User talk:Doug Bell

Leave a new message.

Talk:Multiple inheritance

I restored the content because I felt it was useful to have that record in there. Deleting the talk page would have served no purpose at all. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition

Do you really think this article needs to be merged with Java Platform? I'm not sure I see your reasoning. There's the Java platform, which is composed of J2SE, J2EE, and J2ME. Each is sufficiently large that it merits its own main article. Am I missing something? - ElAmericano | talk 19:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC (standards)

Re: this edit, Where is the magic documented by which RFC 3066 becomes a link? And doesn't this result in overlinking if the RFC needs to be mentioned multiple times in an article? - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where it is documented. I suspect it may be new? I was going to create a template to perform linking to RFCs when I noticed that the Wiki software was adding the links (similar, I think to how it handles ISBN numbers). And yes, it could result in overlinking. I suppose the inelegant RFC 3066 could be used instead to prevent linking after the first reference. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNX - Jmabel | Talk 00:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Context

The edit is done. I didn't see it because I was looking only in the section that was tagged with {{editprotected}}. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 07:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deleting NanoCAD page

I see page about the NanoCAD program is currently under consideration for deletion. I'm curious about why that is. Is it considered a vanity page? Or is it that NanoCAD has such low visibility these days? (It enjoyed some popularity in the late 90s, and maybe I should be content with that.)

If I were to write something about the current Nanorex product, which is in a similar vein, would that also be considered for deletion? I expect it will become much better-known than NanoCAD ever was, and I'm proud of my involvement in its development.

-- WillWare 18:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the (short) article:

NanoCAD is a Java applet (formerly a Scheme program) that was intended to eventually evolve into a useful computer-aided design system for nanotechnology.

That sounds to me like it never became a finished work, nor was notable. If this is wrong, the article would need to be expanded. You can place you comments on the delete page and explain why it shouldn't be deleted. This would most likely need to be accompanied by expanding the article. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill and WP:NPOV

Please do take care to review this Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure if the Churchill article is the first one with political/contentious content you've worked on, but I see most of your history is in technical programming areas (writing about computer programs is what I do for a living too, though not necessarily on WP). On political topics (and Churchill has been a particular draw for POV-mongers and vandals), you need to take a special care about not attributing motives, slanting characterizations to promote a specific POV, and so on. A lot of that is less of a danger when writing about, e.g. Java programming.

Btw. You'll probably notice that I nominated Doug Bell for deletion. It's true that I stumbled on the article via your edits, but I do not mean this nomination with any malice, or in any direct relation to your edit history. As I say in the nomination, I think it's a borderline notability. Certainly if you have written any other books or articles that have been widely read, that pushes the article to "keep" (improving an article during AfD nomination is perfectly fine, and may clarify the reasons for "keep"); but second authorship on one technical book is below the threshold to my mind. Other AfD voters may feel differently though. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters#Regarding Ward Churchill, please review WP:NPOV – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Template discussion

First off, no, this is not usual. Second, I think there's two things going on here... (1) the template was likely deleted by someone unaware of the process, who saw good cause to delete it out of hand; or (2) there are a few issues on Wikipedia which are non-negotiable, irrespective of consensus. Note that I deleted it out of hand first, as well; when this was contested, I put it up for discussion. Another admin decided similarly to delete out of hand.

Why would we want to delete this, then? Various reasons. (1) It serves no encyclopedic cause. (2) It is very offensive. (3) It was created by a banned user. And (4) It isn't actually in use by any serious user. The most compelling argument of these is the second. We routinely get all sorts of nasty attack pages in the Wiki, and I can think of many people who would get angry as a result of such a template.

HTH. R adiant _>|< 11:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "unaware" I didn't mean that the deleting admin was unaware of the TFD process, but that the deleting admin didn't read TFD to find out what way it was heading and simply assumed this was deletable. Making commonsensical decisions is part of an admin's job. Of course, such decisions may turn out to be wrong; in this case, it is under review at Deletion Review. Generally, circumventing process to apply an apparently good idea is acceptable (since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy), but circumventing present discussion to apply an apparently good idea is frowned upon. In particular, deletion debates may be overridden by the criteria for speedy deletion; "attack page" is grounds for speedy deletion, and one might assume a KKK template to be an attack page. One might also assume that it's not, hence the deletion review.
Userbox templates, however, have been a nasty issue the past month or so. One user sprang up and deleted literally dozens of userboxes that people had on their userpages, without prior discussion. This was met with heavy opposition. Two other users then decided to do the same once more, which was obviously met with more opposition. As it stands now, there's several people who have been creating userboxes by the dozens and will want any userbox kept on general principle, regardless of merits. Other people (including Jimbo Wales) think that they serve little purpose in an encyclopedia. R adiant _>|< 12:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Bell Article

Hey Doug, thanks for your comments on my talk page. I'm fairly new around here, but I've gotten somehow involved in deletionism and checking the recent changes a lot to combat vandalism and other WP: BIO etc problems. I think I would have had voted to keep the article if someone else besides the article's subject (you) had gone to great lengths to defend it. Honestly, it wouldn't bug me a whole lot if it wasn't deleted, I just would have prefered that someone else had authored it. Nothing against you, of course, it seems like you have a neat career. Colby Peterson 05:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, WP:PA: if it was I probably would be making it into a puff piece like David's bio.

OK, I apologize for the comment—although it wasn't intended as personal attack I can see how it could be interpretted as such. I would call my own bio a puff piece if I dressed it up with every non-notable thing I've done (and face it, most of what we both do is non-notable), and I wouldn't consider calling it a puff piece a personal attack on myself. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything entirely non-notable is included in my bio, though some other editors did put in stuff that I find borderline notable. But yeah, I ain't Donald Knuth and I ain't Michel Foucault either. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that aside: I could have listed articles I have written or that have been written about me, etc., or other products I've participated in creating.

It would be a good idea to list such other articles or activities on Talk:Doug Bell, which let's other users see the contents that might be of value to the article, and add them as they think is appropriate (subject to WP:V and the like). As I say in my own comment on AfD, if you have some other publications, I think that pushes you over the notability threshhold (depending on what they are, of course). If they look notable, I'll add them in myself, for that matter.

FWIW, my editing on David Mertz is pretty much exactly like yours on Doug Bell. I saw myself referenced in a number of places on WP, and had not at that time seen WP:AUTO. So I fixed a redlink with some NPOV information I knew (actually, as indicated on Talk:David Mertz, I copied over the first version from another programming-oriented Wiki that discusses me. I'm not remotely critical of that process, by either you or I (nor by most folks in Category:Wikipedian autobiography. On the other hand, if you're really interested, you can look at the bloody history of Ashida Kim, Daniel Brandt or Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (and some others) where autobiography POV-warriors terribly disrupted the articles on themselves. -- Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 6:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC) (missing sig added)

I guess the thing to me is that the other articles I've written do little, in my mind, to warrant inclusion here regardless of the fact that the WP policy on notability is apparently being interpretted to say that those things are relevant and the game development work is not. The same goes for the book I wrote. The articles written about me are relevant because they were written about my role in game development. However, most of the magazines those articles appeared in have been out of print for some time, so I'm not even sure how to track down the references (that's the problem with being associated with computer technology—most of the things you do, regardless of current notability, become yesterday's discarded legacy almost as soon as it's finished.) The only thing I think is relevant to determining if a bio article about me should be here is the significant role I played in creating some computer games that are themselves notable. So I think the vote on my bio needs to be based on that criteria. Going and dressing up my bio with other details that in and of themselves would not be sufficient to warrant inclusion here strikes me as the definition of vanity.

It seems that a plurality of voters on the AfD think the game development is more notable than I do... or rather than I can read WP:BIO as currently indicating. I put a comment in the talk page of WP:BIO, basically implicitly requesting clarification within the guideline. It still seems to me that attributed authorship is a bit different than influence or sales, whatever the industry. However wonderful I might think the design of my screwdriver is, it doesn't have the name of the person(s) who designed it on it, so I don't wonder per se: "I wonder what else Joe Engineer has done".

Nonetheless, if you have written articles that are thereby directly associated with you (in the sense of carrying your byline), and have moderately significant readership of 5000-ish or higher, I would like to add those to your bio; and likewise articles about you read by similar numbers. It looks like the vote is going to be "no-consensus" (probably with majority keep; but either way it amounts to keep), so I'd like to make the article indicate notability as strongly as possible.

I know you will find this hard to believe, but my objective is not to see that the bio about me stays. It really isn't about vanity. I'm not going to campaign to keep it, nor am I going to incessantly alter the bio while it is being reviewed. My only involvement in this is two fold:

to counter the slanted view I feel you are espousing in your campaign against me; and
to see that it is reviewed on the basis of whether it belongs here and not on the mistaken belief that it is a vanity thing

I never for a moment imagined it was about vanity (in the ego sense, I used the word, circumspectly, in the special WP sense). And it is probably better for you to refrain from editing the bio too much. But adding information to the talk page that other editors can copy or modify as they see fit is not just permissible, but desirable (you are an expert in the topic). There's definitely no guideline that an article should not be touched while under AfD... in fact, that's often the spur needed to flesh out notability, or otherwise improve a stub article. For example, I saw a bio of a Robert Elsie on AfD, investigated it, and fleshed out his (academic) book publications; which will lead, I think, to a clear consensus for "keep". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of the deletion review is to keep the bio, then it would be appropriate to flesh it out with additional detail, but doing so while it is under review does not seem appropriate. Wouldn't you agree with that David? – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your kind note on my talk page. I have written a short essay I hope to turn into a policy to end the rampant speedy deletions. I would appreciate your input here. Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Proposed_Policy_on_Speedy_Deletions. Thanks :)--God of War 07:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree whole-heartedly with the need to define the rules better. I added my input, although I am becoming increasingly skeptical that input from editors without admin privledges has influence. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FTL Forever

Hey there, Doug! Long time no talk. It would be interesting to figure out (and make some complex semantic map or other graphic representation) of where former FTL alumni have gone. I got somewhat involved in the WikiPedia a short while ago in trying to correct and add to information about Scottish history and culture. I've become the de facto expert on the legacy of Scottish Highland immigrant communities in America over the last decade. Should you feel inclined, you could look at my website and email me at that address: www.saorsamedia.com

Anyway, I was just scanning some old photos and decided to add that very old one of Bruce, Nancy, and Wayne...

Huh?

I.e. [1]. Are there some anger issues you still need to work out here? Of course it's no more encyclopedic than is you playing golf, but it's a user page, not an article. Still, it's better than a couple edits earlier from some unknown interested party (interested only in me, for whatever reason): [2]. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there some anger issues you still need to work out here?

It was a joke. Didn't you see the smiley in the comment? Of course you can put whatever you want on your user page and of course you were going to revert it. Don't you think I've earned the right to make a very small joke at your expense, or do I need a lecture now about WP policy on vandalism? – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... didn't you see the smiley in my comment? :-) Definitely not vandalism (but just conceivably a passive-aggressive undertone to the joke). Maybe sending a little gift is a better way to sooth over past conflict in editing (please accept mine... if you prefer tea, I'll go fetch you some). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Kbdank71's page

...Category:If templates? Is that what you are looking for? --Syrthiss 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a duplicate. The old one had capitalization on both words (If Template), which is against Wikipedia style. FWIW I don't think we have a speedy deletion criteria for categories unless its empty. All speedies on CFD are typically renames. :) --Syrthiss 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

Thanks for noting the problem with the contribution tree. And it should be fixed. --Interiot 17:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User categories

Would you consider recategorizing yourself from Category:Exclusionism to Category:Exclusionist Wikipedians? The two categories seem to be redundant and the latter seems more appropriately-titled. The first category could then be deleted. -- Krash (Talk) 22:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence already recategorized me. Fine by me. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 03:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Not a problem--I saw something that bothered me and I just started fixing things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzume (talk • contribs)

Remove?

Hey, I was wondering, why did you remove the example of swing that I put on the Java programming language page? Is it unnessasary? I was just trying to make an example of GUI programming on there.... Thanks for the reply! --Galaxy001 00:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that...I must have revereted to the wrong version when reverting the link spam by the next editor to edit the article. I restored the example. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant Additions

Thank you much for the kind compliment. I appreciated your pointing out on the discussion page that the article was indeed lacking in that regard. As I mentioned there, I really just hadn't ever noticed that before your comments spurred me to have a look and think about it. Probably a case of my knowing the subject so well already that it just didn't stand out to me that the article didn't impart much knowledge about it. I'm glad that you spoke up so that we could get it improved. 8-) 24.130.126.57 09:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill

We'll keep SP on for a day or so. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kombat Kruft

Thanks for you vote of deletion on that MK template. From what I understand, "fancruft" is an ongoing debate here at Wikipedia. For me, it's a chance to get my feet wet with editing, tweaking templates, etc. dfg 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]