User talk:Dlyons493/Archive02 1st of December 2005 to 30th March 2006

Marconi Scientists

Bloody scarey ain't it.. It was on the other night.. still trying to find listing..-max rspct 14:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok , next showing of the series is 21:50 to 22:20 (30 minutes long) on Wednesday 7th December on BBC2 Link to BBC2 . Of couse it won't be the same programme as the Marconi Scientists one-- Its seems to be a kind of nostalgic look at different scandals in 1980's etc such as Death on the Rock.. at least these were the things that they were covering last wednesday.. -max rspct 14:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only reference to the series on the BBC website >[1] -max rspct 15:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

I would like to thank you for your support of my recent successful RfA. If you have any further comments or feedback for me, my door's open - don't hesistate to drop a note on my talk page. Happy editing! Enochlau 11:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dlyons493Bot-generated Arrondissement article layout

Hi Dlyons493! I saw Arrondissement of Charleville-Mézières and Arrondissement of Mantes-la-Jolie, among many others, pop up in Special:Newpages, and they seem to have lots (>100) of communes listed. Have you considered listing the communes in a multi-column format? It would make the pages much shorter and, I think, more visually pleasing. Disclaimer: I know nothing about bot maintenance! Melchoir 00:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

watching arrondissements...

No, I wouldn't do this by javascript, but if you don't want to use a bot, what I would do is get a sequence of HTML with all the links to the articles in it (either the bot's contribs or a category such as Category:France geography stubs. I would save this on my hard disk and do a regular expression replace that replaces (ViM regex syntax):

en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/\([^"]*\)"

with:

en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=\1&action=watch"

This will turn all article links into "add to watchlist" links. I would then open the saved page in my web browser and use Opera's links panel to open handfuls of links at a time.

One could also use Javascript to open all the links at once, or put javascript in your monobook.js to respond to "&close=1" in the address by closing the window when loading is completed, and add "&close=1" to all the links with a regex replace. But with Opera this would be overkill.

I hope that's not too unhelpful. jnothman ^talk 13:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for TheParanoidOne

Hello Dlyons493. Thanks for the vote of confidence in my RFA. I have now officially received the badge, so I shall try my best to be a good administrator. Thanks again. --TheParanoidOne 22:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks a ton for your support on my rfa, the final tally was 50-0-0; I'll try and live up to the expectations of you and others and do my best in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. --Gurubrahma 14:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Thank you, Dylons493, for your support (and for calling the vote a no-brainer, too!) - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 16:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My failed RFA :)

Dear Dlyons493,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And when are you going to run for adminship I so badly want to nominate you. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Míle buíochas

Táim fíorbhuíoch díot as ucht an vóta a thug tu dom ar mo RfA. Déanfaidh mé iarracht gan dioma a chur ort.--File Éireann 21:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reverted edits by 209.158.191.252

You're quite welcome. Care to support another RFA? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lenge

I have rewritten this article providing verifiable sources. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 09:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hangu City and assorted Pakistani cities

I would welcome anyone adding content to those articles. The problem was that they were all completely empty except for section titles and so were eligible to be speedied. In my view, it would be better to start afresh and add content. Capitalistroadster 18:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They 're dead, Jim

What do you mean? Can't we create an article on a "dead" band (Local Knowledge)? --Edcolins 21:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I see you don't like dead links. I thought it didn't hurt to insert that link on top of the article, it might encourage somebody to write an article on this band. --Edcolins 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann's RfA

Hello, compatriot and fellow French-speaker! I want to thank you for voting to support me in my RfA. I know I'm very late thanking you, but I've been a bit caught up with college work. I hope I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. Go raibh maith agat, and merci beaucoup! Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm assuming that you're a compatriot since you live in Ireland and speak Irish, but of course, it doesn't follow! AnnH ^(talk) 18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! No wonder you have enough spare time to edit Wikipedia. Best job in the world! They're even giving me four hours off every week to work on my doctorate. Now, let me see, who could you be? Probably from one of the other buildings, as I don't think there are many in my department with good French! Anyway, I won't intrude on your privacy! AnnH ^(talk) 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces in your bot's articles

Hi - wanted to alert you that your bot has created a bunch of articles with thousands of extra blank spaces (can't be seen until you go to edit) which make the articles unduly large. I've fixed a handful, but many remain (see, e.g., Arrondissement of Corte - the rest are here [2]). Cheers! BD2412 T 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Many thanks for your support during my RfA – following a 30/0/0 vote I’ve now been made an admin. Do have a Jaffa Cake! Cheers, CLW 13:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for voting on my RfA! The final result was (36/1/1), so I'm now an administrator! Shanel 21:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paris streets-list

Hi, I think it would be a pity to have this disappear but it has to be reduced in size to meet wiki standards. The easiest would be to turn it into a top level page pointing to 26 alphabetical linked pages. But I think added value would be got by breaking it down by arrondissement - you ask how would this make it smaller and it's true that some streets would duplicate over of the 20 arrondissement but, even still, each of the 20 articles would be close to the recommended 30K or so. The two solutions are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Dlyons493 Talk 11:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. So how can we go about it? There should be a way to save the info, which I think is more than a directory, because many of the streets could justify Encyclopedia articles or are named for famous people. -- JJay 18:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added List of streets in Paris, France in alphabetical order into Portal:Paris. It's only got A and B as proof-of-concept but will be easy to do the others in the same way. I'm sure there must be more elegant ways but feel the best thing is to save the data first (I've made a local copy of all the names and can do the other letters quickly). What do you think - if you've a better way let me know or just go ahead and do it. Dlyons493 Talk 21:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is really good. If there is a better way, I don't see it now. In any case, it could always be changed later. The important thing is to hold onto the data for the time being. Thanks a lot for doing this. -- JJay 00:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I still wonder if this is a good idea, but it's managable if it's split into 26. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, I had completely forgotten about that street list - glad to see it's still kicking : ) Dlyons493, thanks a million for the heads-up. I had compiled that list at as an addition to a custom dictionary of all things - then thought it would be "fun" to "wikify" it and upload it here. I have to say I did agree with the later AfD comments that a such list would be "un-encyclopaedic", so I scrapped it - surprised to see you caught it in time (and how did you find it?).

But how to present it? I still have all the "data" if the need be so no worry about losing it. Cheers!

ThePromenader 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And please by all means have a go at that portal! It needs all the help it can get. ThePromenader 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm so sorry about that page deletion thing. Was I clear enough in my explanation? Why not start a WikiProject for this? I'll participate for sure - I will be photographing practically every street (I have a website for this - http://www.paris-promenades.com) and I have Hillairet's "Dictionnaire des rues de Paris" and the Mairie de Paris' "nomeclatures et alignements" - a good start, non? : ) ThePromenader 00:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Please start a Wikiproject, I'm completely game : ) ThePromenader 03:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rue Zadkine

This is great. It is exactly why I wanted to try to save the Paris list, because it might encourage people to do some research and write about streets they know. There have got to be tons of streets in Paris that have a history worth telling, and I know that the whole world is fascinated with Paris. One small point, do you think it would be better to wikify the names in the article, such as Mitterand or Heloise, rather than the street or square? Anyway, good job. -- JJay 02:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Moulton

Just wanted to let you know that I've made some improvements to the Dave Moulton article (bicycle builder). Please take a look, you may want to change your vote on "articles for deletion." Crypticfirefly 06:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chung fu Tzi

I saw you reverted vandalism on this page. I believe all of this page is nonsense. Can it be deleted? Is there a process for this? KI 22:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biffeche

Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 16:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! I've changed my vote to Keep for Biffeche. Tearlach 18:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you also created the French article from scratch. May I suggest you link it in to some other French articles (Senegal and others) to get some attention from French editors ? They may be able to clarify. Wizzy…☎ 08:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Rue de l'Abbaye, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 18:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biffeche

I hereby award the Barnstar of Diligence to Dlyons493 for an excellent catch on Biffeche, a superb piece of high-speed research. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! ×Meegs 23:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howch e ng {chat} 07:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Baudrillard

Why did you suggest redirecting Monothought to Jean Baudrillard? An alternative would be Polythought. --JWSchmidt 05:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking I might redirect Monothought to Polythought and re-write Polythought so as to describe both monothought and polythought. But it is not clear that these terms are noteworthy. What is "OR"? --JWSchmidt 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the OR material seems to be Claude Rifat, a biologist with interests in chemicals that alter brain function. Since I'm interested in such things, I did some reading of webpages about Claude Rifat. In my view, it is not clear that he is important enough to have his own Wikipedia page. I came close to making a stub for Claude Rifat, but I have decided not to bother. Both Monothought and Polythought are now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --JWSchmidt 21:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mut'ah

You are right - numbers may be just estimates. I will try to find reputed source, failing which I think the text should be modified to reflect the numbers as estimates. And, a happy new year to you.--Bhadani 16:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{web-screenshot}} tag

I've noticed you've uploaded some images tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Wikipedia.PNG, for example). I've retagged the images below as having no license information. Please edit the image description pages to include information about the licenses these images are under. —Bkell 06:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CarteSundgau.JPG

You claim that this image is in the public domain. How do you know this? It seems unlikely to me, since it came from [3] (but I can't read French, so maybe I'm missing something). Additionally, I'm not asking you to change any of the metadata of the image. We just need to establish that the image can indeed be used on Wikipedia. To do this, find out exactly what type of license this image is being used under, choose an appropriate tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags or Wikipedia:Template messages, and then edit the image's description page to add the tag. —Bkell 00:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on the French Wikipedia page about this image being in the public domain. The image there is tagged as copyrighted. Where are you seeing that it's a public-domain image? —Bkell 00:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is copyrighted, then you can claim that its use in the Wikipedia article falls under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law, and pick an appropriate fair use tag; or, better, you can ask whoever holds the copyright to the image to license it under a free license such as the GFDL. If you must go with fair use, the best solution in the long run would be for you or someone else to draw a new map from scratch and either release it to the public domain (i.e., abandon all exclusive rights) or release it under a free license. One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that (ideally) everything on Wikipedia can be used by anyone for almost any purpose; this is why fair-use images are discouraged. But if this map (which is an excellent map, by the way) must be used under fair use for the time being, and there isn't a good free-license image to replace it, then that's what we have to work with. —Bkell 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrondissement of Saint-Denis, Réunion

The boundaries that you are talking about correspond to the communes. There are five on the dark green part of the picture I added since there are five in the arrondissement. Thierry Caro 09:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cela ne poserait pas de problème majeur. Il faut toutefois savoir qu'il existe ici une série de cartes permettant de localiser chaque commune une par une. Si ces cartes étaient effectivement placées dans les articles qui leur correspondent, la numérotation que tu proposes serait quand même moins nécessaire. Thierry Caro 12:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RFA support

Hi Dlyons493/Archive02 1st of December 2005 to 30th March 2006! I've just come back from a very refreshing wikibreak, so here is a belated thanks for your support in my successful RFA. I see you have many admins to call upon, but hope I can be no less helpful around the place. Have a happy new year (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman ^talk 17:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Stephen Goodfellow"

Hi Dlyons493,

I was wondering if I might change your mind about the deletion of "Stephen Goodfellow" it having been marked as a vanity page. Individuals have from time to time accused of being vain but nontheless, I don't think it detracts from whatever humble achievements I have obtained. If you check out the record of the article, you will see that I did not place myself on Wikipedia, I merely discovered it and added to it. A cursory search of the Web may convince you that the item is not wholly hot air or, as Jabo puts it, "bollocks". If you need corroborating individuals to verify my achievements, I will be glad to produce them.

Some quick examples: Stephen Goodfellow, Micropointillism: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Stephen+Goodfellow%22+micropointillism&btnG=Search

Music: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Stephen+Goodfellow%22+music&btnG=Search

Physics http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Stephen+Goodfellow%22+physics&hl=en&lr=&start=40&sa=N

Finally, being somewhat new to Wikipedia, I find that I needed to place signature and verification. I will do so in the future.

Happy New Year!

Sincerely,

Stephen Goodfellow I can be reached at esteban@goodfelloweb.com (please place 'wikipedia' in the subject - I get a LOT of spam.)

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Dlyons493! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. BTW, I really like your signature. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of "Streets of Paris"

Dlyons,

Thanks a lot for your support of the Paris streets list - you motivated me into turning my error into a WikiProject. I think the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paris_Streets is going to make it through deletion consensus just fine, so I would like to start on it soon - would you like to help too? I could also use your input about naming conventions (and other details) before we begin - I am relatively new here so perhaps you've already had some experience in matters like this. Anyhow, thanks. ThePromenader 11:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biein compris, mon cher berger : ) I'll be thinking too, but it's true that the choices are few. We'll see. Thanks! ThePromenader 10:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for your link contributions - I even have personal use for them : ) THEPROMENADER 13:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern

Hi Dylons493. Sorry I didn't explain that more. :) What happened is that an editor had first voted for me but removed his/her vote later and the comments below that were then left for AnnH's vote. I see that you were one of the people who left a comment too . As you know AnnH is an admin and an editor who has made thousands of edits. So sorry if that looked suspicious but I did not want to have a comment give the wrong facts about an editor. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for your message. Like I said it was a strange event. :) Please take time to determine vote. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Carrick-on-Suir

Thanks for asking me for help. But I don't think this is anywhere near the stage that necessitates a block, just a message on the user's talk page. I probably wouldn't have even threatened a block except that you asked me to. Anyway, you don't really need an admin to do stuff like warning people. An admin only has the role of knowing the policies to decide if a particular action is correct, and has the ability to implement the action. So in the future, feel free to leave a message for people who do problematic things. jnothman ^talk 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can't always be sure when writing to an IP that a person will get it, and maybe I should leave a disclaimer in case the wrong person does, but you're better off writing it than not. jnothman ^talk 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Hey, thanks for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. - FrancisTyers 00:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrondissement of Saint-Denis

Hello, I see you've been working on French arrondissements. There was a confusion with the arrondissement of Saint-Denis. I disambiguated it (see Arrondissement of Saint-Denis). Now, that leaves the Arrondissement of Saint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis article to complete. I thought you'd want to do that. Hardouin 12:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hello Dlyons493. Thank you for coming so close to supporting my Rfa! ;) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my fellow resident of Dublin!

Mr. Lyons, thank you so much for your support of my RfA. Now that I am an admin, if there is anything I can do to help you out, please just let me know! I see that you are a Dub! I live in Tallaght, right near the Square. See you around! Thanky thanky, Babajobu 16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ha, that's funny...then we've doubtless rubbed shoulders at Cornucopia or Juice or Govinda's or something! Babajobu 21:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street infobox

Hey, thanks for the infobox compliment - but it ain't near done yet : ) I've just contacted Mark on WikiTravel about his maps (in use in the Paris "Arrondissement" articles) and will be putting that either up top or on the bottom (methinks the latter) - looking yet for a suitable "general paris" map to put up top so that we can put a dot or line showing where the street is in Paris. I'll be transforming the infobox into a template (tonight if I have the time) with data inserts. Reading up on that now. The infobox was the best way I could think of of getting the more repetitive and "dry" info out of the way. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that the infobox is looking better. While I'm at it, even if you're only going to be a "sometime" contributor, could I sign you up for the project all the same? A gathering can sometimes attract a crowd : ) THEPROMENADER 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis sur la queue - d'ou tiens-tu toute ces infos? I think the boulevard de l'Hopital article is no longer a stub at all : ) - Braveu! THEPROMENADER 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles For Deletion

Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.

You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish User Boxes

I don't like the St. Patrick's Flag version I've seen, so I created my own...your welcome to use it.

This user is Proud to be Irish.

Cheers,

Rowlan 19:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles on afd

If you move an article that's on afd, please make sure that it still points at the discussion instead of a redlink; this helps the discussion be found if you stumble across the article (or actually wrote it), instead of just reading afd. You can do this either by making a redirect (as I've done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eamon Bulfin), or by editing the link in the afd notice. —Cryptic (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bot problem

Your bot created the page Arrondissement of Brignoles on 4 December. The problem is that, as you should see here, it put it millions of spaces. The page was 47 kilobytes long! I'm afraid that every page it makes may be like this, and there are many pages like this. If you could sort this out, I'd be very happy. Thanks in advance. Thelb ⁴ 16:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what happened here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Arrondissement_of_Angoul%C3%AAme&diff=36255452&oldid=30104811 ? 68.39.174.238 20:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QQ

Why is your bot adding QQ to the end of every line in Arrondissement of Angoulême? -- King of Hearts | (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the message you left on King of Hearts talk page. Does it matter that I just reverted one of your edits? If so, sorry. I reverted your edit to Arrondissement of Saint-Gaudens Thanks --Nick123 ^(t/c) 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, saw the message on talk eventually. The edit summary could be more helpful, like See wherever --pgk^(talk) 21:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'm stopping at Arrondissement of Tarbes for now. Will pick this up another day and change bot edit message to make it clearer what's going on. Dlyons493 Talk 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completed Arrondissement of Castres

Completed Arrondissement of Riom

Completed Arrondissement of Vannes

Completed Arrondissement of Fontainebleau

Finished

List of rhetorical terms

Hi Dlyons493, I hope you don't get discouraged by those responses on the deletion page for List of rhetorical terms. I, for one, find it an extremely useful idea for a page, and I'm still confident we can convince the other editors of its merits. People just haven't been aware what a well established scholarly tradition this kind of list represents. Please go on! (By the way, as a suggestion, I'd probably prefer to keep entries on the list page rather short, max. 2-3 lines, with links to main entry pages taking precedence over exemplification on the list page itself.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. There have been some other favourable interventions, and the vote fortunately seems to be now swinging safely towards keep. Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrondissement pages

Hi Dlyons493. I notice that the Arrondissement_of_* pages were generated by your bot last year. Over the last month, I have been updating links to the Canton pages in the Cantons_of_the_*_département pages (see, for example, Cantons of the Essonne département), which I have now completed. I would now like to perform the same updates in the Arrondissement_of_* pages. I have started to do this (see, for example, Arrondissement of Belley), but before I continue, I would like to make sure that my changes do not conflict with anything you have done or may be about to do. Could you please leave a reply on my talk page? Many thanks.

Kiwipete 20:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you were improving those articles and meant to contact you, but just didn't get around to it. If you're doing this work manually, it might be easier to let me know what changes you'd like made and I can probably change my Jave code that generates the articles and then re-run the bot. Or I could just mail you the source files to allow you to do global search and replace if that fitted in with what you want to do. Dlyons493 Talk 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just learnt a little bit more about Wikipedia, and how to conduct two-way conversations! So, I've copied your reply from my talk page back here, and I'm happy to continue the conversation here.

The main change I concentrated on was to make sure that all canton links point to a page with the name "Canton of xxx" rather than "xxx". This is because the "xxx" page, where it exists, is related to the commune of that name and not the canton. It seems that each arrondissement has a canton of the same name (unless the canton has been split up by number (e.g. Arrondissement of Poitiers has Poitiers 1st Canton etc, or direction (e.g. Arrondissement of Châtellerault has Canton of Châtellerault-Nord etc), and each canton has a commune of the same name. I did do my original changes manually, mainly because there are only 96 metropolitan départements. There are 329 arrondissements, and the edits I'm making are fairly simple, so I'm happy to continue in this manner. Out of interest, could I see your java files? I do java development for my job, so I'm curious how your bot works. Can you email the files to me through Wikipedia, or do I need to tell you my email address? Regards, Kiwipete 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to see the Java files (although they're not very elegant). However all they do really is selects from an Oracle database I've set up and reformat the results into the text of the articles. The bot is totally separate and uploads the text. I'm using python (a language I don't actually know) from [4] but the basic functionality is still accessible. Small amounts of stuff I can put on my user page but anything bigger would need to be mailed - isn't that possible through wiki without you having to give me your address? Dlyons493 Talk 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Rahimi Boroujerdi

See User talk:Rahimiboroujerdi#Alireza Rahimi Boroujerdi; I think we both want to do right by him, as long as concerns over [{WP:AUTO]], WP:V and WP:RS can be resolved. Hope that's right, Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Valens

Hi, JFK's death clearly had historical import. But Ricky Valens? Okay, too glib: the MANNER of his death -- a plane crash, one which killed two other rock-and-roll stars -- is worth noting. Same with James Dean and possibly Kurt Cobain. C.S. Lewis, well, just died. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, notice of Lewis' death is still there and has presumably ALWAYS been there since it was added umpty-ump months/years ago. Nothing has been or ever has been subtracted, and comparison with notable/non-notable events in the Events section is meaningless. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa vote

Hi Dlyons. Thanks for explaining your vote clearly. Not trying to change your mind, as it's your vote & it's not my place to question it. All I'll say is I didn't realise the way I'd quoted WP:NOT had upset you, and I'm sorry. It was very unintentional, and it's a shame this couldn't have been nipped in the bud; if I offend you again, please let me know at the time via my talk page. Regards, Proto t c 07:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to drag this out, so I'm going to leave it here on my own page - but perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough. The point is not that I'm upset and I certainly never believed it was intentional. The point is that I feel writing batter creator over the head, repeatedly to ANY editor goes against the basic wiki principle of civility. 'Nuff said. Dlyons493 Talk 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it was like saying "pour a bucket of WP:NOT over him", or "make him take a break in WP:NOTville"... just a colourful way of getting my message across (in these examples, as with yours, it's "please see WP:NOT"). I'm sorry that my choice of exposition did not sit well with you. I will think ahead more, on any possible misinterpretations of such comments in future. Thanks. Proto t c 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this a couple days earlier while visiting 'upstairs' - since I am the person the phrase in question was targeted at, perhaps a word from me could be of use: Proto was right - my uploading the list as it was was a dumb idea, and I actually agreed with the WP:AfD - but there were two things 'missing' from the 'WP:NOT battering' comment. 1) I have yet to find exactly what 'part' of WP:NOT uploading a such list has broken - when refuting an action or error in citing a refence (especially WP protocol) one must be precise as possible and prove that he is certian the reference is there; otherwise the critique itself can be criticised (if it is indeed inexistant) and this can lead to argument. This for me is the most important part of this all. 2) 'Battering' can be seen (and used) by some as an 'attack' - I did see the humour in it, and this in light of my obvious newbie error, but not all are as reasonable as I : )

If you don't mind I'll keep out of the vote thingy; but it looks as though you're going be an admin, Proto. THEPROMENADER

PS: Dlyons493, I hope you didn't mind my leaving a message here. It seemed the right thing to do at the time but perhaps it was 'hors protocol'. Apologies. THEPROMENADER 08:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mennen

Thank you for your kind words. I find it hard to feel good when a proposed AfD doesn't go may way, (but the end result is worth it). Anyway, this makes your words of encouragement all the more appreciated.Obina 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibat

Hi, I've updated this AfD with some info, and am notifying everyone who has participated in the discussion so far. I'm doing this because I think some users have misunderstood what Ibat is. Please read my comments at the AfD, and if you wish, update your comments. Thanks! Mind matrix 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi Dlyons493/Archive02 1st of December 2005 to 30th March 2006, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Quarl

Hi Dlyons493, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 11:25Z

Karen Cashman vandalism

seems like they stopped. i'll try to watch out for any more vandalism from that IP. let me know if you see them start doing it again. Keep up the good work :-) Alhutch 21:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stanek

You recently left a comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruin Mist about articles related to the author Robert Stanek. You may like to know that the page on the man himself is now up for deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek. I avoided merging the two together as I felt that the arguments for deleting the pages on the fiction didn't quite apply to the page on the writer, but thought it best to let you know in case you wanted to participate in this related discussion. Shimgray | talk | 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the DFC, have a look at [5].

You probably did not realize that the government did not keep a cumulative record of DFC recipients therefore no one knows how many were issued or to whom. Our organization was not founded until 1994 so we represent only a small fraction of recipients.

So not being on there doesn't represent not getting it; it represents not having joined the society. (We also don't know the Korean vet was his father - there's more than one Robert Stanek) Shimgray | talk | 15:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago (for a WP:RD question, in fact), I dug up a document giving the number of medals issued for various campaigns. 108 DFCs are recorded as being awarded in the Gulf War and related operations, so whilst they probably have a list, it doesn't seem to be available. If you cared, you could FOI service records, but it doesn't seem worthwhile for idle curiosity. Shimgray | talk | 17:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chowkabhara

I've removed my {{wikify}} tag. Does the article need to be renamed? It is entitled Chowkabhara but the first sentence refers to Chowka bhara. Thanks for showing the article a little love. James084 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khurshid Marwat

I think this is all cleaned up now, including the vandalised vote. Thanks for checking! — sjorford (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Khurshid Marwat

It appears to be modified only after the VfD was concluded, so I think a simple revert and warning the anonymous IP of vandalism would just do fine. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 11:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure do. Oh, and keep a watch on the second nomination...in case it happens again. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 11:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how this AfD goes - I'll keep an eye on it too for any goofy voteflipping. If it's kept, I would support your removal of the unverifiable information from the article, unless any of the Harvard IPs/possible sockpuppets can come up with a source for us... (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply...For unverified facts that need souces, use {{fact}}. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 06:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or need my help, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Dlyons, thanks for your welcome. See you soon in spanish recent changes. Bye!. --Emijrp 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse

Hi, although I have the same IP address as the person who keeps changing the Kilkenny names thingy, I didn't do it and am on a system where a number of users are sharing the same IP. niall123

RE:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bogside

My apologies! It should have been per Vercalos. Thank you so much for pointing out my 'error in judgement!' I have since corrected this. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's so lifelike

Hi Dlyons. I am astonished to find-out not only that Dlyons493Bot is a human but that Dlyons493 is a bot! This is historic: I think you have passed the Turing test. ×Meegs 12:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heh, very good! I haven't, but really should read that book, The Third Policeman. ×Meegs 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for voting in my RFA. Although you chose not to support my request, the final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. I appreciate your comments and will try to take them on board. Stifle 17:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Nomination for adminship for (aeropagitica)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to vote for me in my recent request for adminship It ended successfully with a final score of (40/10/5). I value all of the contributions made during the process and I will take a special note of the constructive criticism regarding interacting with users in the user talk space. If you have questions or requests, please leave a message. (aeropagitica) 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot infrastructure

Hi, Dlyons. While things clear up at w:es regarding authorization for the bot, I wanted to ask you a few questions about the code you use for article creation. You see, I've compiled quite a bit of data from PD sources I want to upload to the Spanish wiktionary, and I don't want to do it by hand unless it's absolutely necessary. If you have some code I could reuse, I'd be very grateful for that. Unfortunately, I'm quite a lousy coder myself. Best, Taragüí @ 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of have the article stubs; I used sed and awk to format some raw dictionary text I had into article-ish format. What I was wondering was how to use the pywiki framework for mass uploading. Do you have a diff I could take a look at? TIA. Best, Taragüí @ 10:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It actually doesn't. I know how to use the pywiki framework (I actually run a bot), it's just that I don't know enough python to fix, say, upload.py, to do article uploading. I was wondering if you had edited the code somehow or written a module to that purpose. Best, Taragüí @ 14:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I hadn't noticed the changes in pagefromfile.py. Last time I had checked it, it was broken, and I thought it was unmantained. I'll give it a good look. Thanks a lot. Best, Taragüí @ 18:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Nyaigotti-Chacha

Regarding the Chacha Nyaigotti-Chacha page: The material is correct. There is no problem about that. Its just that someone might post unwarranted information (which has happened before). That was essentially the problem my father would have with this. However, I realize there are verification mechanisms when information is posted here. Forgive me for my rashness. User: Yaledog

I would search university websites on some of those books. I have some copies if you want i can send you the information. You can try searching swahili pages or schools with swahili language programs. Thanks and keep in touch. User: Yaledog

My RfA

Hi Dlyons. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning. If there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. My apologies for speaking in English, I'm still learning 'Bot, with all of its beeps and boops. ×Meegs 06:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neurosolutions

Well, I suppose the most simple example is a google search on "neural network software" [6] which returns neurosolutions as the first hit. :) It's not too difficult to google up several independent reviews and references to the company. Specifically in component based neural network development environments (which seems to be the most popular type today), the short list is very short and neurosolutions is one of three market players. Given the complexity of such tools and the relatively limited market scope, it's unlikely that there will be a boom of other candidates any time soon.

While I do agree with you that it was inappropriate for them to write their own article, it would have been written sooner or later. Perhaps of some interest is that the software list (including neurosolutions) has mostly been taken from a published article called "Ett nät för alla" ("A (neural)net for all"), published in dec. 2005 in "Ny Teknik"[7], the largest technology magazine in Sweden. --Denoir 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish site, not Danish! (Sorry, but it is a sensitive topic for us Swedes ;) ). No, you have to be a subscriber to get their print stuff via the web. Anyway, I habe no idea about the company information - the company sort of follows by the product. They do however have a list of references for a number of reviews [8], [9], [10],[11]. As they (which I havn't verified in detail, but given the listed soures probable) should be independent, it should cover the "multiple references" criteria.--Denoir 23:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Personally I can't believe that I did this as 1) I consider myself a victim of their IMO horrendous software and 2) I positively hate people spamming wikipedia. Anyway, keep up the vigilance - you were entirely correct in that it was shameless self-promotion on their part. --Denoir 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot in Es

I really do not understand either. But I am not surprised. You see, a group of the leaders there take a lot of pride and get all defensive about all kind of stuff when other people go play in their sandbox. They get all haughty and start coming with all kind of principles. The problem I have is that they cannot argue reasonably to defend their position; I mean they are not consistent. They do not like saying Mumbay instead of Bombay because they claim in Spanish it has traditionally been Bombay. However they have no answer when you ask them why then they say Thailand instead of Siam if Siam was the word used in Spanish until about 60 years ago. I have no problem with the specifics as much as I have a problem with the lack of a logic rationale. I think that part of the problem is that in this case the guys there feel proud that they have a high article count (who cares about the number!? I don't) with real articles as opposed to the Portuguese and Polish wiki which they say has a high count thanks to articles created by bots. Many do have a chip in their shoulders. Reason I think is because they come from third world countries and then resent ideas coming from the first world -that is why they have this 'chip in the shoulder' attitude. I really do not know the answer. But yes, it annoys me the arguments they use to deny you the use of the bot. I do not know. Maybe it is bad to use your bot. But so far I have not seen them use a single valid argument as to why not; besides using arguments that look more like resorting to the 'straw man' strategy of debating. Now let me ask you, what is it you bot does? Does it write the article itself? Just the uploading? Or both? Cheers and good luck. Anagnorisis 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glassesdirect

Hi there, I took the liberty of rewriting the glassesdirect article, from scratch really. I wondered whether you could go and have a quick look & see if you still think it ought to be deleted? (I have tried hard to get it to meet the criteria, but no worries if you do want it to go, of course.) Cheers, Sliggy 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuthbert Wimbleshorne

I unprodded him and made his bundling to the AFD official (along with Rowing at the 1956 Summer Olympics). Is that alright? ×Meegs 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For these multi-nominations, it's important to follow these directions and tag the additional articles so that their visitors know that the articles are at risk. Your two auxiliaries to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lior Haramaty need one of these: {{subst:afd1|Lior Haramaty}}. ×Meegs 22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent operability talk page

Hello. The comment on the talk page was a direct attack on Sandstein, which is why I deleted it. I did move it to BJODN though. If you disagree with me, feel free to revert the change - it isn't a big deal. Wh e re ^(talk) 14:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric_J._Lindblom_PhD AFD

See Template_talk:Afdx for how to list pages with previous AFDs properly. kotepho 17:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see below it was SANDSTIEN who attacked first, here it is as it was FIRST and done originaly:

"Patent nonsense (but not as in WP:CSD </wiki/WP:CSD>, unfortunately). Some sort of unsourced, confusing babble on patents for replicators. WP:OR </wiki/WP:OR> if nothing else. Contested PROD. Sandstein </wiki/User:Sandstein> 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)"

This typical injustice occured just because Sandstien is to simple minded to understand the subject and is an EHICS BAITER (a well known form of Bigotry) like Elitist Eric J. Lindblom PhD. "Ethics Baiting" is a technical term.

Similar attacks have come from other elitist "PHDs" "ethics baiters" as here:

http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/3.16.htm

Request the article be revived.

Charles Michael Collins Private Scientist (october 13, 2007 (4:26pm EST)

This protest is being sent as well to management and soon will be posted on the "Self-Replicating Machine" site, as well:

There is a HORRENDOUS circumstance that has been going on for

some time on the net at Wikipedia's site that first arose from a book called "Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines" authored by Robert A. Freitas Jr. and Ralph C. Merkle. who are DIRECT PROFESSIONAL AND ECONOMIC enemies of mine. Such involved strong libel, copyright infringement and, as well a major patent infringement by Robert A. Freitas Jr. at NIAC in a complex rats nest of of deceit and conspiracy which pits the major portion of academia that researches "self-replicating devices" against myself who built the first REAL self-replicator many years ago and patented if (in the mid 90s). This effectively put them out of business after I encountered rude indifference initially in my efforts of mutual friendly development.

They, through the textual world seek to have my technology

including all of its terminology supplanted and credited to "John von Neumann" a scientist with a huge volume of writings evoking of cryptic, complex, and prolific writing skills, long ago dead who did nothing more than write up an admittedly FAILED and very incomplete self-replicator. It is basically a weird form of identity theft of someone dead who is given credit by someone else still alive for inventing something he didn't, used as a cover to infringe by Frietas and sell his scandalous book "Kenimatic Self-replicating Machines" with Merkle. What you have going on is textual experts with little or no scientific capability gaining credit for other people's scientific work for major innovations by doing nothing more than writing libelous words. This brings "scientific misconduct" to a new state of the art.

I have a question. How do you KNOW those putting up those

articles in "Self Replicating Machines" (or Wikipedia anywhere) are not using anonymous proxies to write their own "vain" articles and come in on a new proxy to vote it up? I tried to put this up over a year ago and it went down with ridicule and though everyone editing at the site knows I am the ONLY one with a "self-replicator" there still is no article on me? My edits are removed INSTANTLY time and again without comment. The BIAS WREAKS. I am not a professional editor and I have been trying to do damage control and every time I get what seems to be the same people because they talk the same and use identically the same phrases. Both Adrian Bowers of the failed "RepRap project (never self-replicated but has an extensive section there) and "William R. Buckley" talk the same as I have dealt with both of theses miscreants on-line extensively. They both have a tendency to cow one into political discussions and try to get you to say something to get you removed. Both these two after such episodes, after posing an extreme left wing fight say "All my friends say I'm slightly right wing". I have been having to deal with this "William R. Buckley" now for over a week and getting nowhere but trouble. The first email he shot me was:

"When an author writes prose which is disorganised and rambling, it is not unreasonable for the reader to view the author with suspicion. This reader suspicion is doubled when the author demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of topic detail. For instance, his name is not Neumann; rather, it is von Neumann..."

The history of his comments from then on continue like this to get in rude personal disparages covered behind plausible contrived technical excuses that mean nothing. For example, technical writers like I do most of our writing in what others might consider "run on" out of technical necessity like the following:

Further, since the initiating digital computer which digitally indexes and tracks and error corrects each phase of the fabrication process down to each tile being indexed called the "Digital Referenced Area" (DRA), within this computer, various evolution processes maybe emulated upon the F-Units using evolution type programs to improve the F-Units in various ways. The F-Units are directed, to replicate or do other useful functions while altering various aspects of the tiles (location, size, type etc.) and while placed under stress in various F-Unit "obstacle courses" while tracking statistics on the process and the finished results. When all this is done totally inside the computer alone, without the physical activity of the F-Units being present to slow it down, such bridges trillions of years of evolution in seconds with high degrees of error correction after mutations of the tiles are strategically introduced.

The above would be difficult or impossible to shorten down without losing the concepts completely, and he knows this yet he continues to hound me on it. Some technical discussion requires this. I pointed this out to him many times in our conversations but he has chose to ridicule me personally, time and again instead of accepting my preferred necessary chosen style of writing.

Also note that he continues to attack me for using: "Neumann" (Jon von Neumann's single last name) instead of what he likes: "von Neumann" after I once using his whole name. He says "von Neumann" is the ONLY correct way to do it, even though Neumann himself left it off at times and many other authors have like the "Neumann Compendium" issues. He continued to cow me and call me "stupid" over and over again. And when I miss-spelled ONE WORD "Lipson" as Lipsom" (hit the m instead of the n) in the talk area (not finished work) he had rude comments about that, even though he made more errors than I did when I started pointing them out in retort. He also attacked me for not using the proper "successive indentations " techniques as he described it saying "no one else uses leading spaces" even though "Ironcorona" clearly did as he was the one getting me to do it in the first place so he's just jabbing his finger in my eye on it maliciously. Further he either forgot to do it or did it to further stick his finger in my eye by doing the exactly the same thing as he ripped my work to shreds breaking it up with trivial comments like this. He repeatedly used the personal insult: "lazy" every chance he could upon finding trivial things to jab me with while firing away like a machine gun retorts to all my suggestions then called me a wise guy for my calling my responses "retorts" as here:

Also, leave off the leading spaces in Wikipedia text, as it is not properly formatted upon display. You note, no one else uses leading spaces. Instead, we use the proper formatting tool *:* for line indentation. Why should others have to reformat your text? Stop being so lazy. William R. Buckley 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note the ridicule here when nothing wrong was done then using it as an excuse to call me "lazy" again (I was asking for the link to be removed which WAS there):

remove any existing ...* what? That is, and being properly

expressive, what is it that you want removed? You forgot to mention what that thing is, which is to be removed. Just because you know what should have been mentioned does not mean that others are mind-readers. It is your job to communicate that which you want communicated. Your failure in this regard is an example of you being lazy.

Clearly, you would rather have other people do your work. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not infringing to discuss things. Clearly, this request will be denied. William R. Buckley 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason for editing of your writing. That you are so lazy as to not edit your work should not reflect ill upon those who take effort to read your rambling. Your poor writing style is abusive to those who read that writing. Hence, you sabotage your own efforts by your behavior. William R. Buckley 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

He also called me "lazy" for asking him along with the others to do an article on me that I am not allowed to do on account of a rule I find annoying called the "vanity" rule, even when I am being attacked by an opponent (Friestas and Merkle in their book, listed prominently on the site), here is an example of the badgering I got that tried my patience:

remove any existing ...* what? That is, and being properly

expressive, what is it that you want removed? You forgot to mention what that thing is, which is to be removed. Just because you know what should have been mentioned does not mean that others are mind-readers. It is your job to communicate that which you want communicated. Your failure in this regard is an example of you being lazy. Clearly, you would rather have other people do your work. William R. Buckley </wiki/User:William_R._Buckley> 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The LINK to it ("Cornell's Self-replicating machine") at "External links". No I am not lazy, that's ridiculous. I just don't want to take the valuable time to write something up that will be arbitrarily deleted in minutes like the LAST article "independent operability" was which, apparently I was un-lazy enough to already have done in the first place... no? Also, not being a big shot "editor" or whatever like you having worked for Scientific American I don't really enjoy being an editor that much. That's NOT my calling but was foisted into it by Frietas and Merkle and company. Ever since the patent I have been on a full time treadmill with no time to learn ANYTHING quietly and had to learn this quickly on the fly. You have not been much help (for a newbe at this) and you have kept me pretty occupied dealing with your thin skin and many comments like a Red Baron on my @ss, thanks loads ole' buddy ole' pall! (Says Dr. Nanite). Charles Michael Collins 1:34pm 9 October 2007 (EST)

blocks" for purpose of a self-replicator or limited-replicator is infringing (as I discussed elsewhere herein setting forth

It is not infringing to discuss things. Clearly, this request will be denied. William R. Buckley </wiki/User:William_R._Buckley> 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not infringing to discuss things, true. But do you really want to include knowing malicious infringers in your article? Antiquated concepts or dated concepts? Or for that matter inaccuracies just for the sake of right of discussion? ...and you wonder why I have a bit of attitude. Charles Michael Collins 4:29pm 9 October 2007 (EST)

the claims). I would also like to include this discussion into the text of the article in question after comment from others herein and would welcome rewrites from those that always seem so bothered by my propensity to be accused of "rambling" as maybe I do less my thoughts be broken as I write or others read it.

This is the reason for editing of your writing. That you are so lazy as to not edit your work should not reflect ill upon those who take effort to read your rambling. Your poor writing style is abusive to those who read that writing. Hence, you sabotage your own efforts by your behavior. William R. Buckley </wiki/User:William_R._Buckley> 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC

Having to dog fight with you much has left me little time to sit back and proofread my work as you seem to machine gun fire your rude comments faster than I can respond before I can proofread what's already been written. You give little credence that 1. My technology is the most advanced in the world, 2. I have to formulate it into words that all might understand when usually to understand a device like this with lengthy serial functions REQUIRES long cryptic sentences to begin with and some are impossible to explain otherwise particularly with little time you are giving me to do it. 3. Because LAZY good for nothing reporters are the ones too lazy to do their jobs I am having to do their stupid jobs for them myself and I am overloaded with work and pretty GD grumpy about that too particularly when, it seems I have to do everything myself with my self-replicater technology or it gets carted away in wheelbarrows by infringers. 4. The editor here is like all the new ones: not as good as the old ones, and is driving me up the wall. I miss my original Word Perfect and Definition plus that has me far more than spoiled... I feel I'm riding in a WWII army tank style clunker processor, thank you. 5. Long sentences I personally like if they really mean something and hold your attention, too bad it's not your style... yours is to chop everything up of someone else's making it difficult for myself or anyone else to recognize my own work afterwards. Be glad you are not editing Japanese, I got plenty more but I'll stop there, get a life sheeeeeesh! Charles Michael Collins 5:29pm 9 October 2007 (EST)

Last but not least here is a veiled threat(previous discourse added for your understanding):

(I start off...) For purposes of our discussion on complexity I disagree that that the link you provided presents and form of "self-replicating" device in the least. Of course, it would require an understanding into the aspect of "independency" and the article I wrote on it that was rejected out of a complete misunderstanding by the previous editors of it in the long gone past as provided again below (posted 1:22PM

October 6, 2007 (EST) of late). I would ask that the article be reinstated. (Charles Collins)

On the point of meaning for the term *self-replicator* I agree that independent (no need to invent a new word: independency) operation is important. However, von Neumann defined the term (though others have moved it from self-reproduction to self-replication, owing to some differences in the two behaviors), and he includes within that definition the kind of articulation exhibited by the robots of Lipson. William R. Buckley </wiki/User:William_R._Buckley> 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Von Neumann may have included it but you have only spoken of it here in general, sparse of terms. Where is the specific reference? Quotations please not some book or lecture that he or one of his partisan associates wrote up, especially those

THE VEILED LEGAL THREAT:

This I will do, when and if I am called to testify in court regarding your claims. Otherwise, you do your homework, and I will do mine. William R. Buckley </wiki/User:William_R._Buckley> 04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also notice he scrambles any logic against Lipson and invites me to partake of bootleg materials:

(I start off here...) The device that is linked here presents an interesting toy but is not a "SELF-replicator" in the least because it does not self-replicate its computing means, its data storage means, its actuator motor with its bearings (Collins)

Again, this is von Neumann's kinematic design. It is described in the book Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata. If you do not have a copy of your own, you can instead view the bootleg copy posted on the web at URL <http://www.walenz.org/vonNeumann/index.html> William R. Buckley </wiki/User:William_R._Buckley> 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

..and he misleads the other editors on how he thinks "fair use" applies to patents (which is WRONG no one may make a patented product without permission):

Fair use lets any researcher build any variant of work, with or without attribution. The law does not require attribution; no researcher need disclose her source of inspiration. What is not allowed is the sale of that fair use construct. Are you confusing these two different behaviors respecting this infringement complaint? William R. Buckley </wiki/User:William_R._Buckley> 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, in typical "ethics baiting" style he as alluded to me being greedy:

Maybe that is your calling. Maybe that is where you should turn for the riches you seek. William R. Buckley </wiki/User:William_R._Buckley> 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

...just like Frietas and Merkle did here:

http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/3.16.htm

William R. Buckley and his patent hating, ethics baiting PHD campus associates are simply raising the ugly head of elitist scientist's indiference and bringing it to a new height (or low) and are FLOODING the site with NON-RREPLICATORS to flood my work and self-serving themselves, like news reporters and actors agree to praise each other.

REMOVE THE NON-REPLICATORS PLEASE!

This disgusting trend MUST BE STOP ... NOW!

...

Further are the previous attackers from last year using CLEAR VENOM:

Patent nonsense (but not as in WP:CSD </wiki/WP:CSD>, unfortunately). Some sort of unsourced, confusing babble on patents for replicators. WP:OR </wiki/WP:OR> if nothing else. Contested PROD. Sandstein </wiki/User:Sandstein> 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete, not so much because it is vanity, as much as it is a collection of insane ramblings. But, Where, why did you delete that awesome rant? You gotta love "PATENT HATERS" --Deville </wiki/User:Deville> (Talk </wiki/User_talk:Deville>) 15:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The rant has now been restored for the amusement of the readers. Sandstein </wiki/User:Sandstein> 15:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete or SMerge to Self-replication </wiki/Self-replication> as this name does not appear to be correct. The patents seem to actually be patents [1]

Retracting my vote until I can do more research. If the result is deletion I request that it be userfied. kotepho </enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Kotepho&action=edit> 19:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose userfication because it is substantial content unrelated to Wikipedia (see WP:USER </wiki/WP:USER>). Mr. Collins may store the article on his own computer or website. Sandstein </wiki/User:Sandstein> 09:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice how he is not only objecting but continuing his concerted plan to obliterate all traces of its existence. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

... along withanother well known PHD ethics baiter (like Merkle): Eric J. Lindblom PhD. I PROTEST these wanton, UNPREVOKED attacks.

I hereby request that both "William R. Buckley" and "Sandstein" be precluded or banned from Wikipedia for deliberate, initial personal insults and remarks that continue and, further on a second count "William R. Buckley" until he resolves the suit he, in a veiled manner asserts.

Charles Michael Collins Private Scientist (october 13, 2007 (5:25pm EST)

Taffrail

If you follow the link at the bottom of this article, you will find that many parts of sailboats have their own sites. This just seems to be the format that has been followed on this topic. Also, as for expansion, there seem to be grounds to believe that taffrail carving is a work of art. What is the histry of this? what are the varieties? what does it all mean? are there pictures we can include? ...seemingly, this could grow into a useful and enlightening article. Quepasahombre 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pagefromfile.py

Yes. Rolled back a couple of versions :( I currently have two installations: one up-to-date for normail interwiki stuff and the like, and an older one for uploads (not that I'm using that one too much, since I already pushed the thousand or so pages I was working on to wikt:es). Best, Taragüí @ 09:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunt

Hi, I think the current article version is essentially vandalism. I'd turned it into a redirect to the original subject of the article and suggest reverting to that and warning the editor who has changed it - what do you feel is best? Dlyons493 Talk 09:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my unprofessional opinion, it would probably be best to delete the Gunt neologism article, as well as Gunt (disambiguation) (dis-disambiguate?), and then move Gunt (river) back where it belongs. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ayton

Yes, you noticed correctly. Since his name appeared twice on the list, I did not think it worth discussing whether we should remove one of them. Danny 10:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Policy Management

For the record, I have no problem with sending this to AFD...I removed the PROD tag because I just thought it was borderline enough in terms of notability that it deserved that extra process provided by AFD. Quepasahombre 03:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Heymann

You made a very beneficial change to David Heymann to refocus the article on him as an architect. That you for taking the time to improve the article. I also agree with you that the family-life information did not belong in the lead. However, I do think it is fairly common in biographical articles to have that sort of information somewhere. I moved it down to the very end of the article. Please change it again or comment back if you really feel strongly it should go away completely. Thanks again for your help in improving the article. Best, Johntex\^talk 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your kind words. Scm83x deserves some of the credit as well for reformatting my messy references. I hope others willl agree that the article is worth keeeping. Best, Johntex\^talk 16:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]