User talk:Jnc

Old stuff moved to:

Ship names to User_talk:Jnc/Ships

Village Pump stuff to User_talk:Jnc/VP

Old random stuff from 2003 in User_talk:Jnc/2003

---

If you go to Hypoteneuse, and click on "What links here", some "C" pages still link to it. (Perhaps in other languages? I don't quite understand what's going on.) I'd delete it for you, but not as long as some pages link to it. Noel 12:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Noel, thanks for your quick reaction. I was expecting a week-long voting period. Should I have put the vfd on the [deletions] page?

Those three links are all "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C", so it must mean the English article C. But the current English C article doesn't link to hypoteneuse; I checked. Could it be some kind of database corruption, especially since there are three of the same bogus links?

The links to hypoteneuse are new, by the way. They weren't there before. I think that deletion would be safe; there cannot be anything useful there.

—Herbee 13:36, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

---

You asked on the village pump about the banning of anonymizing proxies. I don't know about on Wikipedia, but it was definitely discussed on the mailing list recently... you could try searching the archives if you are still interested. Pete/Pcb21 (talk)

The link to the mailing list post enacting this policy is now available at Wikipedia:Bans and blocks#Anonymous proxies. (Tim Starling provided the link at Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks.) -- Cyan 23:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Cheers! Mark Richards 23:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I could use your deletion services again though, since I inadvertantly uploaded I file I should not have - thanks - see [1] Mark Richards 00:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Mark Richards 04:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi there - I blanked a load of pages this afternoon because of vandalism, but could not delete them - could you do me a favour and go through and delete the? The all have clear title lines - Thanks! Mark Richards 21:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Noel, you're very kind. I went back and tried to find them, but couldn't, I may have been delusional... Mark Richards 23:45, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

JNC, We had an exchange on the Talk page about alternative theories not too long ago. I have a sense of the other shoe not yet hitting the floor about it. Did my reply address your concern(s)? Need I still think about a shoe in free fall? ww 16:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Noel, The 'other shoe' was merely a timer in the back of my head which had gone higher than a preset alarm value. Nothing else intended. As for an article on conspiracy theories, I'm fine with it, but am insufficiently well versed in variety and details of the species to feel I'm the best (or even reasonable) person to do it. I'll contribute as I can. The primary question just now would seem to be what to leave on the Attack page. That is, how brief can the coverage be to 1) still be fair to the 'looking for an overview' reader w/o 2) leaving the alternative believer feeling slighted. I invite ideas as I see no reasonable path through this sticky wicket (sorry about what I think is a misuse of cricket terminology, but I'm a Red Sox fan).

I'll risk a question on another subject in which you have an interest. There is, is there not, a B minor prelude and fugue for organ? I've been racking my brain to recall the piece I heard Anton Heiler perform live many years ago. It was a profound experience -- one of whom I was convinced the details would never dim -- but the gray matter has been leaking of late... ww 15:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is with some embarrassment (sp? -- no variant looks right) that I tell you that the piece in question is the passacaglia and fugue in C minor (BWV 582, I think). It bothered me so much that I chased down someone from years ago and asked about it. He remembered my reaction to Heiler's performance and also remembered the name of the piece. I still remember vividly leaving the church, sittting at the base of a tree, and resuming breathing about 15 minutes later. Most extraordinary experience I've ever had. Maslovian, even. Anyway, that's the piece.

On the PH alternate theory business, you may find the most recent addition at Talk:PH of interest. The constellation of perceptions in those two paragraphs are not untypical of the genre. It was for that sort of reason that I thought (think) there's no real solution in WP terms. ww 17:22, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

In response to your comments on my Duane Allman edits:

• I removed "tragically" because it is redundant (of course it's tragic - what other kind of unexpected death is there for a young man?) but you are right, this isn't worthy of an edit war.
• Putting intial-capitals in the quotes is Associated Press style even if the quote isn't the start of a sentence from the original speaker, but that is not universal style so I didn't need to push it.
• I changed the "Duane" because sometimes we use it and sometimes we use "Allman" to refer to the same person, which might confuse people into thinking that the "Allman" somehow refers to somebody else, such as Greg - or at least make them stumble over the matter. (First names sound fannish, too.) A.P. style in this case is to use both names if confusion is possible. I would like to do that, although perhaps a bit of rewriting can minimize how often it happens. I would say that in any paragraph where Greg is mentioned, we need to use both names when referring to either brother after Greg comes up, but in a new paragraph we can call Duane just "Allman," since he's the topic of the article. How does that sound? DavidWBrooks 17:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think we have reached a fine compromise on Duane Allman - if I was King of Wikipedia, I would tone it down a little more, but you were right about the use of "Duane" - it works fine.

Speaking of toning down, though, what about the Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs page - what do you think about toning it down a bit, too? (I speak as a man who has worn out two vinyl copies of the album, and own all of Clapton's pre-Lay Down Sally output, so no disrespect intended). Adjectives like "hopelessly" falling in love seem like overkill, as does the too-long description of the first meeting with Duane Allman. Let the facts speak for themselves - if we need to beat the reader over the head with adjectives, we've done something wrong. DavidWBrooks 18:42, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Hello Noel. I hope you come back soon... +sj+ 04:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a note; glad you are still around. I'm thinking of organizing another meetup in Boston soon; are you in the area? I see - Yorktown, alas. Well, come visit us someday. (: +sj+ 03:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Greetings. I noted your appearance today. I added the picture of the Stata center to the MIT AI Lab descendant, CSAIL. Ancheta Wis 01:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your note about that page move. Unfortunately, you've got the wrong man -- the move was done, as a cut-and-paste, by User:Pjamescowie; I simply fixed the c&p and made it a real move. As to where the page should be, I personally lean towards Ramses, but perhaps not enough to start a revert war over it; I deferred to Pjamescowie, who appears to Know His Stuff. However, your comment about consistency between Ramesses and the individual Ramses II etc. articles remains unanswered. –Hajor 15:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the help with SOAP. Saucepan 21:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I responded to you on the History of the Internet talk page. I guess that short of a complete overhaul of the entire Pedia's computer-related pages, an interested outsider like me will have to use other sources to gain a full understanding. But it can't be all the way hopeless. Wikipedia's greatest strength is its constant improvement. Fishal 19:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

how did you manage to edit the SBVT protected page? also, are you aware that the widow of the dead skipper backs up the Kerry side, based on letters & conversations she had before his death? there's an article in the talk archives about that. Wolfman 15:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given that non-admins like Wolfman and I can't edit this article, would you at least provide the source for your addition? I haven't been following this dispute too closely since the page was protected, and I no longer remember where all the different allegations are. JamesMLane 17:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Page is now unprotected so no big deal. JamesMLane 18:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

2 things:

• I've reverted AnonIp I believe just twice on Killian. That is nowhere near an edit war. I have no idea why he insists on puffing up that section, but I'm quite comfortable with my opposition. Sorry if that irritates you, believe me there's lots of behavior on that page that irritates me. I do appreciate that you seem to be one of the more mature and reasonable voices around here, but scold me when I actually get into a war. That might happen on SBVT as we have a history, and I'm not wild about his alpha-dog attitude. But, 2 reverts on Killian ain't a war.

• I have no problem with Bush's service. It wasn't the bravest thing to pull strings for the Guard that way; but hey, he was a kid trying to stay alive. What I've got a problem with is Kerry getting smeared for getting shot at. While Bush, who was half-assing his way through the Guard, is treated like some kind of hero by these same people. My comparison on AnonIp's page was intended to highlight that irony, not to disparage Bush per se.

• As to the Killian memos, I don't much care about the issue; didn't even watch 60 Minutes. But I stumbled across the page 2 days ago, and was essentially floored by the blatant POV. A reader would have just assumed that the memos were acknowledged universally as forgeries. I pointed that out to the editors, offered links, and got the brush off. So, I decided to add a little balance. Not because the topic interests me, but because the partisanship of the editors offended me. Wolfman 02:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, read your comment to AnonIp. If you think that I am someone who feels like I have to have it my way 100% of the time, you have not familiarized yourself with my edit history. That's pretty offensive to me, and absolutely not the case. Even Rex called me "reasonable" on the Killian Talk page last night and then again later on the SBVT page -- and Rex is not known complimenting those who regularly disagree with him. I absolutely try to be fair and reasonable with those who reciprocate. Wolfman 02:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, now you can scold me. I reverted Anonip for a 3rd time. I agree with fish-man's comments on the topic, but not your reply. You do seem pretty reasonable though, so I'll let you be the arbiter of that section. Should have let it be, but that guy Anonip truly irritates me. Checking out of the Killian page for good anyway. Wolfman 05:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

You beat me to the Kenneth Alan delete by seconds. I was about to delete the redirect as a candidate for speedy deletion (redirect from article space to user page). - Tεxτurε 20:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to help me out on these. I'm trying to fix all the talk page links before deleting them. - Tεxτurε 21:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

which order is correct? I'll demonstrate. :-)

#!/usr/bin/python
print "hello world"

Now, I suppose you might be able to figure out what the program does.

Can you now explain to me what it does *in detail*? Which machine code instructions are executed in order to do this, why? Which memory locations are used? How is the display hardware accessed? How does the display hardware translate what it has in its video memory to signals to a monitor? How does the monitor interpret these signals? How important is understanding each phase of this process in this context? How about in other contexts?

So which is harder? Programming, or understanding how computers work? ;-)

Kim Bruning 12:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, changing the wording is best. :-) Kim Bruning 12:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your comments about the 47 Ronin. I agree, the article needs work. In particular, I am skeptical about the details of the break-in and the killing of Kira. The outcome is clear --- they killed Kira and carried his head to Sengakuji. That's the sort of thing an outside observer would know. But I wonder just who was present at the break-in and recorded the intimate details. Perhaps documents of the shogunate recorded interrogation of the prisoners? If so, it's worth knowing.

Incidentally, Kira was a kōke (高家), an official in the shogunate. This is of course distinct from the Imperial court in Kyoto. One could take the term "court official" to mean an official in the shogun's court --- so the statement that Kira was a court official isn't wrong, just incomplete. A kōke was the head of a fief less than 10,000 koku, and thus ranked below a daimyo, but his duties involved liaison with the Imperial court. That much is in the histories. The dramas always play the tension to full effect.

Also, Kira's wife was a daughter of the Uesugi, an important daimyo. The dramas usually have their son being adopted by Uesugi to be the heir to the Dewa Yonezawa han. I think this is historically true, but I can't find a source.

In any case, the research is beyond me! Fg2 23:28, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

---

Why did you delete my entry for September 19 on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion? RickK 00:25, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about that speedy deletion policy. RickK 18:39, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for taking care of the Myst redirects. {Ανάριον} 11:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I have no objection to either Rameses or Ramesses. -- Emsworth 20:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the clarification (and the support). I was simply looking to avoid any sense of impropiety. Mackensen 14:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Sorry; it's just habit. Too many of the lists on Wikipedia are multiple-lists where a single-list should be, and I'm used to taking out the empty lines. Won't happen again :-) -- Wapcaplet 17:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the kind words re: John Taylor -- I've learned a ton researching this little name. (Did something similar for John Porter recently too. Been afraid to even look at John Smith....) I agree, some standardization would be helpful. Birth and death dates seemed apropos for those earlier in history, especially when there were so many "priests" etc. by the same name -- and what exactly does one call John Taylor (1808-1887) -- (LDS president)? (Mormon president)? (something else inaccurate or offensive)? But it seemed less and less useful as I got to modern figures, and now I'm thinking the dates may have been a bad idea. I did not find any guidance elsewhere on this, although fvw's point on "is-a" relationships is one that might be helpful to me.

Anyway, will clean up the JT links you pointed out tomorrow -- I do try to clean up the what-links-here list on those pages regularly, but I guess it has been a while. Thanks for your work, and for your support on RfD.... Catherine | talk 01:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Leeds stuff - much appreciated. [email protected] 04:24, 15 Oct 2004

---

I'm glad to hear that my rant on Talk:MIT was appreciated. I try to do that sort of thing as seldom as possible, so when it does happen, I like to do it right.

Anville 17:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Greets. Elbflorenz (Florence on the river Elbe) is just a very popular city nickname. I thought it indeed was already expressed on the Dresden page, didn´t it ? I will check this out. It wouldn´t be really important if the redirect page was deleted or not because I believe nonnative German speakers will seldom find the word and Germans already know it. NetguruDD 06:04, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Curious. Although I have no memory of the Alfred Beckley article, I checked it out and found that someone had speedily deleted it on the grounds that it consisted solely of an image. What surprises me a bit is that I took the trouble to move it in this case. Anyhow, I can restore it if you want, but you would have to get in there quick and add some text, otherwise it will get deleted again. Deb 19:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Not sure how to resolve this I'm afraid. I suspect we may not be able to. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Doh! didn't realise there was the lag time for RfD! Must have missed this when reading the document. Hope I didn't step on too many toes... - Ta bu shi da yu 13:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I restored anyway as I'm a stickler for rules. And I know they are usually there for a good reason. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

If some of my contributions don't show up in the page history, I won't mind at all. My primary concearn is the final product, not the process. Etz Haim 20:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

WikiProject Ancient Egypt Update:

Hello, I've noticed your interest in Ancient Egypt. A group of us have been discussing the standardization the names & dates of rulers in this subject. As a result of this discussion, I've put together a list of rulers & dates as a talking point for our proposed standard. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Temp, & join the discussion on the talk page. -- llywrch 23:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Nation of Islam anti-semitism:

Actually, they never voted any such thing. From VfD:

Nation of Islam anti-semitism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 6 delete, 3 straight keep, 2 keep merged into Nation of Islam and 2 keep merged into Louis Farrakhan. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the article is kept.

Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

PHB and MPLS:

Ah, didn't realise. Merge tags removed. Also disamiguated PHB while I was about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The Franziska Van Almsick page was to one which existed at the time of the redirect, but apparently has been deleted. I will probably get to writing her entry sooner or later. ErikNY 12:29, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

---

Schismatic temperament:

Why would I request such a thing? Hyacinth 22:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I simply need a page move. I, myself, reverted my own edit to Schismatic temperament (from a quick check it seems anonymous creating correct and beneficial edits). I listed the page as a speedy deletion before discovering the move request page. If you could carry out the page move I would appreciate it (schismic temperament-->schismatic temperament, thus keeping the edit history from schismic temperament).

---

WP:RM:

By putting new ones at the top, you can use a direct link to edit the page, e.g. template:cleanup -- that is how I designed the page to work when I initially created it anyhow. Dunc|☺ 16:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for pointing me to WP:RM. How did I miss that new page :) ? -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

---

DKM:

Yes, it's a pain, but somebody's renamed the root articles to "German battleship...". In any case, I don't think the ships were ever actually named DKM.... As for Admiral Scheer, we do already have an article about him at Reinhard Scheer. :) -- Arwel 01:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I didn't do the Jose Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia → José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia move, I just removed its entry on WP:RM because I saw that it had been moved. I did do Crazy Horse (person) → Crazy Horse and Berkhamstead → Berkhamsted, and I think I sorted out the templates, talk pages, etc., no? I really don't have the time to double-check everyone else's work for errors either (you should see the mess the WP:COTW templates get into...) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem :) Which article lost its edit history? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the developers could recover it in extremis, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

WP:RM:

Thanks for the message on my talk page. You'll see that I added some comments to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, although not before I made the changes (mea culpa: too much being bold, perhaps).

Re: Montreal and Fudge - other than the argument that current policy is wrong, which I respect and for which I have some sympathy but which (I think I am right in saying) would require a policy change, I couldn't see any negative comments, and the four days were up, so I just did it (both case were so clear to me that if the requests were on WP:VP I would have done both of them without waiting for four days).

I dislike the new format too - I just wanted to try it out. As I say on the talk page, headings by subject rather than by date will be better (I can see why WP:RFD does it by date, but traffic for WP:RM in terms of number of articles will be much less, I think). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I still think article headings rather than date headings are the way to go - I've amended it again (no dates this time - that is clear from the nomination) and amended the instructions too, but feel free to revert if you still hate it :) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the single headers - I guess I am just more used to WP:COTW and WP:FAC, where article names are used for headers and the date information is in the nomination. I don't look at WP:RFD all that often, but I seem to remember that most requests go through without any discussion, so a bulleted list works fine. Where, like WP:RM discussion breaks out, a bulleted list with various discussions can be a bit difficult to follow: an article header separates out the discussions and I think makes it a bit easier to follow.

Incidentally, my move of Montreal seems to have sparked a storm - see Talk:Montreal. I may just do what you suggested: move it back to Montreal, Quebec and make Montreal a redirect to Montreal (disambiguation)... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Saishu Onoe → Onoe Saishu:

I've replied to your comments on Wikipedia:Requested moves about Japanese name order. gK 21:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Japanese Naming Order:

What is the standard in the English-speaking world? Right now, because I've been doing a number of edits on Japanese Literature-based articles, I am surrounded on three sides by books -- maybe two dozen -- all written in English. In them probably 99% of the Japanese names listed in them are in Family Name-Given Name order. The only time that there is any difference from that order are people who have lived or published in English-speaking countries and often not even then. It doesn't matter if they are historical figures such as Murasaki Shikibu or popular living poets such as Tawara Machi, all the names are in SN-GN order.

I doubt that there are going to be very many people typing Shikibu Murasaki into the search field for the Wikipedia, but User:WhisperToMe actually created a redirect page (and someone else created a Murasaki redirect page). That's the nice thing about the Wikipedia is that it is easy to create redirects. But the names used for the main articles should be the order in which the person is best known in the English-speaking world, which except for leading politicians, some writers, actors and directors who have worked in English, and a few others, is still the SN-GN order.

FYI: I just checked the Encyclopedia Britanica website -- it looks like they put every Japanese name in SN-GN order. They even had Kurosawa Akira [2] instead of Akira Kurosawa, which I personally don't agree with. They also used just the pennames or haigo for several of the haiku poets that I looked at like Basho and Buson, and didn't include their surnames in the article titles. gK 07:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Pierce:

No, the only history was the creation of the page as a redirect, and the addition of a {{rfd}} template message. — David Remahl 16:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Jozsef Attila, or Attila József, or something else:

Unfortunately your suggestions don't seem to be acceptable for me, because they seem to be contrary to the Wikipedia practice on this point. Please see my detailed explanation and examples at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#October_29. --Adam78 18:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Internet history:

I am so thankful that you've taken some of my questions to heart. It shows genuine commitment to making the encyclopedia better. At some point soon, all these pages will be splendid. Fishal 23:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Leonard Kleinrock:

I was the one updating the Leonard Kleinrock information. I saw the revocations. I have no knowledge of this field except what i was told by Leonard. Obviously you feel the information he gave me was incorrect. I don't have the time to establish what is infact closer to the truth in what is turning out to be a contentious area. I have informed Leonard of your revokations and asked him to contact you directly. So you may here from him and then perhaps this can be sorted out. By the way though - i think we should keep the nice anecdote about the login. It helps to personalizie and dramatize the moment. I may try and get that one back in with or without reference to Leonard ;->. But I would like you to consider keeping it the next time i put it in. Thanks Kim. -- User:Kim_Meyrick 23:43, 10 Nov 2004

I'm sorry i just saw that you had made a detailed response on Talk:ARPANET - ok i've just read it. Yes i did kinda blunder in there - I just thought hmmm - it's not accurate I guess Leonard should know - the horses mouth so to speak! Now i realize that this really is an area in dispute and there are a whole stable of horses - Leonard if you are reading this then please see Talk:ARPANET and read the section under your name for a detailed explanation of why jnc revoked your suggested changes. If you two do have dialog please can you detail it on the Talk:ARPANETpage. Thanks - by the way though jnc - i still think the login story should be in ! :-> Just read your biography feel quite small now haha. -- User:Kim_Meyrick 00:56, 11 Nov 2004

Can you check the ARPANET Discussion page for Leonard Kleinrock's reponse. Also it may be worth taking this offline - and talking to him on e-mail - in my dealings with him he seems reasonable and non combative - this will also save me becoming a go between ;-> I think it would be good to give dialog a go. 'Everyone deserves their day' in court etc etc. -- Kim Meyrick 18:11, 12 Nov 2004

I've just read your comments about the Kleinrock issue my discussion page (talk) . As for the go between I think you misunderstand I'm not trying to be the go between - in fact I was trying to extract myself from that role that's why i wanted both you and Leonard to have dialog either on wikipedia or by mail so that i could stop reporting to both of you. I can see that you have had enough and consider the topic to have already been thoroughly exhausted. Although i think Leonard Klienrock's input maybe of some interest to those looking at the discussion page. I had no idea about wikisource. Leonard has the links to all of these pages so he can catch up to where we are now and pursue matters as he sees fit, perhaps on wikisource. Kim Meyrick 19:52, 12 Nov 2004

---

Hack:

If you had bothered to look at the exercise above, you would have found that the vast majority of Wikipedia pages that refer to hack refer to the technology slang meaning. In other words, it would have been more appropriate to put the other meanings in a hack (disambiguation) page, and refer to that from the top of the hack page. If I hadn't already fixed a whole flock of them, that's what I'd do now. If I sound irritated, I am - cleaning up problems other people leave lying around is not what I really like doing with my time here. Noel (talk) 21:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the vast majority of Wikipedia pages that link to protocol refer to the computing meaning. That does not change the fact that that is stupid. The primary meaning of the word protocol in conventional English is not about electronic computing. I do not agree that the fact that the vast majority of Wikipedia pages that link to hack refer to the computing meaning implies that "In other words" it is "more appropriate" to treat that as the main meaning. Michael Hardy 21:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

... and really, isn't Wikipedia an appropriate forum for remedying the general illiteracy of computer experts? I would think they would be glad someone wants to do that for them. Michael Hardy 21:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS: It was ALREADY a disambiguation page!! But it was not an HONEST disambiguation page, i.e., it did not say that that's what it was. It was a hodge-podge of nearly unrelated topics. Michael Hardy 21:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Attila Jozef:

Well, given the time that it has been on WP:RFD, I doubt we will get much more response by re-listing on WP:RM, even though it technically belongs there.

FWIW, I think the policy is (and ought to be) to list things under the "English" name (i.e. without diacritics where they are not commonly used in English - e.g. Zurich not Zürich, although it seems to have gone back to Zürich at the moment - and with diacritics where they are - e.g. déjà vu not deja vu - and with diacritics where there is no common English useage, and with redirects from one to the other in any event). I've never heard of Attila József, so with diacritics would be the right place, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Vandalism, apparently Phillips Exeter related:

Good move on User:204.164.70.3. I was just about to do the same. Noel (talk) 19:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I got the following email:

Hi and sorry.

I'm a librarian teaching students about using the internet. I have been showing them the wikipedia as an example of a source of information that can sometimes be useful, and sometimes unreliable. They have kind of gone crazy making changes because they found out they could. I'm not protesting the block--it's a good lesson for them--I just wanted to let someone know why all this sudden weirdness from our end.

--slowmind

So that explains it :). Thue | talk 18:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Neanderthal (animal):

Ah, a week, didn't notice that requirement. In any event, I only did this particular one because it was a borderline speedy-delete candidate: it was an unused redirect created manually (not a move remnant still linked to, for example), and it's semantically wrong — I didn't believe there's anyone in the world who would still claim that Neandertals should be disambiguated as "animals". --Joy [shallot] 09:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Deutschland:

I feel silly now for not checking which of the date and the description was right. Gdr 13:34, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

---

AAPA:

Thanks for the warning about the impending deletion of this redirect. I often put in redirects to nonexistent articles because I figure that the article will come along eventually, and when it does,the redirect should be in place. I have added a substub for AAPA. -- Dominus 15:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Zurich#Straw_poll_on_name_of_the_article:

Please cast a vote. Philip Baird Shearer 17:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi,
I found your rant about disambiguation pages on WP:RFD. You seem to be on to something, but I couldn't quite figure out what. Please explain. I've watchlisted your talk page, so we can discuss right here. --Smack 01:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Soon, busy right now. Noel 20:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*poke poke* --Smack 21:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done, see User:Jnc/Disambiguation. Noel (talk) 19:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've long been a fan of equal disambiguation (such as the one I created just today at Chirality). Your consideration of keeping track of whatlinkshere is rather a fine point, but quite legitimate. I'll post a condensed version of your argument at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and any relevant pages on meta: that turn up. --Smack 04:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what you meant by "a fine point". The whole point of my scheme is to make it trivial to find inbound links which are bogus - and the only way to find inbound links at all is with "What links here".

Akhenaten Aten

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

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

Category:Early computers

Hi there. Sorry for not leaving a note on your Talk page about "my" (and many others') scheme regarding Talk threads. I prefer to have each thread on one page; this makes the discussion much easier to follow, like on a newsgroup. I've now answered your most recent comment (again, on my Talk page). --Wernher 13:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Japanese Naming Order

Replied on my talk page. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 18:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

References

Hi, I left a response to your message on my talk page for continuity. - Taxman 17:23, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

New Stuff

[Please add new stuff here - just stick in a =={Title}== header before this one (which you may do in the edit window that comes up after you click on the [Edit] button next to this header) - please leave this header, etc, alone, though - thanks - JNC]

Diacritics in titles

Thanks for your raising the question and notifying me. I submitted my point with a few examples from French, Scandinavian, Czech, German, Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish languages. --Adam78 23:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TCP and so forth

The TCP] page looks great. Really great. And you know what? The OSI model article explains the entire IP concept, and it does it in terms that non-tech types can understand. Links to that article could be made more prominent. I think I'll do that to TCP. Fishal 15:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UTF-8 conversion issues

Although I wasn't involved in any depth in the conversion, I think you've identified the general issue. Although, presumably, all text had to be converted, otherwise browsers would misinterpret it (AFAIK, you can't say "some of this page is UTF-8, some is ISO 8859-1"). But I think the main unforeseen problems were with things like caching: after all the links had been converted, the server cache still contained unconverted versions; so when users clicked a red link in those, the page they created had a broken title, because it was ISO 8859-1 being interpretted as UTF-8 (or some hideously broken 'conversion', possibly). And broken titles can be hell for administrators, because sometimes the move and deletion pages don't work. Obviously, once you know that's going to happen, you can invalidate the entire server cache, but that in turn means the database server suddenly has far more work to do, and everything slows down. So, like I say, I think it was kind of painful... - IMSoP 14:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding factual inaccuracy in Two-state solution

You recommended or even wondered "what is with this guy? why does he tell others to fix it rather than doing so himself?"

Wikipedia Policy Decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins

Findings of Fact

• Lance6wins in his edits to articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes a partisan perspective somewhat similar to that taken by the commentator Daniel Pipes.

Accepted 7-0'

Remedies

• Lance6wins is banned from editing Wikipedia articles which concern the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Accepted 7-0

-- Lance6Wins 11:27, 23 Nov 2004

You mentioned "things will work out" I am rather surprised by this. As a read the above link, I am banned in-perpetuity....apparently for having and expressing (with citiation to articles, newspapers, papers, journals, etc) "a partisan perspective somewhat similar to that taken by the commentator Daniel Pipes." Lance6Wins 16:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your expression of support. There is some saying regarding "one who is not a liberal in youth has no heart, one with is not a conservative in maturity has no sense." dont remember who said it. I suspect that Wikipedia is disproprotionally populated by the young. Fred Bauder would be (another?) exception.

This one seems to have the same idea:

To be conservative at 20 is heartless and to be a liberal at 60 is plain idiocy.[3] Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)