 1 violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but there are better reasons than that for deleting. --E
• Keep for reason 2. --C
• Delete for reason 3. --D
  • D is a fool -- C.
    • I am not. --D
    • Everyone knows he is, but he still gets to vote. --A

This is always sufficient to distinguish the relationship among comments, subject to the restriction that every comment addresses at most one other comment. (Note above that D made two comments, rather than trying to make one that applied to both B's and C's comments.)
The rule sounds more complicated than it is: two comments apply to the same comment if they are both equally indented, and no comment that is less indented falls between them.
VfD debates tend to make good examples, because it's so clear that a vote is a comment on the nomination, and it's usually pretty clear that which vote or comment is being commented on; breakdowns are usually the reuslt of commetning on two comments simultaneously.

--Jerzy(t) 06:17, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Templates

Thanks for the note, and for the help with templates. I wish I could help more. I tried to get bot approval to help with clearing templates agreed to be deleted, but one admin fairly aggressively combatted it (see Wikipedia talk:Bots#NetBot request). If you can add any comments, or perhaps approach that admin in someway, that would let me do more (hopefully so that all you need to do is hit the delete key :) ). -- Netoholic @ 02:01, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Admin oversight of template deletion is essential. No bots. — Xiong熊talk* 04:33, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Thanks for all your archiving work, it's much appreciated. silsor 15:33, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the archiving work you do. silsor 17:21, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

And again! silsor 04:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Subpage redirects

Hello Noel, could you point me to the discussion or voting where it was decided to keep the old subpage redirects? I would like to inspect the old arguments before proposing any policy changes. Since it was you who added the "keep 7" to the list [6], I hope you could explain the rationale behind it. Any pros/cons I can think of:

Pros:

1. There may be major history that needs to be kept for copyright reasons
2. Some external websites may link to a subpage redirect

Cons:

1. Clutters search results
2. Clutters "What links here"
3. Takes up (little) space in database
4. Can encourage newbies to use subpages or create new subpage redirects
5. Can confuse editors who happen to find a web of bogus redirects with convoluted history

Now, my opposition to Pros:

1. Obsolete histories can be merged or moved to talk
2. Enough time has passed since the conversion away from subpages, websites should have adapted already. Not our problem, if someone has not updated his site for years.
3. Because redirects are cheap, deletion of them should be cheap too, since they can be recreated with minimum fuss.

I also find your interpretation of the various keep/delete rules way too rigid. The text says "avoid deletion", not "under no circumstances delete". Surely we can delete a subpage redirect, if there is a rough consensus to delete it. Policy is formulated that way in VfD every day. Problem is that there are not enough participants in RfD to override old questionable policies by voting for a new de-facto policy. Currently RfD is the backwater of Wikipedia deletion.

I guess I'll be bold and update "keep 7" to allow deletion of historyless historical artifacts and obviously temporary subpages (like /Temp), if no objections are raised. I'd appreciate your thought on this before proposing this on talk of WP:RFD. About the CSD rules, I'm not sure I'm bold enough to tweak them just like that, it seems that even insignificant changes to them cause objections from the "keep everything" crowd. jni 09:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Military history naming conventions

See:Wikipedia_talk:Military_Collaboration_of_the_week#Naming_conventions. Perhapse there is a page which we could draw this subject up as a guide line. Any ideas? -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Further reading/References

Hello and thanks for making me aware of your rationale for dividing the article reference section into two---Further reading and References. The only reason I collapsed them into one sec was my perceived notion of "std wkp format", and to keep the number of "auxiliary secs"* as low as possible (which leads to more concise articles, IMO making them more readable). However, I very much see your point, especially after reading your comment at my talk page. :)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to use a References sec only, but to list the references under separate italicised** subheadings (not subsecs---they also clutter up the TOC & article IMO; even worse than separate secs), my suggestions being Further reading: and Academic sources:. How about that? Anyway, I will certainly work through (some of) "my own" articles (those on my watchlist, that is) in order to split the refs into said categories. --Wernher 21:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(* By "auxiliary secs" I mean those "std" secs like See also, References, and External links.)
(** I have noticed that some other contributors use italics for non-subsec "subheadings".)

Minor edits

Regarding your post on my Talk Page.

I have not read the link you provided and have no plans to: if you can't be bothered to do more than post a link and say "read this," then I can't be bothered to read it. It's the basic principle of proportionality in action. If you feel I'm in error on some point and you want me to acknowledge or correct it, it's up to you to tell me what you're talking about, not make me guess your intent.

In any case, if you feel how and why I mark edits distorts, impedes, or abuses process, or is otherwise a roadblock in the path of improving Wikipedia, I invite you to file an RFC, where you can — and, indeed, are required to — describe in as much detail as you like where I've gone wrong. If it's not that important, then please stop bothering me. --Calton | Talk 07:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: I've taken the liberty of nowiki-ing a {{disambig}} and fixing some DVD/D template tags on this page.

Three unrelated questions

On Wikipedia talk:Redirects for deletion#Automagically, you mention the little pop-up, but I couldn't find it. Where can I find it?

I replied to your replies further down on that page. I'm curious to see a reason, but I can live without it. I'll just add VfD to such pages and won't care what happens afterwards.

Regarding New Stuff: Are you aware of the {{usercomment}} template?

Sebastian 08:50, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

RfC re: Wareware's blatant racism

Just stopping by to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the above-referenced matter -- and also for stopping by my talk page: "He was so far over the line there that the curvature of the earth had removed it from view." That gave me a chuckle. I guess there's humor to be found in almost anything. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 21:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. Actually, I didn't reformat the RfC. SlimVirgin kindly took the time to do so (I'm having hardware and software issues that I must attend do) because, apparently, that's the format that is required in order to have one's RfC considered -- I suppose because it's a way of providing verifiable documentation for each offense. The last time I checked, there were, I think, four or five people who'd signed on and none endorsing Wareware's account. I note with interest, though, a user named Pharlap is going out of his way to make excuses for Wareware and has started his own campaign against me. And get this: he's a black man. (Well, biracial.) He's actually even called me "racist." But has he bothered to sign on against Wareware? Nope. Go figure. I'm not worried, though. While, yes, I've lost patience with people on the site and not always been nice about it, I've never (and wouldn't ever) used racial slurs; it's just not something I do (or think). *sigh* Wikipedia is getting to be more trouble than it's worth. But, anyway, thanks again for your kind words. Peace. deeceevoice 02:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I may be missing your point, but a key element in my RfC is not only Wareware's racism, but the fact that he has actually stalked me from article to article, discussion thread to discussion thread in order to attack me. His attacks have been premeditated, purposeful and systematic. Are you saying you think the examples go beyond the scope of that, or that you don't think the stalking issue is an important one? deeceevoice 03:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why the posting rule?

I was curious as to why you have the unusual rule about posting above the last section? The software supports a feature for adding comments to the very end of Talk pages (the "+" sign next to "edit this page") — people who use this feature may never even have a chance to read your instructions before they post. — Matt Crypto 17:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My request to edit MediaWiki messages

Instead of adding a link to MediaZilla, you could link to Wikipedia:Bug reports so those unused to bugzilla won't be alarmed. Thanks!

BTW I've suggested changes to Wikipedia:Copyrights at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights (and another person has requested an interlanguage link). Probably there are some other channels to go through for such changes? What do I do? Thanks for any info. -- Paddu 08:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This, that, and the other

1. Your system (including the 3rd H0 tag, "New Stuff") fails when the sidebar link "Post a New Comment" is used; in some skins, I gather, there is a "[+]" tab with the same effect. I don't say you are right or wrong; I merely mention it. Perhaps you have a method for detecting careless messengers.

2. I carelessly dumped "Down the memory hole" below "New Stuff". Since my fear that it would quickly be deleted by some black bag team has abated, I suggest you may wish to delete the box. You may like to replace it with a link to User:Xiong/Minitrue, if you feel that preserves Talk.

3. Would you consider a Charter Convention? — Xiong熊talk 02:21, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Users

In fact I'm using {{subst:user|Username}}. I think that I got it from the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never tried it any other way... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{User} template

Hi, is there any particular reason you are using this with "subst" (e.g on WP:PP)? You don't need to, and it just causes page bloat. (The bloat on WP:VIP was so bad I was moved to change the instructions there to remove the "subst".) Same goes for {Article}, of course. Noel (talk) 21:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind and convert to using templates directly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for answering on someone else's talk page. You may see Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits for why subst: is preferable at times. Ignore this message if you already knew this. -- Sundar (talk · contributions) 16:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me. -- Sundar 05:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Archival

By the way, your Talk page has grown so large that I must reload it 4 or 5 times before I can add a new comment. You might wish to consider archival by your chosen means. — Xiong熊talk 20:16, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Please see my Talk. — Xiong熊talk 22:12, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages

Linking to disambiguation pages makes monitoring the addition of new inbound links difficult. Right now, linking to fish (disambiguation) is:

• Fish
• User:Jnc
• Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages
• FISH (redirect page)

If it wasn't for Fish, there'd be one link, the redirect.

So, a collection of all the pages you've ever edited is nice, but if you link through a external http link I don't have to keep checking why there's a link coming from your page to a disambiguation page. I changed your page to be a link to WhatLinksHere because I assumed you were interested in maintaining the inbound links rather than a trophy collection of edits (there's a little link in the top-right corner called "my contributions" for that). If you must have a categorised collection, use http links to minimize inbound link pollution.

Also, please sign all entries with ~~~~. Thanks! Josh Parris ✉ 05:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

VA Historical Society

Thanks! BTW, if you like the talk box on my user page and talk page, I can make one for you in about 3 minutes, gratis. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 22:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Superfluous/VfD template removal

Hi there! This has come up on TFD twice this week, and it seems prudent to just get rid of it as it's about 10% of template namespace... on Bot Requests, you say you'd be happy to help. Glad to hear that! Maybe you could talk to Kevin Rector and/or AllyUnion? They're the two foremost experts on bots that come to mind. It seems nobody much reads the BR page anyway :) HTH, Radiant_* 11:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation Style

There's a survey you may be interested in - Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Style#Survey Josh Parris ✉ 02:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Twisted Tales of Felix the Cat

Hi, I was updating a voice actors page, and this animated was listed, I double checked with imdb and it was actually titled "The Twisted Adventures of Felix the Cat", so I moved the page, and fixed all the wiki links, except for the one on your user page. Just thought I would drop you a note to let you know.

<>Who 20:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, I was pretty sure I remembered it as the "adventures", I just doubled checked with IMDB. The main hits I got for "tales" was in VHS/DVD release. I looked at a few other sources (dont have them handy atm) and they all showed "adventures" for the series. I will look more into it if you like, as long as its correctly listed I dont mind it being either one.

Who?¿? 18:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, unfortunately, after further review, although the majority of my sources, and memory, referred to it as "Adventures" the official offical felix site has it listed as "Tales". Unless for some odd reason they changed it over the years. Every reliable source I could find showed it as Adventures. I should have proposed the move, I was in a bit of a hurry working on something else at the time, still have a lot to get used to on wiki. I am not an admin, so I believe it would be in the best interest of wiki to revert it, if you aren't opposed. Any thoughts? <>Who?¿? 23:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

00Axx

Hi, why do you want to keep 00Axx as a redirect?

It's not speedyable, and redirects are cheap. That would likely have been its fate if I had sent it to VfD anyway. Denni☯ 23:08, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Archiving WP:AN

I would be fine with doing this. I follow the AN pages and do have a fair bit of time on my hands. Though if anyone else really wants the the job they can have it. - SimonP 21:37, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Disambiguated primary topic disambiguation"

Hi,
You may have noticed that, following some discussion, this idea of yours showed up at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Now someone wants to remove it, and honestly, I don't see any good reasons why, according to protocol, it should be there. I suggest that you either provide a link to the discussion we had over this, or go to talk and defend the idea yourself. --Smack (talk) 18:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony O

I just used the move function. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "microsoft specific characters" AndyL 11:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wal-Mart Protection

It looks like activity on the talk page has died down. The newly-registered user was likely the anon IP doing all of the POV deletion. I posted a message on the user's talk page and on the Wal-Mart talk page and haven't received a response. Perhaps the user has moved on. Are you willing to unprotect the page to see what happens? Feco 19:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Algaesave

Hi Noel: Yes, I did check to see if the article had history that was used in any current article. Its history contains just one material edit and I made a textual comparison of that version with the current Algae article. There were no significant duplications, which is why I stated "No part of its historical contents appears in Algae" in the deletion log summary. Thanks for keeping an eye on things.—Theo (Talk) 19:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FlowerofChivalry

Hi Noel, thanks for the heads-up. I know nothing about the subject so I'm not going to get involved, beyond asking people to stop cursing at each other. I'll tread even more cautiously now. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

If you have any input on the Flowerofchivalry/Iris Chang/Nanking issue please don't call the other user names on my talk page. If you want to, there's some questions you could answer, same ones I asked FoC, if you like. I've agreed to act as an advocate for Flowerofchivalry, so I can't really express an opinion. I'll try to assess the situation and advise, as well as try to help everyone else understand the point he's trying to make. It seems pretty important to him, so it stands to reason that it will be important to someone else too. If he has a valid point, I'll help him express it. If he has an invalid point, I'll try to help him express it, and try to help him comprehend why the community thinks he's wrong.

I absolutely don't care what happened prior to now, except as it helps me understand the issues as expressed by everyone. My only interest is in creating an unbiased factual encyclopedia. I think that the consensus process works when all parties try to make it work, and when it fails everyone should just be a little nicer and try a little harder to understand each other. Thanks for your help.Pedant 04:03, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

Vinnie (Vincent) Richards

Hi, I can understand you changing Vinnie to Vincent in the list of Pro championships, but are you going to do it for *all* the players, so that Pancho Gonzales becomes Richardo Gonzales, Fred Perry becomes Frederick Perry, etc.? Vinnie Richards was *always* known as Vinnie when he was playing, never as Vincent except in extremely formal lists. I personally think that the common names of all the players should be left as they are. Is Pancho Segura gonna become Franciso Segura? No one would know who he is.... Hayford Peirce 1 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Okie, I see where the confusion arises. I've just done a Google, and there are about 850 references to "Vinnie" and 530 for "Vincent", which is suggestive but not conclusive. I have two large encyclopedias of tennis, one an "Official" one from the USTA of about 25 years ago, the other the even bigger new one by Bud Collins called Total Tennis. The first one has more stats than write-ups. It refers to Richards, as far as I can tell, as Vincent. Throughout Total Tennis, except in a couple of tournament results, Richards is always called Vinnie, with many references to him in various articles. Frank deFord's biography, Big Bill Tilden, has many references to Richards, always as Vinnie. When I was young, I knew people who had known Richards, and played against him, and they always referred to him as Vinnie. I don't know enough about him to know what he called himself. But I certainly won't argue with you about this if you want to change all the Vinnies to Vincent.... Hayford Peirce 1 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen

Hi, I wondered why Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen wansnt showing up on my watchlist. It has been blocked since 20 June. I think some of the dispute has died down, and request you remove the protection. Thanks <>Who?¿? 04:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Noel 18:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the unprotection, of course, my luck, the same user went back to blanking the talk page, I already reported it on WP:AIV. Just thought I would let you know, I kinda feel bad now :) . <>Who?¿? 03:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If you didn't really want to archive the Talk: page (it was only 54K or so, not very large), let me know and I'll move it back (you can't, the replacement now has edit history)

Yea, I really didn't want it archived, still had things in discussion, was just hoping it would actually do some good, seeing this some of the discussion was about him. If you don't mind, you can move it back, now that you have the rest of his ip range blocked. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 20:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Butch Buchholz

Thanks, this whole "redirect" thing can be very confusing. I wrote the new article and thought that I had fixed the Earl (Butch) Buchholz article to be redirected to the new one. And then thought I had deleted the appropriate thingee. I'm still not clear if *anyone* can delete a redirect under what seem like appropriate circumstances, especially when the article in question also seems like it might be deleted.... Sorry for any confusion I've caused. And thanks for your help. Hayford Peirce 23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Hey, now that the reason that Libertarianism is being reverted all the time is blocked for another 24 hours, is it strictly necessary for us to have that page locked? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh... forgot I'd done this... - Ta bu shi da yu 05:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Alfrem (talk · contribs) is now permanently banned from editing the article. We'll still have to deal with his sockpuppets, but we might as well identify them now that we have the attention of ArbCom and a favorable decision against him. I would suggest unlocking it- we have some legitimate disputes that need resolution. --Malathion 23:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleted page

Heya Noel, I deleted a few of them, but only because they had been around for several days and I figured the editor who kept recreating it would have gotten bored and moved on... I guess I didn't want to see the page and up on anyone's random article page. Sorry if I've made a mistake here!

Out of interest, which page was it? I can restore and reprotect. I think there is a tag to be used for such pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Magdoff and the VENONA book

You mentioned here that you had available to you another secondary source reference as to Magdoff's activities. On the contrary to your implicit assertions, I believe this would be very valuable. Would you please cite the instance in which he is named, including the page number and relevant footnotes, etc.? Thank you very much. --TJive 16:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Would you take a look at User:Nobs/Magdoff and make any edits that seem necessary. Any criticism or help you can do is greatly appreciated. thx. nobs 16:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Database groveling

...it blew out again, at close to the same point (might have been the exact spot; I didn't keep the other copy to be sure).... you said you got like 80% of the way through, doing the gunzip | grep on your machine? If you still have the output file from that, or if you're willing to run it again, it would be interesting to try my program on it, to see if it works OK, and see what the data looks like. ... Noel (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I think I was wrong about how far it got, the output is only 25mb, I had too many complaints about the lag during its run (host lots of sites), so I couldn't crunch it again. I dont' have my local linux server running here, was gonna run it on my pc, just have to get it setup to do so. I see you may have got further on the talk page. Sorry I couldn't help further, atm. If you still aren't getting anywhere, let me know, as I will be trying to get it done on my local pc, just have to re-d/l the dump, I deleted it off my local pc. ∞Who?¿? 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

yea I deleted the dump, so I would have to re-download it. I still have it on my server, but cant re-grep it. It's no biggy to re-d/l it though, I got it in like 2 hours I think. Granted I wont be here the rest of the night, but it can d/l in the background. ∞Who?¿? 20:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand you. You downloaded the full dump to your server, and still have it there? And to do any actual processing on it, you'd have to copy it to another machine you have, on which you used to have a copy, but from which you have now deleted it? Noel (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea, d/l the full dump both to server and local pc, the server couldn't handle the grep's because of how much work goes on for the websites, not sure if my friend del'd the dump on server yet. And yes, to do any further work on it, I would re download it to my pc, find the right tools (windows on pc, linux on server), to work on it. I have grep, but not sure I like how it works, and would have to write a program to parse the rest of the data, which isnt really that difficult anyway. I wasn't sure how much you had completed, so I didn't re-download the dump again. Which I can still do. ∞Who?¿? 17:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea I believe I still have it or can get it fairly quickly. I can run your prog on mine if you want. Sorry took awhile to get back been gone all day. ∞Who?¿? 20:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Will have it again in about 1hr, 55% d/l done. Compiled your prog on my laptop, its a bit stronger than my pc. Will let you know the outcome in a few arns. ∞Who?¿? 22:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Now I am getting this error:

unexpected char '=' in '== Speculative non-fiction books
about artificial intelligence ==</comment>'

I'm sure its just an extra characther in front of =, so I'm gonna decompress the structure and fix the error. If that doesnt work, I'll just edit your prog to look for it and recompile it. ∞Who?¿? 00:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope its an error in the dump file, I'm going with the full page dump of 16JUL right now. ∞Who?¿? 00:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, same error, I think same spot on new dump. I think the prob is with gzip, I just found a patch on their page discussion long files. Have to compile a new version and try again. ∞Who?¿? 04:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

That didn't work either. Seems the real error is either no EOF on the dumps or the progs are failing. I tried 2 versions of gzip, rar, and winzip, they all error'd out. I finally got it unzipped, so I think this is a full parsed file, using your program. http://questdesign.net/db.xml I parsed another copy of the dump and got the same size file 683k, http://questdesign.net/output.xml.gz is the output, 169mb uncompressed. So I'm guessing even with the error, it may be all of it? ∞Who?¿? 06:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea sorry, I can tend to be cryptic if I have a thought in my head. Ok, so yea I still have the full dump on my laptop and the server. I tried two different dumps and get the same error in the same spot. I tried the gzip's, rar, and winzip on laptop, all errors, so I monitored progress, it seemed to make it to EOF before the error, but that was way off. On the server, it didnt get the error till later on, so I cheated and did "gzip -c -d -f > output.xml" to get as much as the dump as possible unzipped. I figured since i got a 169mb output after running your program, I had it all, or most of it. I forgot to tail it. We need to get another dump from somewhere, I thought I seen another mirror for the dumps, but don't remember where. ∞Who?¿? 12:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it seems Jamesday did a SQL query to the local db with this script, so I guess that is settled. I updated Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits with the data from the recent list. Oh well, I cant do anything if they do it from the local db, but at least its done. ∞Who?¿? 17:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

re: edit count table

Hi - The positonal delta (up/down listed in the table) is currently done based on the "last week's ranking" in the csv. I don't think the "this week's ranking" number is used at all (it's recomputed). We could drop the positional delta, or modify the script to take as input the output from the last time it was run. The version I've written is a shell, so it's already not what you'd call frighteningly fast. If it needs to keep track of the positional delta, I think I might redo it in nawk or something (perl might be better, but I haven't done a lot of perl). So, do you think we need to keep the positional delta? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the script, it does use the "this week's ranking", to compute the positional delta (it doesn't currently recompute). I'll work on a version that doesn't use the ranking information. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Easiest would be the same format as the previous .csv file, but it's only a 50 line shell script so it doesn't really make a lot of difference. Actually, it would be good to have an indicator of whether the user is a bot or not (which I think is in the database, I'm doing this now with an explicit list in the shell script). If the file doesn't have the old/new positions in it (which I think is reasonable), I'm thinking about making the positional delta be "since last posted", probably identifying it by date. The only issue with this is folks newly appearing on the list. What do you think about "new" for these? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I posted awk versions of the scripts at user:Rick Block/wp1000. If you want to run these on the csv file you're generating and update the article that'd be fine with me. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:45, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of edits

Hi Noel, I added a reply to your message at Computer help desk/Dmcdevit 20050718 regarding the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. I'd like to centralize communication there (so there is a record and so we don't have to fuss with talk pages) so would you be willing to add that page to your watchlist? I'm sure we can get this one tackled together. Triddle 17:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, Jamesday just updated the list and posted an SQL script to regenerate it (which I assume needs a complete copy of the database). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Felix Manalo Article

Sorry about the cut-and-paste. It wasn't apparent to me that time that WP provides a move feature. Ealva 22:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Andover alumni

I was looking through the Andover "famous alumni" and didn't recognize many of them. The unrecognizable ones also don't have their own Wiki listing. Perhaps alumni who haven't yet warranted a page should be deleted. Thanks <John> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.11 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

RfD

Just wanted to make sure that someone was watching. Some Wikitasks have been left undone because the last person who cared gafiated, after all. Good for you. Septentrionalis 21:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddam Hussien and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory

This has already been discussed at length. See: [[7]].

And do not poke moved pages, (i.e. change "redirect" to "Redirect") it prevents the page from being moved back. Even worse, people might assume that this is intentional, and that would be considered disruptive and uncivil. I'm assuming in good faith that this was not your intent. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 02:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No. The move was based on a policy established by Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I agree the renaming thing is probably overblown right now. I'm ok with the name as it is though I think the other is more accurate. --csloat 18:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

RE:RfD

Hi Noel. I was just looking through my talk page and I realised I'd forgot to reply to your message (*cue believeable excuses stage-left*). Sorry about the delete thingy, I didn't realise it had to stay there for a week (I'll leave the page alone now :-p). Oh and thanks for the offer of archiving the noticeboard but just as you have no time, I'm currently sorting out WP:PUI and have no time for it either (with a pinch of bone-idleness thrown in too :-P). Speaking of which, I don't suppose you know of anyone that might give me a hand? There used to be me and another admin but he hasn't got time for it either and I just look at huge lists sometimes and want to cry. Anyone, theatre aside, if you do know of anyone please let me know. Thanks a lot Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 05:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

New Stuff

[Please add new stuff here - just stick in a =={Title}== header at the bottom after this one (which you may do in the edit window that comes up after you click on the [Edit] button next to this header). Please leave this header, etc, alone, though! Also, please sign all entries with ~~~~. Thanks! - JNC]

POV Harry Magdoff fork

Jnc, if you haven't already, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff? Thanks. --TJive 19:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

IAS

I'll go see what you've written. As for Fine Hall, both the name and the math department have since been moved to a new building, halfway across campus. This ancient history had not occurred to me when I nominated the redirect, but I still think it should go. (I agree with how you handle replies; watching other user talk pages embarasses me, without necessarily telling me I've been answered.)Septentrionalis 15:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"My blushes, Watson" ;) Septentrionalis 16:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Number redirects

I see no profit to contradicting Radiant, but there does seem to be a small amount of history to the big number redirects, mentioning a system of number names called Rowlett. Septentrionalis 21:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD Cat:Soviet spies

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Category:Soviet spies. Thank you. nobs 20:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on Muwaffaq's page

You said that if he "pulled this kind of stunt again" he would be blocked. Please see this edit [8].Heraclius 04:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Quux

← No relation to Guy Steele; in fact, I didn't know he invented "quux" until you pointed me to the article. The "plus one" doesn't indicate any kind of relationship; it indicates that I needed something random but longer than four characters. :) --Quuxplusone 19:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

1000000000000 and 1000000000000000000

Thank you for deleting 1000000000000; it's nonsense. However, the more nonsensical 1000000000000000000 still exists, even after its VFD with 13 votes to delete to 5 to redirect. Can you look into this, please? --A D Monroe III 01:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Victor Perlo

Let me call your attention to Victor Perlo. I would like to separate Victor Perlo's personal biography from Perlo group. He made some interesting quote's in the late 1990s, for example, "The Gorbachev-Yeltsin betrayal, which destroyed the USSR..." etc. Let me know if you are interested in collaborating. Thanks. nobs 21:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism

I commented at User talk:Redwolf24#Vandalism. Redwolf24 23:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

3020 (user)

Yeah, after I put the rfc template on the page, I tried to add it to the rfc page and was having problems accessing the page, so when I came back and the database was working again, that was the first edit I made. It was when I saw that the link was red that I realized that it had been deleted between the time the system went down and I was able to come back and add it to the page. Sorry about that, I should have checked prior to making the edit. (Ugh. System error again when I tried to add this)John Barleycorn 04:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)