Greetings, and welcome to Wikipedia! Noticed you touching up P.D.Q. Bach—a favorite of mine. Looks like some nice work so far; glad to see you around!
Here are some pages you might want to visit:
Finally, if you haven't already, feel free to sign your name to the Wikipedia:New user log and add yourself to the various listings of Wikipedia:Wikipedians! Also, remember to sign your name on Talk pages (but not articles) with "~~~~" to leave your signature and a timestamp. Thanks for your contributions so far, and happy editing! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think your last revision of Deltohedron is not correct. Deltohedron is more general term than trapezohedron. Note that the dual of trapoezohedron is an antiprism. Also the term trapoezohedron is misleading. Tomo 23:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
<<in case anyone wants to comment>>
<<in case anyone wants to comment>>
You need to explain why you put a POV tag on the Sri Aurobindo article. Please do this on the discussion page for that article. Thanks. -- goethean ॐ 18:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your dab on Roger Price (TV) on You Can't Do That on Television is correct (he's the same Roger Price as The Tomorrow People and other Thames TV shows). -- Kaszeta 03:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the article. I once created tiny stub but nobody added anything into it so it was deleted eventually. Its good real article was written after all. Pavel Vozenilek 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Template:(disambiguation) is very similar to the existing, more widely used, and much easier to type Template:Disambig, but serves a different purpose. It's for disambiguation pages that aren't ambiguous. Josh Parris ✉ 01:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) is a fairly new guideline you might be interested in. Josh Parris ✉ 03:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why have you moved this to List of English words of Greek origin, given that it doesn't contain a list (indeed it used to have a list, but the list was deleted, on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary? Please move it back again. rossb 21:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you should rename this Category:Unknown births to conform to the style we now use (i.e. Category:2003 births. Interesting idea... part of me really likes it, part of me thinks it might get VfDed. gren 02:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{ christianity-stub}} was removed. I (the person who expanded this article from a stubby-stub to a slightly-longer-stub by adding the minor info on tenses and the Genesis excerpt) think that's an error, because despite the length of the article, it doesn't really say very much about Young, his translation, his reasons for making the translation, the idiosyncrasies of phrasing in the translation, and so on. Keeping the categorized stub notice makes it much more likely that someone who knows about this topic will expand the article to a useful size. Stub removal reverted. -- Quuxplusone 1 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
I thought this note under "editing style" on your user page was a little peculiar, first because I'm an American and was taught to put two spaces (the one-space style is called "frenchspacing" in LaTeX), but also because it doesn't make any difference how many spaces you put there in Wiki markup; it renders the same either way. -- Trovatore 07:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
==Foo bar==
instead of == Foo bar ==
, with no following blank line. The output is no different, but the input is in a nice standard format that doesn't waste space on disk or on the screen.\frenchspacing
in (La)
TeX is slightly different, in that it affects the output and not the input. (Wikipedians' editing styles affect the input and not the output.) Also, the default "non-French" TeX spacing doesn't put two spaces after a period — it puts
one big space that is normally quite a bit narrower than two interword spaces put together. --
Quuxplusone
16:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Hello! The merge idea sounds great. I thought there might have been more diverse ways to play that game, already documented here. If i come back, and someone hasn't already done it, i'll take a hack at it.
peace,
shuffdog 06:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I meant to create a second article about the rifle. But, before I could do that you added info to Mr. Henry's bio. I moved the information about the rifle to the Henry Rifle page. I just have not had time to type up my article yet. Please add to each article if you can. Both articles need more info. But I wanted the article about the man to be about "man" and the article about the rifle to be about the "rifle". WikiDon 01:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
So, your username makes me curious. Are you in any way related to Guy Steele (the Great Quux)? Your name has an obvious interpretation, but I have no idea if that was intended. Noel (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!
Can I send the transaltion to you?? Jorgenpfhartogs 13:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Please do not use speedy tags on articles which clearly do not meet the criteria, such as Jason's Gem. Kappa 11:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I only now noticed the discussion going on a week ago at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), but I want you to know that if you ever revisit the issue, please drop me a note on my user talk page. I am in agreement that there should be no hard restriction against multiple wikilinks within a line. I find it appalling that there are people systematically going through Wikipedia removing links on disambiguation articles by citing the current guideline as absolute law. I think that boldfacing the primary term sufficiently distinguishes it from the rest of the line that there is no reason that other words within the line cannot be linked. — Lowellian ( reply) 01:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, any clues as to what happened to cause this editing glitch, which lost a whole bunch of edits to RfD? Your edit just before that one worked fine. Any idea what happened? Noel (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I've added some material on Frederic Clements. My German is very very rusty so I used Altavista Babelfish to do the translation, and left out bits that I thought might be dodgy. I also did a bit of research elsewhere on the web. The article could still do with a fair bit of work, given Clements' importance to ecology, but you might want to take a look. - SP-KP 16:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks, APH 09:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Why was it "changed back"?
This is how I decided to add information in here: I was looking for what forensic means, as I dont't have english as my native language. After searching a lot, I got to see that was its definition.
The change I've made is just because if that was in there it would have been much easier for me. I just wanted it to be that easy for the next person.
Now, why would Quuxplusone change it back to a simple and complicated redirection, while it was providing more information AND the link to the other defitinition as well?
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask that. I'm just not sure what's the best thing to do here. But I don't feel like that "update" from Quuxplusone actually helped at all.
I'm not trying to start a fight here, I just want to learn about the rules of wikipedia since I'm still a newbie here.
I believe it would be better, for any term that has no information on it, to provide at least a phrase of definition whenever it's possible. It seens to me much better than a simple redirection, specially if it's not exactly a synonim. That's just about what links are meant for. -- Cawas 06:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe all that's missing is to add something like this:
-- Cawas 06:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I was actually looking into that issue, about being encyclopedia not dictionary... There's also a solution for that on wikipedia itself. I personally dislike that separation between encyclopedia and dictionary. Regardless, what someone wants to find when looking for a word is information. Be it a simple definition, be it a complex history. The name for that problem in wikipedia I found by accident, while looking for some Red Hat Linux information. It is a stub. Maybe the best thing to do about forensic would be just classifying it as a stub, since forensic is not, by any chance, similar to forensics. It might be deprecated, but I still could find at least one place that I had to look for its meaning to understand the message I've read. I can't recall where it was any longer.
I really don't see any reason to remove relevant information from here. If it's not the right place for definitions, if it's not even a stub, at very least that disambiguation page could link to wikitionary for forensic and another link to forensics with a brief explanation that they're not the same thing. Women is just plural for woman. US is just abbreviation for United States. That's so easy to explain, and I still think it wouldn't hurt even then to have a different page for women and woman. Call it as you want, be it a disambiguation, be it stub, be it a new term, but put in the little information and links wouldn't hurt anyone. If wikitionary and wikipedia are related, why not link each other?
Don't confuse yourself with redirect and link. Link adds information (at very least, the link itself is informational), redirection doesn't. To me redirect is good only for two things: A. while there is nobody willing to add information; B. if it really means the exact samething (can't think of an example, but I can imagine it's possible to exist).
I don't want to, at this point on my life, to look for more information for forensic. Maybe there isn't. If I don't know, it does qualify as a stub until someone who knows could go there and change from stub to disambiguation. But the information that I've put in there is relevant and if you read it you'll see that forensic is about as different from forensics as fly is from flys. They're just different words that sounds alike and look alike with only one letter that's widely used in English to "build" different words, if you look at it in an analytic way (which is defined as Analytic proposition).
I think the s definition is still incomplete...
Maybe you find it hard to understand because you probably have English as native and your whole life you never heard about forensic being different from forensics, but it just is.
And if any conclusion we can take out of this conversation, I think it should be under talk:forensic. This could easily become a FAQ, we'd just need to change all the words. But the meaning out of this, is certainly a FAQ.
As a side note, amazingly enough, there is not a single reference for flys as being a verb construction from to fly. Almost as hard to believe, there is no To Fly verb definition as well.
-- Cawas 14:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was caught in the moment. o_O
Is it ok to use weird smiley faces?
I actually like to debate, I didn't want to flame. But it's also ok to not debate. :)
Thanks for putting and end in here. I think I could hurt myself! XD
And you're right, sometimes I should just be quiet. I just tried to write way more than this subjected should sustain, and I couldn't explain myself on the several aspects neither get this talk done. I could use more poking.
Anyway, I've just added to Talk:Forensic as well. I'm aware of definitions of fly, I am unaware of proper ways to conjugate verbs once in a while.
Now, you just left me one doubt and, please, don't take this as a challenge or something: Which "many English-speakers" are disagreeing? I mean, I though it were just two of us talking, I couldn't read any different opinion. I would love to if there is at least one. People are afraid to tell the truth to the face, but I love the day after they do it... I'm trying to learn how to love the same minute as well. :P
-- Cawas 07:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
quoted: 2005-10-07 01:35:28 Quuxplusone m (copyedit, cat Memetics (am i appropriate or not?))
By the way, thanks for your contribution over there. :)
How can I link to the revision better than doing this? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wear_Sunscreen&oldid=24952487
-- Cawas 16:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I picked up on the style changes you made to the Streak (moth) article. I agree with most of the changes you have made (I do tend to overcapitalize at times!) but I have rebolded so it reads the streak rather than the streak. British moth common names have a rather archaic charm and the definite article is often part of the actual common name. As for capitalizing the common name.....I realize this is a sensitive issue to many people and I have left this one in lc but I will continue to capitalize common names for species in future articles as all British reference works (without exception as far as I have seen) do the same. I suppose its just what I'm used to but it just "looks right" to me. It is not a massive issue for me however and I have no desire to wage a transatlatic style war! Richard Barlow 09:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello and thankyou for your courteous response - some people here get really hot under the collar about this issue:) To be honest with you "fields full of Purple Loosestrife" looks OK to me! I see no reason why the name of a species should not be considered a proper name. Besides it always seems to me to be the best way to disambiguate between, say, Common Gull as in Larus canus and common gull as in any gull there are lots of:) Richard Barlow 16:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
You comment on your user page that "Naturally, I won't edit an article solely to change its spacing or quotation style"... If by "quoting style" you mean "logical" vs. "aesthetic" punctuation in quotations, note that the MoS actually covers this. Also note that in cases where both UKisms and USisms are equally "valid" (afterwards vs. afterward, say), it's not unknown for people to get hot and bothered about flipping between the two... Alai 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I saw you converting html to LaTeX in places. That's good overall, although HTML formulas are considered acceptable also, per the math style manual. And just a remark, also per that style manual, it is good to not have formulas as PNG images, if inline with text. So in that case HTML may be a better choice. Just thought I would let you know. You can reply here, on your talk page, if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
\int f_n(t)\,dt
" versus "∫ f<sub>n</sub>(t) dt
"). Anyway, enough LaTeX-boosting. :) Point is, I don't think the MoS's
three rationales for avoiding LaTeX apply to the
Riemann integral page: the LaTeX integral sign is easier to read than HTML; two more images on an image-heavy page don't much matter; and as I said, HTML isn't particularly good at integrals, or easy on text-only browsers. For things like "x+1", on the other hand, I would never consider LaTeX superior to HTML. --
Quuxplusone
16:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
see my talk 212.143.17.66 212.143.17.66 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) thanks
...which is exactly why I withdrew my proposal. Apologies, though, for overlooking the {{ cfr}} at Category:Year of death missing and thanks for sorting it out! Best wishes, David Kernow 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Quux, I have altered the G&S opera pages to consistently refer to their works as Comic Operas. I noticed that you reverted some of them. Rather than get into an edit war, I wanted to explain where I am coming from.
Gilbert and Sullivan always referred to their works as operas, usually preceded by an adjective, such as "comic." When Gilbert published collected volumes of his operas, he called them Original Comic Operas. When Thomas Dunhill published an assessment of Sullivan's stage works in 1928, he titled the book Sullivan's Comic Operas: A Critical Appreciation.
Indeed, in the vast literature that has been written about the G&S works, they are nearly always referred to as operas. I won't say that nobody has called them operettas, but it isn't common. Indeed, it would be ironic to refer to them as operettas, as Gilbert & Sullivan considered themselves to be creating a new style of light opera for English tastes that was distancing itself from Continental operetta.
The present Wikipedia article on comic opera attempts to limit the concept to 18th Italy, suggesting it is a misnomer to apply the term to G&S. There are many problems with this article. Comic opera, like most musical genres, has been reinterpreted and given new meanings in other countries and eras where it has been practiced and refined. You wouldn't refuse to call Wagner's works operas, just because his concept of the term isn't the same as Monteverdi's. You wouldn't deny Mahler the right to call his works "symphonies," just because his concept of the symphony isn't the same as Haydn's.
We should respect the creators by describing their works as they preferred. Gilbert & Sullivan were closer in time to 18th century Italy than we are, and presumably had very good reasons for choosing the terminology that they did. I think that anyone who would choose to argue otherwise has a pretty heavy burden to carry.
On a related topic, I want to thank you for your project to "wikisource" the librettos. Marc Shepherd 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. You have proposed the article Maxim (saying) for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{ prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I just started writing this article less than an hour ago. Hopefully the introduction I just added explains what the case is. I don't know if you are in the process of doing this, but in the furture, please comment on the talk page about clean ups, and what needs to be done. Please tell me what you think of the new edits, I will continue to work on it. Thanks. Travb 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I saw your copyedit to Hearing (law), in which you moved a period inside the quotation marks. This presumably reflects your preference for "American-style" typography. That isn't consistent with the Manual of Style, though:
So the Brits have to put up with our double quotation marks, and we have to put up with their typography. Unlike spelling differences, it doesn't depend on whether the subject of the article is American or British. That's why I reverted.
Incidentally, I noticed that you also removed initial capitals from piped links. That does no harm, but it isn't necessary. Whether you write [[Hearing (law)|hearing]] or [[hearing (law)|hearing]], it will appear the same way to the reader and will link to the same page, so you might as well not take the time to change it.
I do, however, agree with you about however. JamesMLane t c 23:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.
![]() |
This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject. |
I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here:
Prayers_are_NPOV.
Thanks! -- evrik 14:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. For some reason, the gallery does not display properly in IE7 and most of the time does not display properly in IE6, but it does display right in Firefox. Crazy!!!
Perhaps we should put something like "This gallery displays best in Mozilla Firefox"? Or perhaps add a template similar to that to all galleries?
P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent cleanup, yes my previous attempt was far too long and didn't make much sense.
I've tried reducing what I wanted to say to a single paragraph just now. If you'd like to look over it, feel free. I feel it is important to get across that the XOR swap really doesn't help with optimising compilers, as often after running the various optimisation algorithms, the relation between "real" registers and memory locations and the C/C++/whatever variables is remote at best. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff at 17:38, 8 May 2006.
Why subst it? DMacks 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
you're right... it doesnt work in some pathological cases... i ran a comparison test between it and a mergesort algo... i found it doesnt work sometimes... i'll fix it. Pulveriser 09:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed it... See Talk:Comb sort Pulveriser 09:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I've taken care of your request here. -- G.S.K.Lee 07:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
Why did you remove the external links that I just put in to the song parody site? There are dozens of G&S song parodies there, and I thought it was a useful link to add to the operas where there are songs on the list from that opera? I've put them back. Please discuss this with me if you have an objection to these links, since I think they're an interesting link for readers. Thanks. BTW, thanks for the Mikado edits. We've been doing a lot of work on the W. S. Gilbert article, if you want to check it out. -- Ssilvers 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. I disagree with you. This is not linkspam. And yes, nearly all of the G&S articles have links to websites that do contain Midi files (usually the G&S Archive). A great feature of Wikipedia is that we can gather relevant "external links" so that reader's don't have to go around Googling every little thing. They can come to Wikipedia articles for a one-stop article about the subject they are interested in with appropriate links that they might be interested in. I have made thousands of edits to the G&S-related articles on Wikipedia and created something approaching 100 new articles in the WP:G&S project, so unless you have a better way to give readers easy access to relevant parodies, I don't see why you want to lecture me, call me a spammer (quite offensive of you), and tell me what to do. -- Ssilvers 03:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.
By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You removed the C++ code from the Template Method Pattern page. That's the code I've written. You removed it for your own insights only, without discussing it first. By leaving the Java code intact you implicitly use that as some standard to communicate with. Furthermore, you didn't notify me. You didn't change the code, you completely removed it! I'm not amused by your style. Please leave the code alone and discuss matters first before you destroy other's people work. My time is limited but as soon as I have the time I'll restore the C++ code. Next time I consider you a vandal. Completely removing code just because you have your very own insights doesn't make you any better. Vladimir Bosnjak 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You were named as a respondent in a mediation created on the cabal Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-07 Template Method Pattern. This is a voluntary, informal, mediation process, do you consent to proceeding with me acting as the mediator? Alan.ca 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you insist on reverting changes of "xe" which is non-standard English to much more neutral "he or she"? I am referring to these edits: [1] and [2]. And please note that your edit summaries "rv vandal" and "rv test" are entirely inapproproate and come very much close to vandalism themselves. There was no "vandalism" and no "test" on the part of the anomimous user whose edits you have reverted. The fact that the page in question is an archived AfD page does not mean that we should tolerate non-standard and politically charged English. -- 131.111.8.103 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
If you do, send me 500$ on your PayPal account, thank you for your time. -- 71.246.98.182 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You deleted the category of Video Game Console from Playstation 3 and blamed a user EJBanks as a vandal. Explain yourself, or it will be changed back, and you are found to be vandalizing and using a banned user to make it seem different. However a simple explanation will do.-- WhereAmI 02:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know, if an article's already been nominated for deletion before, as you did with Pixrat.com, you need to create any subsquent nominations on a separate page, not the same page as the previous nomination. I've moved the current Pixrat.com to discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixrat.com (2nd nomination), but in the future, you can create such new AfDs either with the Afdx template, or just add "(2nd nomination)" (or whatever number nomination it may be) along with the article title in the standard AfD template. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Q, thanks for your copyvio alert of the List of 2007 Macropædia articles. I'm not a lawyer, so we should all seek better advice, but I think that it's OK, since they're drawn from the Tables of Contents. Amazon.com and many libraries have traditionally offered the TOC's without fear of copyvio, and I have been assuming that we may as well. I would like to keep the lists, since it is the most direct way of explaining what the Macropædia covers and how that has changed over the past twenty years; but we should definitely figure out what is most correct legally. I replied on the 2007 Talk page as well. Thanks for your help! Willow 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Some days ago, I added a mnemonic to an existing note on the C-style hexadecimal code for CR-LF in Newline. You flagged it with {{fact}} ... and I agree that it appeared to make an unverifiable claim: namely, it seemed to imply that it is widely used, when (to my knowledge) it is not. I've since revised the statement to reflect that it is not widely used, and I was hoping to get your opinion on the new version. I also added a note to the article's Talk page, which you might like to review, explaining why I included it in more detail. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. BlueGuy213 05:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, and welcome to Wikipedia! Noticed you touching up P.D.Q. Bach—a favorite of mine. Looks like some nice work so far; glad to see you around!
Here are some pages you might want to visit:
Finally, if you haven't already, feel free to sign your name to the Wikipedia:New user log and add yourself to the various listings of Wikipedia:Wikipedians! Also, remember to sign your name on Talk pages (but not articles) with "~~~~" to leave your signature and a timestamp. Thanks for your contributions so far, and happy editing! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think your last revision of Deltohedron is not correct. Deltohedron is more general term than trapezohedron. Note that the dual of trapoezohedron is an antiprism. Also the term trapoezohedron is misleading. Tomo 23:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
<<in case anyone wants to comment>>
<<in case anyone wants to comment>>
You need to explain why you put a POV tag on the Sri Aurobindo article. Please do this on the discussion page for that article. Thanks. -- goethean ॐ 18:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your dab on Roger Price (TV) on You Can't Do That on Television is correct (he's the same Roger Price as The Tomorrow People and other Thames TV shows). -- Kaszeta 03:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the article. I once created tiny stub but nobody added anything into it so it was deleted eventually. Its good real article was written after all. Pavel Vozenilek 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Template:(disambiguation) is very similar to the existing, more widely used, and much easier to type Template:Disambig, but serves a different purpose. It's for disambiguation pages that aren't ambiguous. Josh Parris ✉ 01:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) is a fairly new guideline you might be interested in. Josh Parris ✉ 03:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why have you moved this to List of English words of Greek origin, given that it doesn't contain a list (indeed it used to have a list, but the list was deleted, on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary? Please move it back again. rossb 21:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you should rename this Category:Unknown births to conform to the style we now use (i.e. Category:2003 births. Interesting idea... part of me really likes it, part of me thinks it might get VfDed. gren 02:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{ christianity-stub}} was removed. I (the person who expanded this article from a stubby-stub to a slightly-longer-stub by adding the minor info on tenses and the Genesis excerpt) think that's an error, because despite the length of the article, it doesn't really say very much about Young, his translation, his reasons for making the translation, the idiosyncrasies of phrasing in the translation, and so on. Keeping the categorized stub notice makes it much more likely that someone who knows about this topic will expand the article to a useful size. Stub removal reverted. -- Quuxplusone 1 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
I thought this note under "editing style" on your user page was a little peculiar, first because I'm an American and was taught to put two spaces (the one-space style is called "frenchspacing" in LaTeX), but also because it doesn't make any difference how many spaces you put there in Wiki markup; it renders the same either way. -- Trovatore 07:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
==Foo bar==
instead of == Foo bar ==
, with no following blank line. The output is no different, but the input is in a nice standard format that doesn't waste space on disk or on the screen.\frenchspacing
in (La)
TeX is slightly different, in that it affects the output and not the input. (Wikipedians' editing styles affect the input and not the output.) Also, the default "non-French" TeX spacing doesn't put two spaces after a period — it puts
one big space that is normally quite a bit narrower than two interword spaces put together. --
Quuxplusone
16:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Hello! The merge idea sounds great. I thought there might have been more diverse ways to play that game, already documented here. If i come back, and someone hasn't already done it, i'll take a hack at it.
peace,
shuffdog 06:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I meant to create a second article about the rifle. But, before I could do that you added info to Mr. Henry's bio. I moved the information about the rifle to the Henry Rifle page. I just have not had time to type up my article yet. Please add to each article if you can. Both articles need more info. But I wanted the article about the man to be about "man" and the article about the rifle to be about the "rifle". WikiDon 01:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
So, your username makes me curious. Are you in any way related to Guy Steele (the Great Quux)? Your name has an obvious interpretation, but I have no idea if that was intended. Noel (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!
Can I send the transaltion to you?? Jorgenpfhartogs 13:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Please do not use speedy tags on articles which clearly do not meet the criteria, such as Jason's Gem. Kappa 11:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I only now noticed the discussion going on a week ago at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), but I want you to know that if you ever revisit the issue, please drop me a note on my user talk page. I am in agreement that there should be no hard restriction against multiple wikilinks within a line. I find it appalling that there are people systematically going through Wikipedia removing links on disambiguation articles by citing the current guideline as absolute law. I think that boldfacing the primary term sufficiently distinguishes it from the rest of the line that there is no reason that other words within the line cannot be linked. — Lowellian ( reply) 01:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, any clues as to what happened to cause this editing glitch, which lost a whole bunch of edits to RfD? Your edit just before that one worked fine. Any idea what happened? Noel (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I've added some material on Frederic Clements. My German is very very rusty so I used Altavista Babelfish to do the translation, and left out bits that I thought might be dodgy. I also did a bit of research elsewhere on the web. The article could still do with a fair bit of work, given Clements' importance to ecology, but you might want to take a look. - SP-KP 16:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks, APH 09:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Why was it "changed back"?
This is how I decided to add information in here: I was looking for what forensic means, as I dont't have english as my native language. After searching a lot, I got to see that was its definition.
The change I've made is just because if that was in there it would have been much easier for me. I just wanted it to be that easy for the next person.
Now, why would Quuxplusone change it back to a simple and complicated redirection, while it was providing more information AND the link to the other defitinition as well?
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask that. I'm just not sure what's the best thing to do here. But I don't feel like that "update" from Quuxplusone actually helped at all.
I'm not trying to start a fight here, I just want to learn about the rules of wikipedia since I'm still a newbie here.
I believe it would be better, for any term that has no information on it, to provide at least a phrase of definition whenever it's possible. It seens to me much better than a simple redirection, specially if it's not exactly a synonim. That's just about what links are meant for. -- Cawas 06:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe all that's missing is to add something like this:
-- Cawas 06:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I was actually looking into that issue, about being encyclopedia not dictionary... There's also a solution for that on wikipedia itself. I personally dislike that separation between encyclopedia and dictionary. Regardless, what someone wants to find when looking for a word is information. Be it a simple definition, be it a complex history. The name for that problem in wikipedia I found by accident, while looking for some Red Hat Linux information. It is a stub. Maybe the best thing to do about forensic would be just classifying it as a stub, since forensic is not, by any chance, similar to forensics. It might be deprecated, but I still could find at least one place that I had to look for its meaning to understand the message I've read. I can't recall where it was any longer.
I really don't see any reason to remove relevant information from here. If it's not the right place for definitions, if it's not even a stub, at very least that disambiguation page could link to wikitionary for forensic and another link to forensics with a brief explanation that they're not the same thing. Women is just plural for woman. US is just abbreviation for United States. That's so easy to explain, and I still think it wouldn't hurt even then to have a different page for women and woman. Call it as you want, be it a disambiguation, be it stub, be it a new term, but put in the little information and links wouldn't hurt anyone. If wikitionary and wikipedia are related, why not link each other?
Don't confuse yourself with redirect and link. Link adds information (at very least, the link itself is informational), redirection doesn't. To me redirect is good only for two things: A. while there is nobody willing to add information; B. if it really means the exact samething (can't think of an example, but I can imagine it's possible to exist).
I don't want to, at this point on my life, to look for more information for forensic. Maybe there isn't. If I don't know, it does qualify as a stub until someone who knows could go there and change from stub to disambiguation. But the information that I've put in there is relevant and if you read it you'll see that forensic is about as different from forensics as fly is from flys. They're just different words that sounds alike and look alike with only one letter that's widely used in English to "build" different words, if you look at it in an analytic way (which is defined as Analytic proposition).
I think the s definition is still incomplete...
Maybe you find it hard to understand because you probably have English as native and your whole life you never heard about forensic being different from forensics, but it just is.
And if any conclusion we can take out of this conversation, I think it should be under talk:forensic. This could easily become a FAQ, we'd just need to change all the words. But the meaning out of this, is certainly a FAQ.
As a side note, amazingly enough, there is not a single reference for flys as being a verb construction from to fly. Almost as hard to believe, there is no To Fly verb definition as well.
-- Cawas 14:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was caught in the moment. o_O
Is it ok to use weird smiley faces?
I actually like to debate, I didn't want to flame. But it's also ok to not debate. :)
Thanks for putting and end in here. I think I could hurt myself! XD
And you're right, sometimes I should just be quiet. I just tried to write way more than this subjected should sustain, and I couldn't explain myself on the several aspects neither get this talk done. I could use more poking.
Anyway, I've just added to Talk:Forensic as well. I'm aware of definitions of fly, I am unaware of proper ways to conjugate verbs once in a while.
Now, you just left me one doubt and, please, don't take this as a challenge or something: Which "many English-speakers" are disagreeing? I mean, I though it were just two of us talking, I couldn't read any different opinion. I would love to if there is at least one. People are afraid to tell the truth to the face, but I love the day after they do it... I'm trying to learn how to love the same minute as well. :P
-- Cawas 07:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
quoted: 2005-10-07 01:35:28 Quuxplusone m (copyedit, cat Memetics (am i appropriate or not?))
By the way, thanks for your contribution over there. :)
How can I link to the revision better than doing this? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wear_Sunscreen&oldid=24952487
-- Cawas 16:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I picked up on the style changes you made to the Streak (moth) article. I agree with most of the changes you have made (I do tend to overcapitalize at times!) but I have rebolded so it reads the streak rather than the streak. British moth common names have a rather archaic charm and the definite article is often part of the actual common name. As for capitalizing the common name.....I realize this is a sensitive issue to many people and I have left this one in lc but I will continue to capitalize common names for species in future articles as all British reference works (without exception as far as I have seen) do the same. I suppose its just what I'm used to but it just "looks right" to me. It is not a massive issue for me however and I have no desire to wage a transatlatic style war! Richard Barlow 09:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello and thankyou for your courteous response - some people here get really hot under the collar about this issue:) To be honest with you "fields full of Purple Loosestrife" looks OK to me! I see no reason why the name of a species should not be considered a proper name. Besides it always seems to me to be the best way to disambiguate between, say, Common Gull as in Larus canus and common gull as in any gull there are lots of:) Richard Barlow 16:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
You comment on your user page that "Naturally, I won't edit an article solely to change its spacing or quotation style"... If by "quoting style" you mean "logical" vs. "aesthetic" punctuation in quotations, note that the MoS actually covers this. Also note that in cases where both UKisms and USisms are equally "valid" (afterwards vs. afterward, say), it's not unknown for people to get hot and bothered about flipping between the two... Alai 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I saw you converting html to LaTeX in places. That's good overall, although HTML formulas are considered acceptable also, per the math style manual. And just a remark, also per that style manual, it is good to not have formulas as PNG images, if inline with text. So in that case HTML may be a better choice. Just thought I would let you know. You can reply here, on your talk page, if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
\int f_n(t)\,dt
" versus "∫ f<sub>n</sub>(t) dt
"). Anyway, enough LaTeX-boosting. :) Point is, I don't think the MoS's
three rationales for avoiding LaTeX apply to the
Riemann integral page: the LaTeX integral sign is easier to read than HTML; two more images on an image-heavy page don't much matter; and as I said, HTML isn't particularly good at integrals, or easy on text-only browsers. For things like "x+1", on the other hand, I would never consider LaTeX superior to HTML. --
Quuxplusone
16:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
see my talk 212.143.17.66 212.143.17.66 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) thanks
...which is exactly why I withdrew my proposal. Apologies, though, for overlooking the {{ cfr}} at Category:Year of death missing and thanks for sorting it out! Best wishes, David Kernow 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Quux, I have altered the G&S opera pages to consistently refer to their works as Comic Operas. I noticed that you reverted some of them. Rather than get into an edit war, I wanted to explain where I am coming from.
Gilbert and Sullivan always referred to their works as operas, usually preceded by an adjective, such as "comic." When Gilbert published collected volumes of his operas, he called them Original Comic Operas. When Thomas Dunhill published an assessment of Sullivan's stage works in 1928, he titled the book Sullivan's Comic Operas: A Critical Appreciation.
Indeed, in the vast literature that has been written about the G&S works, they are nearly always referred to as operas. I won't say that nobody has called them operettas, but it isn't common. Indeed, it would be ironic to refer to them as operettas, as Gilbert & Sullivan considered themselves to be creating a new style of light opera for English tastes that was distancing itself from Continental operetta.
The present Wikipedia article on comic opera attempts to limit the concept to 18th Italy, suggesting it is a misnomer to apply the term to G&S. There are many problems with this article. Comic opera, like most musical genres, has been reinterpreted and given new meanings in other countries and eras where it has been practiced and refined. You wouldn't refuse to call Wagner's works operas, just because his concept of the term isn't the same as Monteverdi's. You wouldn't deny Mahler the right to call his works "symphonies," just because his concept of the symphony isn't the same as Haydn's.
We should respect the creators by describing their works as they preferred. Gilbert & Sullivan were closer in time to 18th century Italy than we are, and presumably had very good reasons for choosing the terminology that they did. I think that anyone who would choose to argue otherwise has a pretty heavy burden to carry.
On a related topic, I want to thank you for your project to "wikisource" the librettos. Marc Shepherd 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. You have proposed the article Maxim (saying) for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{ prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 21:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I just started writing this article less than an hour ago. Hopefully the introduction I just added explains what the case is. I don't know if you are in the process of doing this, but in the furture, please comment on the talk page about clean ups, and what needs to be done. Please tell me what you think of the new edits, I will continue to work on it. Thanks. Travb 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I saw your copyedit to Hearing (law), in which you moved a period inside the quotation marks. This presumably reflects your preference for "American-style" typography. That isn't consistent with the Manual of Style, though:
So the Brits have to put up with our double quotation marks, and we have to put up with their typography. Unlike spelling differences, it doesn't depend on whether the subject of the article is American or British. That's why I reverted.
Incidentally, I noticed that you also removed initial capitals from piped links. That does no harm, but it isn't necessary. Whether you write [[Hearing (law)|hearing]] or [[hearing (law)|hearing]], it will appear the same way to the reader and will link to the same page, so you might as well not take the time to change it.
I do, however, agree with you about however. JamesMLane t c 23:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.
![]() |
This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject. |
I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here:
Prayers_are_NPOV.
Thanks! -- evrik 14:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. For some reason, the gallery does not display properly in IE7 and most of the time does not display properly in IE6, but it does display right in Firefox. Crazy!!!
Perhaps we should put something like "This gallery displays best in Mozilla Firefox"? Or perhaps add a template similar to that to all galleries?
P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent cleanup, yes my previous attempt was far too long and didn't make much sense.
I've tried reducing what I wanted to say to a single paragraph just now. If you'd like to look over it, feel free. I feel it is important to get across that the XOR swap really doesn't help with optimising compilers, as often after running the various optimisation algorithms, the relation between "real" registers and memory locations and the C/C++/whatever variables is remote at best. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff at 17:38, 8 May 2006.
Why subst it? DMacks 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
you're right... it doesnt work in some pathological cases... i ran a comparison test between it and a mergesort algo... i found it doesnt work sometimes... i'll fix it. Pulveriser 09:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed it... See Talk:Comb sort Pulveriser 09:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I've taken care of your request here. -- G.S.K.Lee 07:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
Why did you remove the external links that I just put in to the song parody site? There are dozens of G&S song parodies there, and I thought it was a useful link to add to the operas where there are songs on the list from that opera? I've put them back. Please discuss this with me if you have an objection to these links, since I think they're an interesting link for readers. Thanks. BTW, thanks for the Mikado edits. We've been doing a lot of work on the W. S. Gilbert article, if you want to check it out. -- Ssilvers 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. I disagree with you. This is not linkspam. And yes, nearly all of the G&S articles have links to websites that do contain Midi files (usually the G&S Archive). A great feature of Wikipedia is that we can gather relevant "external links" so that reader's don't have to go around Googling every little thing. They can come to Wikipedia articles for a one-stop article about the subject they are interested in with appropriate links that they might be interested in. I have made thousands of edits to the G&S-related articles on Wikipedia and created something approaching 100 new articles in the WP:G&S project, so unless you have a better way to give readers easy access to relevant parodies, I don't see why you want to lecture me, call me a spammer (quite offensive of you), and tell me what to do. -- Ssilvers 03:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.
By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You removed the C++ code from the Template Method Pattern page. That's the code I've written. You removed it for your own insights only, without discussing it first. By leaving the Java code intact you implicitly use that as some standard to communicate with. Furthermore, you didn't notify me. You didn't change the code, you completely removed it! I'm not amused by your style. Please leave the code alone and discuss matters first before you destroy other's people work. My time is limited but as soon as I have the time I'll restore the C++ code. Next time I consider you a vandal. Completely removing code just because you have your very own insights doesn't make you any better. Vladimir Bosnjak 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You were named as a respondent in a mediation created on the cabal Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-07 Template Method Pattern. This is a voluntary, informal, mediation process, do you consent to proceeding with me acting as the mediator? Alan.ca 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you insist on reverting changes of "xe" which is non-standard English to much more neutral "he or she"? I am referring to these edits: [1] and [2]. And please note that your edit summaries "rv vandal" and "rv test" are entirely inapproproate and come very much close to vandalism themselves. There was no "vandalism" and no "test" on the part of the anomimous user whose edits you have reverted. The fact that the page in question is an archived AfD page does not mean that we should tolerate non-standard and politically charged English. -- 131.111.8.103 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
If you do, send me 500$ on your PayPal account, thank you for your time. -- 71.246.98.182 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You deleted the category of Video Game Console from Playstation 3 and blamed a user EJBanks as a vandal. Explain yourself, or it will be changed back, and you are found to be vandalizing and using a banned user to make it seem different. However a simple explanation will do.-- WhereAmI 02:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know, if an article's already been nominated for deletion before, as you did with Pixrat.com, you need to create any subsquent nominations on a separate page, not the same page as the previous nomination. I've moved the current Pixrat.com to discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixrat.com (2nd nomination), but in the future, you can create such new AfDs either with the Afdx template, or just add "(2nd nomination)" (or whatever number nomination it may be) along with the article title in the standard AfD template. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Q, thanks for your copyvio alert of the List of 2007 Macropædia articles. I'm not a lawyer, so we should all seek better advice, but I think that it's OK, since they're drawn from the Tables of Contents. Amazon.com and many libraries have traditionally offered the TOC's without fear of copyvio, and I have been assuming that we may as well. I would like to keep the lists, since it is the most direct way of explaining what the Macropædia covers and how that has changed over the past twenty years; but we should definitely figure out what is most correct legally. I replied on the 2007 Talk page as well. Thanks for your help! Willow 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Some days ago, I added a mnemonic to an existing note on the C-style hexadecimal code for CR-LF in Newline. You flagged it with {{fact}} ... and I agree that it appeared to make an unverifiable claim: namely, it seemed to imply that it is widely used, when (to my knowledge) it is not. I've since revised the statement to reflect that it is not widely used, and I was hoping to get your opinion on the new version. I also added a note to the article's Talk page, which you might like to review, explaining why I included it in more detail. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. BlueGuy213 05:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)