User:Dreftymac/Archive 0

Welcome

First, I'd like to give you the standard-format welcome lecture, which hopefully will be interesting:

Welcome!

Hello, Dreftymac, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

About Web template systems

Web template system, Web template, Template engine (web)

Plese take care with, and, if possible, Talk about first:

alterating basic concepts: it desestabilize the "conceptual structure" of the articles.
alterating basic terminology: it was stable, links and terminological consistence depends on it.
alterating figures: that is used to represent basic concepts!

See sections about these topics on Talk pages. -- Krauss 18:20, 23 November 2006

PS: please correct/adapt the english and the sections "near to finish" first.

Ok, one goal is to keep as much as the 'stabilized' terminology while still allowing the article to evolve and improve. There is a *lot* of good content in there, but it was simply unreadable! I understand the intent to emphasize MVC; Separation of concerns; and other terminology that seems to have been altered. The intent is not to alter terminology, but to keep all of it, while still making the article(s) more readable. dr.ef.tymac 03:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! We not agree about all... but only you and I are really working there! -- Krauss 24 November 2006

PS: for consensus process, if you prefer a more privative Talk, we can use e-mail, see my e-mail by wiki form.

Additional thoughts:User:Dreftymac/WebTemplateDiscussion dr.ef.tymac 04:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, see you there!

PS2: for redirections problems see Template_system/Draft. Let see if that is the project (?):

Umbrella approache:
- Umbrella (or hub article) Template system for your Template (generic) and Template processor and for use as a "hub article" for Web and another "Specific Template systems"
- Umbrella Web template system for Web template and Web template engine
- Supplement (linked) for all: Template system formalism (for objective characterization)
Another approach is use Template system and Template like now, as a "disambiguation page" or "hub article" (article like draft, only show scope and components of systems, and supply links)... only Web having umbrella.

-- Krauss

Possibly this (item 2?) could work well. I see your idea of refining the multi-article structure. Although, my first feeling is simply to continue to expand the "Template" disambiguation page (and leave Template System as it is now, merely a redirect), because there appear to be more people watching the "Template" page, and the more people watching means more opinions and more eyes watching (harder to reach consensus, but better chance to avoid viewpoint bias).

The ideia is only "unify/link similar articles"... we add a lot of "see also" links, and you unifying XSLT with illustration: it is another little "unify work" example -- Krauss 26 November 2006

There are another "3rd approach", that is now more usual on wipedia, is like a "hub table". There are many typical examples. See Top table style on Nash_equilibrium or Bottom table style on Formal_language. -- Krauss 26 November 2006

See also Comparison_of_programming_lanuages dr.ef.tymac 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you decide to do, I think there is a convention to put "draft" articles in the "user namespace" so you may want to move it there if you intend to keep the "Draft" status. Search

I don't know (perhaps very simple.... but nedd first a consensus about) how to put back Template_system as a article (it is a #redirec). -- Krauss 26 November 2006

-- dr.ef.tymac 01:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good surprises!

Thanks Dreftymac for the Good surprises on:

Reviewing of the "template series", and making efforts to find consensus! -- Krauss November 2007.
"Template series" new illustrations and drafts -- Krauss 26 November 2007.
Thanks to you also for all you have done as well! The goal for me is simply to keep moving forward and making improvements, stabilizing content, and eventually reach "featured article" status for this continually growing material. I appreciate your feedback. dr.ef.tymac 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
To read (with attention) ugly parts of the formalism article, exposing problems and good questions. (please wait few days for new review, you point the need of work!) -- Krauss 27 November 2007.

I already have some work and refinements that were ready before I asked you the questions. The answers you already provided where detailed enough, so you don't need to review my questions anymore. Thanks for taking the time! There's always new work to be done so, no need to hurry! :) (NOTE: when you say "please wait a few days" I am assuming you naturally do not mean "please wait before making any contributions to the associated WP articles", if my assumption is wrong please clarify here!). Thanks for your contributions to WP! Slowly but surely, the content is moving forward, stabilizing and improving. dr.ef.tymac 16:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Template Systems Series (Hub Table)

Started on a series template to include in the related articles. Will put it in soon so you can see what you think. It can be restructured or removed easily so adding should not disrupt anything. dr.ef.tymac 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Love talks

Nice comment on the talk page; restaurant-quality encyclohumor. And welcome :-) +sj + 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback :) It originally had ^{[citation needed]} on each assertion. Someone took those out. I thought it was funnier with those in there, but oh well. dr.ef.tymac 00:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Complex network and Scale-free network

Hi! I reverted your edits to these articles. You changed the term "real-world" into "deployed", however, using "deployed" is not appropriate, as we're not talking only about man-made networks.

In these articles, "Real-world network" means systems (existing in the real world) which can me modelled mathematically as networks. BarroColorado 09:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful with too quick changes. Using "real-world" is not bad (or ugly) in all situations. You are saying:

The meaning of "real world" may be obvious to some, but to others it is not obvious at all.

But for example in the article Serious game I have no problem understanding what "real world" means, however, as a non-native English speaker I would have considerable difficulty working out what "operationally relevant" is, if I hadn't seen the previous version of the article. BarroColorado 09:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say. The essay conveys that "real world" is not always bad. Also, sometimes it is legitimately difficult to find an appropriate "alternate term" to use. I will assume (you can correct me if I am wrong) that we also agree that it is good to at least try to use a more specific term if one is available and still makes sense; (even if it takes a little work to find such a term).

Given these points, I think we can agree that the purpose of changes should not be to quickly and robotically apply a "rule" every time the words appear in an article (don't worry, I wasn't doing that). The goal is simply to enhance clarity for specific cases where the terms introduce ambiguity or circular reference. If what I am saying sounds agreeable to you I think we can move forward together to further enhance the article content. Thanks for your feedback! dr.ef.tymac 14:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: based on the remarks of BarroColorado, I have made some refinements to the essay and renamed it User:Dreftymac/Docs/RealWorldAmbiguity. I will also attempt an enhancement of the reverted content in agreement with BarroColorado, hopefully they will be mutually acceptable. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

user-discussion copied from an essay page

This is great! I just noticed your edits on Corrupted Blood. This is a very good rule! - cohesion 04:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: The text above was copied from discussion on an essay which is now found at User:Dreftymac/Docs/RealWorldAmbiguity. dr.ef.tymac 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Excising "real world"

It seems that you've been overzealous in this manner, looking at your edit here, the article became much more confusing. "Functional" has much more ambiguity attached to it than the clear contrast of Real World vs. Fiction. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your statement about increased ambiguity, it's possible, however I don't know how one could objectively measure this specific instance outside the scope of personal preference, if your preference is toward the "real world" phrasing, I have no objection to that. Feel free to change it back, or I can do it. Regarding your statement about overzealousness, I strongly disagree. There are many instances of "real world" (and its variants) which I have reviewed and left "as-is" because the usage was either: 1) critical to the context; 2) not easily re-stated to improve clarity; or 3) otherwise sufficient in its current state. It is possible you have identified an uncommon case where the clarity was actually reduced, despite this ongoing and dilligent effort, and for that I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. It does not happen often, but when it does, I am more than happy to get feedback to quickly resolve the matter. Thanks again! dr.ef.tymac 08:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Done. After reviewing the edits I made, I can see how a reasonable person might find the clarity reduced. Consequently, I have reverted the edits and added in intervening work by another editor so the article should now be up-to-date. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention! dr.ef.tymac 08:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments article.

Thanks for your note on my talk page about the comment (computer programming) article. I see there have been quite a lot of edits recently. The article looks OK to me. Sangwine 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The "goodbye clowns" weirdo

I already archived it at WP:BJAODN here: Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Good-bye clowns. You may wish do delete your copy... —Dgies^t c 07:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Article image

Hello Dreftymac,

I am a bit puzzled by what I think is your image file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WikipediaBinary.svg As far as I can tell from the usual interpretation of Binary Ascii your image file should look something like this:

0101 0111 W
0110 1001 i
0110 1011 k
0110 1001 i
0111 0000 p
0110 0101 e
0110 0100 d
0110 1001 i
0110 0001 a

whereas your image file appears to be 9 bit binary and is as follows: (buggy output ... removed for space)

With kind regards User:Ceannaideachd

Hmm ... I will take another look at the image and the scripts used to generate it. Thanks for brigning this to my attention. dr.ef.tymac 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up:The image has been changed. The original script was wonky and the svg file had some annoyances. I didn't check to make sure the downloaded code actually worked as advertised. Thank you for spotting this. I also reformatted the output to more closely match your example, which is a good stylistic choice. dr.ef.tymac 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it's still kind of "wonky"- gecko doesn't properly render the location of the numbers, although it looks fine in the thumb --⁪froth^T 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, send a e-mail...

To my wiki form.

Hello? Krauss 12 feb. 2007

re: imaging

The best way is to use thin clients with PXES or the Linux Terminal Server Project. If you want real reimaging try deepfreeze. And thanks for your compliments! --⁪froth^T 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, real reimaging with software isn't the best (or most secure) idea; although it's not really very common, ideally you should use a hardware solution like this --⁪froth^T 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your revert

I am aware of no material "relaxed restrictions" on patents, and certainly none related to trademark which have, or reasonably could be described to have had an impact on user generated content. Certainly nothing else in the article touches on these other aspects of intellectual property. Thus the change I made should have been a useful clarification. What am I missing? --Gmaxwell 03:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the "relaxed restrictions" part may be interpreted as "voluntary waiver of right to sue for patent infringement" ... if so, that makes patents relevant. If "relaxed restrictions" has no such interpretation, patent enforcement is still relevant in the context of UGC, which would justify reforming the article text, but not restricting "IP" to just "copyright." dr.ef.tymac 04:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Yet the standing text remains flat out inaccurate. While you might argue that after I left the article it was still incomplete, with no discussion of patents, it is hard to dispute that the text that you reverted to was incorrect. I do not believe that we can make any citation related to any "relaxed restrictions" on patents, and the inclusion of trademarks into the mix is completely misleading. I would offer to fix it, but considering the haste at which you initially reverted me, it might be better if you edited it. --Gmaxwell 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: For an example related to "voluntary waiver," see e.g. Sun Patent Non-Assertion, since the article speaks about using open source software, this category of issue appears to be directly relevant. Feedback and comments welcome. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a fair classification to throw software in with "user generated content", since "content" is not generally understood to include software. Do we have a citation for this? In any case, I don't think it's appropriate to classify a license that someone has chosen to grant over a pool of patents they control as a relaxation of patent restrictions... When we say relaxation I would expect us to mean something like the proposed Orphan works acts in the realm of copyright. It would probably be better for us to say what we mean rather than hiding behind confusingly vague words. :) --Gmaxwell 04:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You won't see me touting the perfection of the wording by any means. Improvement is definitely possible. In all actuality, I have no problem with an *emphasis* of copyright, but there is a wide range of IP issues that either directly or tangentially influence UGC. Open source software is definitely at least *relevant* (if not foundational) to the article subject (e.g., isn't WP itself based on Open Source software?) since software patents are a very 'hot button' issue, it seemed like a natural thing to want to make sure that avenue was not disambiguated out of the article. Having said that, however, I agree with you, the wording is not outstanding. dr.ef.tymac 04:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Ok. How about this for a quick patch, change the lead text back to copyright per your original mod, and add a footnote indicating that other IP issues may be relevant in the context of the article topic. Thoughts? dr.ef.tymac 04:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We should enumerate them. I don't see trademarks being an issue in this space, plus, it's just more informative to say how these things have an impact. Patents, for example, we could mention in the section about Free/Open source software since thats where they apply. Make sense? --Gmaxwell 04:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like, in other words, expand and clarify the article; all in favor of that, but then there are a couple of issues:

1) you've mentioned trademark a few times, yet I do not recall anyone else bringing that up recently in reference to the UGC article, perhaps some context for clarification is in order?;

2) a precise enumeration of issues may be helpful, but the question then becomes how accurate is the research behind it. For example, if an employee of FoobarSoft asks for permission to upload an employee training meeting to YoohooTube, and FoobarSoft grants permission, is that strictly a copyright issue? What if the trainer for that meeting is not a FoobarSoft employee, and did not consent? Moreover, what if the trainer is under an NDA with a third party not to disclose elements of the training outside the context of paid meetings?

It seems pretty straightforward to posit factual scenarios related to "UGC" that involve legal issues outside the scope of copyright, and yet still pertain to intellectual property (let alone every other type of legal issue that affects firms in both publishing and technology). Indeed, since "UGC" is arguably just a form of "micro-publishing" (which relates both to content, and the software and tools used as the factors of production) an exact and accurate enumeration of even the most "noteworthy" legal issues (which entails a value judgement, and consequently potential POV) is no small task. This suggests there may be some strategic merit to simply keeping some content deliberately imprecise. Unless, of course, someone really wants to take a volunteer bite at that apple in order to substantially improve the article. dr.ef.tymac 17:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Inflection

Hi,

I wanted to apologize for reverting your edit to Inflection the other day; most of it was good, and I shouldn't have reverted the whole thing just because of a few problems with it. Sorry about that.

—Ruakh_TALK 05:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ruakh, no worries mate. The section that needed incremental improvement looks much better after your last modification. Mission accomplished. dr.ef.tymac 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Audio Synthesis Environments

Hi - Thanks for the edit to Comparison of Audio Synthesis Environments. I'm a little puzzled. The notice that you've added directs me to WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, which talks about ensuring neutrality etc. The section that you added the banner to, is specifically about making it clear that some aspects, while one might certainly expect them in a review, can't be covered in a neutral-enough fashion for a wkp comparison page. Could you please explain what kind of modifications you think the section might need? Thanks. --mcld 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that, I think the template is not linking to the correct resource. Basically, the notice was just to indicate that the tone of the encyclopedia article should be consistent with the formal prose and not sound too much like a product review or a magazine article. Please note that the underlying purpose of the text makes perfect sense (to me anyway) and I was not finding fault with anything about neutrality. It was just a matter of making sure the text didn't sound too "folksy" or include inappropriate section headers. dr.ef.tymac 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. All the best --mcld 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

waived issue moved from article page

Regarding the 'retorts,' there does not appear to be a citation to support the assertion that Kyle Doss and Frank McBride (or any specifically-named person within their group) uttered the racial slurs and insults attributed to members of the audience. There are some (rather vaguely written) news articles that recount various utterances ("That was uncalled for; cracker-ass motherfucker; oh my god; You never had no movies; Seinfeld, that's it. etc.") Nevertheless, without attaching a specific named person to each specific utterance there is no substantiation that these 'retorts' came from these two men, or even anyone in their "group." Since they are both named living persons in this matter, it would seem fairly important not to make unsubstantiated claims about what they (or their "group") said. If there is substantiation, could you please indicate it here? This issue did not appear to be resolved previously in the discussion (or perhaps I missed it). If substantiation is not provided, a change from "retorts" to "audience responses" or just "responses" is appropriate. dr.ef.tymac 17:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no such assertion. Where in the current revision do you see "racist retorts" or implication DOss and McBridge said them mentioned? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Richards#Revision_draft_2_.28iii.29 Tendancer 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If you re-read the post I made closely, you will notice I did not say the revision makes that assertion. I was simply laying the foundation that any such assertion (regardless of where it appears) has (apparently) not been substantiated with a cite.

The revision *does* however, carry that implication. Specifically, the word retorts in the following context:

He was addressing a group that the media reported as "black hecklers". There were retorts, "That was uncalled for" and then "fucking cracker-ass motherfucker".

The word "retorts" here implies this was a response made in the context of an ongoing discussion or argument (see e.g., [1]). Since the article does not state that Richards was addressing the *entire audience* with his remarks, it would follow that "retorts" is more appropriately restated as "audience responses." (Unless you or someone else can substantiate that the 'retorts' were indeed attributed to the persons who were originally addressed by Richards, and not just interjections from random audience members). dr.ef.tymac 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not what you stated, since you specifically objected to the word "retort" and then presented as reasoning " there does not appear to be a citation to support the assertion that Kyle Doss and Frank McBride (or any specifically-named person within their group) uttered the racial slurs and insults attributed to members of the audience." That is false as there is no such association. "There were retorts" is a factual statement unless you want to get into semantics and synonyms. And in that case if you object to semantics and want to hold back consensus based on that word, you can present your own proposal (e.g. "yelled back" is given specifically in the Washington Post, feel free to replace "retort" with it you believe the word makes or breaks the article). Tendancer 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dropping the issue: To help prove good faith and support for resolution, I will happily add my vote in support of the current wording as-is. Any tinkering for semantic precision clearly represents diminishing returns. Regards, dr.ef.tymac 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I really appreciate your gesture--whether we agree on the semantics or not, that we are both striving to find a consensus and achieve neutrality for the article. I did not state it in gest as obviously you feel there is wiggling room for interpretation about connotations of the word "retort" (though I feel "yelled back" is identical, though that's just my POV)--if you wish to e.g. replace with e.g. "yelled back" as that was given by a verifiable source in place of "retort" I'd happily support it as well. Cheers :) Tendancer 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus against "poor"? I don't think so.

I don't know what gives you the idea that you have some kind of mandate (in the form of "consensus") to remove the perfectly good adjective "poor" and replace it with something you consider more scholarly, based on the discussion on the South Central Farm page. If I had to call it, I'd say consensus was on my side (in favor of "poor"). Funny that the article has been peacefully sitting there with that word until you ride in and start shooting up the town. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, for the third time, take it to the discussion page. Lots of articles on WP have been "peacefully sitting there" with deficiencies in them. People make improvements where they can, that's how the project moves forward. If you have a case to make so we can reach consensus on this still-open issue, I more than welcome it! Unfavorably characterizing my motives and polarizing this issue into "sides" seems dramatically inconsistent with the core principles and spirit of mutual participation and civility. I respectfully request any discussion on this issue be placed on the discussion page where it belongs, not my user page. Thank you. dr.ef.tymac 00:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page

Your name is still listed at Requests for an admin coach. If you are no longer looking for a coach, or you currently have one, please remove yourself from that list.

The instructions for getting or receiving a coach have changed. It's now a self-help process: just look for a coach from the list of coaches, and contact one. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing others' edits. If you continue, you may be blocked for violating the three revert rule. --Aude (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

All edits undone by me were undiscussed edits made on a controversial article, even despite the fact that discussion was expressly requested, and despite the fact that the text restored by me was (at the time) the only text that was actually supported by both cites and a supporting rationale. Thank you for at least contributing discussion points on the talk page. You were the first (and so far only one) to do so. Hopefully you (or someone) will have an opportunity to directly address the issues raised. (See also wp:consensus). dr.ef.tymac 03:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 9/11 conspiracy theories. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. You are adding "information" to the caption which clearly violates WP:UW, some completely unsourced, and all clearly against concensus. However, I only see 3 clear reverts in the past 24 hours, and 3 reverts adding new wording. If the new wording ever appeared before, you have violated WP:3RR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify by identifying specifics, so I can make a good faith effort to address any apparent improper contributions I have made and correct whatever misconduct you seem to disfavor. As far as I can tell, I have consistently followed both the letter and spirit of WP policy.

For example, can you explain to me how the following edit is (in your words) all clearly against consensus?

   Conspiracy theorists dispute the contents of the image.
   changed to
   Conspiracy theorists dispute the contents of the video.

I fail to see how that is inconsistent with consensus, WP policy or factual consistency. Moreover, the claim "conspiracy theorists dispute the contents of" does not appear to be supported by a cite. Additionally, cited sources (identified on the discussion page) indicate that non-conspiracy-theorists have also claimed the video is ambiguous. All of these issues are detailed on the discussion page. Many of which have yet to be even addressed, let alone refuted. Thanks for your continued efforts to improve WP content and work toward consensus, I am confident we both agree these are critical and fundamental ideals. dr.ef.tymac 17:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. That revert is not against concensus but it is clearly a partial revert, even though probably correct. I'm not singling you out — I warn and report 3RR violations even of editors I agree with.

And that anyone "dispute(s) the contents of" does not appear to supported by a cite. The only individuals named who dispute the contents are also conspiracy theorists, but noting that would probably be WP:OR. To avoid WP:Undue weight, it would be best not to mention the dispute if we cannot source the fact that conspiracy theorists dispute it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I fully support 3RR and established WP policy, and I respect the dilligence and professionalism of those who work to ensure they are observed. Even in cases of strong editorial disagreement, (or perhaps especially so) such standards of professionalism are paramount. Although I do not feel I have deviated from these standards, and I also think we may see things a little differently, I appreciate and duly note the concerns that you have raised. dr.ef.tymac 20:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Image" to "video" is a revert only in the most technical sense, and I'm not going to block someone for making a clarification edit. Still, it does appear that you were engaging in a bit of an edit war, which is still never good. It would probably be better to discuss the controversial changes before making them again, or if you can't come to an agreement that way, seek dispute resolution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just for the record, every single edit I recently made to the article was accompanied by: 1) an appeal to reliable sources; 2) a supporting rationale in discussion; and 3) a request for comments in discussion. I did make two "Undo-style" reverts solely because none of the discussion points had been addressed and the edit summaries were your garden-variety WP:OR-type retorts that seemed to make zero effort at discussion or consensus. Fortunately, User:Aude later replied in discussion and the issues were addressed, and the discussion got started, which is all I had been requesting from the beginning.

I still think the article has problems, but at least now people's views are on record in the discussion page, where they can be evaluated and compared out in the open. dr.ef.tymac 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

HC

I noticed you put in a reference to HC in stream of consciousness writing. I'm tried to start an article for HC. It was deleted for lack of notability. Do you know of any notable sources for HC, or are there other works of his under a different pen name? thnx --Golden Eternity 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Golden Eternity. Although I appreciate your efforts to create an article, HC, as you may already know, prefers to remain anonymous. Unless and until that changes, it is probably unlikely that the general WP community will accept an article based solely on that pen-name, unless either more works are written under that name or MFU recieves widespread press attention for some reason.

Nonetheless, I encourage your efforts. One alternative might be to do some more searches on the ISBN for MFU and see what that turns up. You also may try to simply resubmit the article and have a few more cites and references if you can find them. You might even try asking HC himself for any help or suggestions he may have.

You are also allowed to start a "draft" article in your user-space, and edit it there. The benefit of that approach is other interested parties can help add content, and such efforts may repudiate the unwarranted "non-notability" accusations when it comes time to promote the "draft" article as a main article entry. dr.ef.tymac 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to user:Seicer

I am assuming this is for Ninjalicious? Pertaining to the source you gave, it is considered a tertiary source -- a general encyclopedia. Even at that it is a stretch since anyone can edit it, and it is entirely unsourced. There is a lack of adequate coverage outside of UER, and shouldn't be considered a comprehensive definition. Since UER is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, etc., it cannot be considered a reliable source. Since it is also an unsigned article (a nickname should not count towards that since it makes no assertion towards a person's real identity), it is considered even less reliable.

I also found the source to be low quality. Whenever it starts with, "I know I've seen this term on another website", you know that will be questioned!

If you can find it in a book, or a more reliable source than UER (which itself has many, many copyright violations), I'd be more than happy to reinstate it. Thanks for your comment! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't relate to this at all, since I am already familiar with most of the points you raise here, and agree with your conclusions. I already responded on your talk page please see there. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Specific case

A specific case is posted elsewhere in the Wikipedia. Consequently I was hopeing I could pursue an answer to the generic question on the humanities reference desk. If you insist upon a specific case please join the discussion on the entertainment reference desk under Anna Nicole Smith. 71.100.2.150 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's not so much that "I insist" it's just that a complete answer would tend to require a relatively complete set of facts. At least something that gives a general description of the people involved. If you're satisfied with more "generalized" answers, that's fine also. I didn't mean to get in the way of what you were looking for, sorry if my responses were unhelpful. Best wishes on your research! Regards. dr.ef.tymac 21:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My precaution in stepping over to your talk page to convey this information appears justified since the last corrections and edits I made to the Anna topic were reverted and then the whole Anna topic deleted - with no trace whatsoever in the history file beyond the previous edits! I did manage to make a copy of the topic after my last edit, which I have learned now to do whenever there is any contention. I can email you a copy if you like but I would rather not post it here with the risk of getting you in any trouble. (Some of the administrators who operate this way start a user profile.) 71.100.2.150 03:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Hi there. Regarding your recent move of Perl regular expression examples: when you need to move an article to a new title, please use the 'move' editing button. If you need to move overtop an existing article, please indicate this at Wikipedia:Requested moves so that an admin can make appropriate arrangements. We need to ensure that each article maintains the correct edit history for attribution purposes, per the GFDL. Thanks.

BTW: I've corrected the move of Perl regular expression examples. Mind matrix 16:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Question" on Humanities RD

I removed your humorous "question" with bogus responses from the Humanities Reference Desk. I couldn't find a real question anywhere in there, so I don't think it belongs on the RDs. Sorry. Gandalf61 16:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I figured there might be *someone* out there who would not appreciate a harmless attempt at humor. I also figured it had a chance of being removed. You proved me right, life goes on, end of saga. dr.ef.tymac 16:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Good point. It does violate that. I've changed it from "legendary" to "successful" to seem less POV. You think that's all-right?UberCryxic 00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Langan

For what its worth, I think you did a good job. There are some comments by Otheus that appear when editing (about buzzwords, etc.; I'm sure you saw them), but that don't appear in the visible version of the entry. This is some technical thing beyond my comprehension, but would clearly seem to be removable. Thanks for your help. FNMF 03:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And greetings to you too. Thanks for taking the time to read through my suggestions regarding administrators, and for your generous praise. I continue to believe that structural reform of the administrative system is the best way to avert potentially serious problems afflicting Wikipedia's administrative culture. But I have pretty well reached the conclusion that such reforms will not be voluntarily imposed by administrators upon themselves. I have therefore come to the conclusion that such reform can only come from the top. As for the Langan entry, you must have sent me your message while I was in the midst of replying to your own policy response to the CTMU section. You can now see my response to that response on the Langan talk page. In brief: I'm not persuaded the policies you mentioned are referring to the kind of "claims" made in the CTMU section, but rather to outlandish or contentious claims by editors themselves, or else to claims by the subject of a controversial or potentially libellous nature. Thus I'm not persuaded that any policy prevents inclusion of this section. Thanks for your own diligent and thoughtful efforts on the Langan entry, and let's hope the discussion you have called for results in an improved entry. FNMF 15:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact

You recent edit to Fact changed the meaning of the lead para. See talk:Fact#Initial_definition. 1Z 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Dumain

I'm wondering who this person is and what exactly his credentials are. From his website, I gather he's self-taught, which is nice, but doesn't add anything in terms of credibility. --Wafulz 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Before answering that, I'd like to assert some key points:

1) I have no particular affinity for the Dumain essay, if you want really want to assign zero credbility to the essay based solely on the fact that you don't know who he is, you are free to do so (have you even *read* it?);

2) Since I added the Dumain citation strictly to support the most mundane and uncontestable aspects of my most recent contributions [those being the general descriptions of two well-known US television programs, and the claim that different cultural critics have different views] I don't really consider it crucial to my recent contributions, alternate cites can be obtained;

3) To date, it appears I am the only Wikipedia contributor out of however many millions to add *any* citations at all to the article in question. Unless I am mistaken, every single material claim in the article is uncited except those for which I have *personally* added references.

4) Inadequate substantiation is a problem for the entire article ... I'd like to see more people addressing that fact. People who do will probably have more credibility in my view than those who don't.

I'd like to cut to the chase. What exactly do you want and (most importantly) how do you propose to help build consensus and improve the article.

Since you mentioned "credibility" ... a good-faith demonstration of what is your "bottom line" will help enhance yours, since so far, I don't know who you are, and why you are focusing on this issue when so many other more serious and long-standing problems with the article still exist and have not even been addressed yet. dr.ef.tymac 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to be aggressive. I'm not saying that the author doesn't have credibility because I've never heard of him- I'm saying this because he doesn't even say who he is. He doesn't say what his credentials are, he doesn't say if anyone has reviewed or edited his work (or if anyone reads it for that matter), and he doesn't say why his essay is more reliable than that of a PHIL 101 student discussing popular culture and its impact. It's a personal opinion essay on some website.

I understand this contribution isn't the most crucial thing, but, well, "two wrongs don't make a right" is the best adage that comes to mind. I'm grateful that you're adding citations and I don't mean to minimalize your efforts, but weak citations with no credibility aren't much better than no citations at all. If this Dumain fellow is legit then all the power to him, but if he's not, then we've just treated a random website as an authoritative voice.

What I would like are references that are reliable- preferably those that have actually gone through some sort of editorial process (not necessarily peer review). While a peer-reviewed journal article on popular culture would be best, those aren't easy to access electronically, and I'm sure there are plenty of editorials in major publishings that could support statements in the article.

I don't believe it's fair for you to antagonize me just because I believe that this one source is questionable. --Wafulz 02:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Antagonizing you? I haven't even disagreed with you. I am more than happy to address legitimate concerns. I already said I'm not partial to the Dumain essay. Sure my tone may be a bit brusque, but frankly I really have no desire to quibble with you over splinters while swallowing logs. The *entire article* reads like a (very poor) PHIL 101 student essay. That is precisely my point. That's *probably* why people were happily adding "a collection of Gary Coleman jokes from Family Guy" nonsense to begin with. I took a reasonable good-faith effort to put out that fire by asking people to at least try to add referenced content. I backed up that request by doing so myself.

I know the cite is not the best, I knew it from square one. I also knew it would probably help discourage pranksters from polluting the already deficient article with silliness and more fancruft and junk. I also knew Dumain would eventually have to be replaced. I also know the entire article will eventually have to be reviewed. dr.ef.tymac 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good to know your point of view. --Wafulz 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)