This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello. Why didn't I get a welcome thingy when I signed up?  :-( --Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Here you go! :-) -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear to anyone else who walks in here, I've been making edits all along, since 2001, but didn't decide to make an account until 2006. Recently, (late 2009) I've been messing with my User and Talk pages. But I thank you for the nice box anyway, Sir Editor. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Not a problem. Once I left the message, I discovered you weren't as new to the site as I thought. Still, everyone deserves a good welcoming, so I'm glad you finally got yours. Only one correction I'd make: You are already a great editor, and I look forward to editing with you again. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This user supports disambiguation pages.

Woo hoo. Thanks, Scapler.

I'll copy this note here, in case anyone has a thought to add to it: The disambiguation pages bring up a subject I find interesting. I thought the disambiguation pages were a wonderful idea when I first ran across them; now I realize it's all about disambiguation; the whole WP project, all the little edits I make, and really everywhere one expresses oneself online. Never have we be been more misunderstood then by our online expressions. This phenomenon encourages clarity of thought and of expression not previously found frequently in other media. --Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much for your suggestion on my talk page. For some reason, the idea didn't occur to me, even though it spared me considerable grief in my own userspace. Something tells me you're going to be (already; see above!) a GREAT editor, very quickly! -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Captain is very confusing at times. How we got it from over 1,000 links to 60 or so is amazing to me. Too many links. :) But anyway. No problem with the revert. I've made about 7,000 disam edits this month. Some are not going to be correct. Just part of the gig. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 16:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the historical archive, the other half of this conversation is currently found at "Sorry for the revert". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is no longer a valid speedy candidate, I'd suggest taking it to AfD and building consensus to delete and possibly salt. MLauba (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

While I don't see how that can be since I believe the user has already been blocked for spamming with this exact same text on Oct 1, I'd prefer an admin investigate the behavior more thoroughly. Based on behavior I believe that User:Fortresslinux User:80.101.112.71 User:Bakker75 and User:Johan82 are all the same person. The behavior is this: They repeatedly post the exact same text down to the spelling errors on List of Linux distributions. This has been going on since Oct 1, User:Fortresslinux got blocked for it, and User:80.101.112.71 has a sockpuppetry flag on his talk page at the moment. The article Fortress Linux has been deleted twice in the past for the exact same reason: WP:SPAM. I don't see where I fit in the puzzle anymore. An AfD to build consensus to block spam on WP that's already been blocked in the past is way beyond the scope of my patience. The behavioral issues have gone way beyond AGF, and I'm really out of it, which is why I asked for help. Sorry for being so heated. Thanks. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand where the heat comes from, but in practice you're conflating two issues here - the article(s) and the sockpuppetry. The Fortress Linux article itself cannot be in its present state but probably wouldn't pass PROD or AfD, due to lack of WP:RS. Sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry should be brought up at WP:SPI.

While I'm sympathetic with your annoyance, admins implement community consensus, we don't single-handedly act as cop, prosecutor, judge and jury. While I don't have any issues with opening the AfD, the SPI should be filed by an editor familiar with the history of the different accounts who knows where to get the evidence from. My work here is very narrowly focused on copyvio issues, dealing with SPI is something I'd rather leave to the people who are familiar with the matter. MLauba (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MLauba, for your guidance. I cast my vote at the AfD but not before posting my concerns and evidence to SPI. Thanks again. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Note for future reference: as of today, the archived AfD is found at Fortress Linux; the archived SPI is found at Fortresslinux. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the Nexus DAB page, I meant that there is no article on the Nexus from that movie, only one on the movie itself, and DAB pages are meant to disambiguate similarly titled articles. Cheers, Miremare 03:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm a "disambiguation page inclusionist". But I won't really know what that means until I've studied the area of disambiguation pages more fully. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Aladdin Sane. You have new messages at LinguistAtLarge's talk page.
Message added 16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Aladdin Sane. You have new messages at Simxp's talk page.
Message added 01:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I haven't looked into the background of the discussion at Talk:List of Linux distributions, but I think the situation would move along better if you reverted your latest comment [1] in order to de-escalate the situation and set a better example of how to follow WP:TALK. Thanks for considering this suggestion. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aladdin Sane, I've left a reply to your comment on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was my mistake i should have made it more accurate for the listing. I also made the mistake for listing it as CR instead of EN. my bad, feel free to slap me with a trout :) ZooPro 03:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And a Linux user to boot pfft. You don't think my description of the differences between linux and windows was objective enough? D: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet blueberry pie (talk • contribs) 09:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the edits I reverted are here and here in the article "Operating system". Note the image used has already been deleted. Oh, since we're doing the personal attack thing, "Your nose is very large, too" (Act I, scene 1). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize for that. We wouldn't need 47,327,925 editors if we got it right all the time. I tried to read WP:MOS but I grew WP:moss trying to read it. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. Removal of extraneous information is not "censorship". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.157.188 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is now at the Talk page at Removal of sourced content from section "Effect on U.K. law". Please discuss it there. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to make edits there :). TIP: Install Twinkle in your preferences under "gadgets." Twinkle is a device that reverts vandalism similar to rollback. It installs in 2 clicks. Try it out in my sandbox (much less used than the Wikipedia one ;}). Happy editing! A8UDI 02:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm sure I'll consider it later, as I have all along with Friendly and Twinkle. In this specific case, the article possibly vandalized (ahem) needs two sets of eyes to verify that it is vandalism and not an appropriate addition. One set is not good enough, just because of the nature of what we're trying to read (the article goes beyond 'ordinary human comprehension'; that in and of itself makes it an extremely notable article). In the case of any other article I know of on English Wikipedia, two set of eyes would not be needed to verify 'nonsense typing' style vandalism. As concerns vandalism, the answer to the question, "Am I really seeing what I think I'm seeing?" is usually obvious, but not in this case. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aladdin Sane, you have reverted my edit on Mars in fiction, but the named reason does not really satisfy. Why do you think, the story ought to be mentioned on Sean McMullen's page? Wikipedia is not meant to collect full lists of all stories on an author's page, because this page is not a literature directory. Sean McMullen's page mentions only the most important works of him, which is absolutely okay. So, if you find the story important enough, you might add it to his page. The Mars in fiction page, however, is a literature directory. So, can you please explain the actual reason for your revert? -- The Cascade (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: This is my personal opinion as an editor and reader of Wikipedia:

My thing about this is that we're dealing with a "List" article. Since List articles tend to grow out-of-control, we need to establish some basis for inclusion. A rather simple and easy rule-of-thumb, is that the article referenced, in this case Sean McMullen, have some information about the thing so referenced, in this case the specific work of that author that was referenced. If the thing referenced (which seems to be a short story) is in some way "notable" enough for the McMullen article (and I suspect it is), then it starts to rise to the level of "notable enough" to be included in the List article. This is as low a standard for inclusion as I can think of; some editors might set the bar much higher.

As I looked at the issue, I personally nominate you to help maintain the McMullen article. I think what you added to Mars in fiction belongs in the article, and in the McMullen article. But the McMullen article is missing bibliographic details that would serve it well. Some criticisms of that article: 1) The TOC is near the bottom (pretty easy to fix), 2) Providing ISBN's are a nice way to prove the author's work in the article (and I note are one of the few ways allowed to sell your favorite author's work on WP), 3) At least one editor's favorite work "The Cascade", is missing from the article (I noted you stated on your User page that the work is a short story; short stories go in double quotes; novels are italicized; see WP:MOS). I also note that short stories are often listed separate from novels. Beginning a bulleted list in the McMullen article that starts with "Notable short stories of McMullen include..." is a good idea I think, while providing at least two or three stories in the bulleted list to get it started (as a reader of these articles, I'll forgive the lack of an ISBN (I don't think short stories even get an ISBN, hmm...), but I will jump up and down wildly if you fail to give a publication date).

These are all pretty easy to fix, for the editor with knowledge of the subject interested in fixing them. My point is, when you add the reference to a very long and complex List article like Mars in fiction, you've disappointed the reader who clicks on the link to Sean McMullen, and finds there's nothing there about the work that was referenced in the List article. My feeling is, "Don't do it: Instead add the entry to the List, just add it the right way, by fixing the McMullen article first."

If you want to talk more about the issue of criteria for inclusion in the List article, I suggest opening up a section at Talk:Mars in fiction, so we can all better figure out what does and does not belong in that already long and complex List article. (Note: I already opened up one discussion there which nobody has responded to in over a month, but that's OK.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Aladdin. Let's work on OS together, eh? Let's get it to GA, starting by integrating those example OS sections into their main articles. Great subject, OS. Poor article, but two users with a passion for WP and OS. What do you say? While trying to respond to your post on the talk page for OS, I got two edit conflicts. — CpiralCpiral 07:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly consider it, as polite as your request is. Give me a while to stop fuming first. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see talk:operating system. — CpiralCpiral 21:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on OS, but I've also posted the situation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Operating_system_makeover. Are you prepared to discuss making OS a WP:summary style article? The wiki is getting full of these large articles: Linux, OS X, all of 'em. — CpiralCpiral 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Aladdin. Are you watching operating system? The page history, Number of watchers app says 320 people are watching it. Where are they? I hope they are reading the talk page! I'm gonna post yet another proposal for renaming section titles. I want to remove many of those (product-named) subsections now. I feel empowered to make the changes I have been posting the last two or three weeks, but when?

I noticed on your user page that you live in the Chihuahua desert. I lived in Chihuahua desert for about six months, on the Mexican side, in the town Chihuaua, in the state of Chihuahua in the desert. (in '91-2) — CpiralCpiral 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still watching it. As you see in the edit history, I reverted a bit o' spam. Now that I think about it, we have a spammer offering PC help who didn't know enough about computers to know that his spam would first be reverted by a bot (it's that spammy). I find that ironic.

Sometimes silence equals consensus, or consent, just not always. In this case, since you know I'm watching, you know you have my consent, and there is at least some consensus for your your changes (again, I consent based on info being moved, I hardly ever think it should be removed).

I've been doing similar "major" things to the article "Babylon 5" (check the Talk) and hundreds of watchers have said little or nothing. I've been reverted once out of 82 edits (now the 2nd highest contributor to the article). My changes there have been mainly a big upgrade to the references, changing them to vertical format, and adding several kilobytes to the article by using complete ((Cite web)), etc. templates and trying to fill in every last detail I can find, leaving empty variables for future editors to fill in any omitted values. If you look at the first 13 references in the References section, you can see the difference. Nobody really cared, but I logged what I was doing, as you are, on the Talk page first. I hope to finish the other 108 references someday soon, as the article has suffered from a lack of GA status for over 3 years, having existed for over eight years. It is only one month younger than the "Operating system" article.

I'm drafting a request to be made at the Project level to move a whole section out of the "Babylon 5" article right now. First I have to analyze the "scope of the scope", to figure out why I hold my opinion, and inform others how that could be.

Having considered what I just wrote I pulled up this original version of "Operating system" and noticed some facts immediately that I hadn't thought of: 1) The article was not originally a "main" article, it itself seems to be a spinoff of "Computer software". 2) The Examples (of operating systems) section was there from the beginning (pre-dating the "List of operating systems" article, I'm sure). This does not mean that I don't think the Examples section needs to go now (as it has already, to "List of operating systems", it seems clear).

When I look at the stats for the article "Operating system", I'm dismayed to find myself in the top ten contributors. My contributions have been little more than reverts, and stating an opinion or two on the Talk page. The stats are misleading in that respect. I may have contributed some WP:MOS fix-ups, or fixed a dead link, but really, not much of consequence.

So I think your changes are generally positive, and I support them.

Yes, I first learned about the desert on Exercise Gallant Eagle (in the Mojave Desert), and I find it quite nice. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, explanations and sharing. I use some of your OS sleuthing work at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Merge_Operating_system_and_Kernel. — CpiralCpiral 05:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at an edit which someone made to the Babylon 5 Starfury article. I noticed you ‘undid’ it and commented on the quality of the cites. I’ve just updated them but it got me thinking. I know bugger all about what makes a ‘good’ wiki article or when and what to cite. As the one who basically put the current starfury article together, I’d appreciate any suggestions you may have about what’s right or wrong about it. I’m asking as I may do something similar with other existing articles, white star, Shadow vessels, etc. (a little light on detail and tend to be a bit ‘in-universe’ in style)Minsk59 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When I saw your edit to the Starfury article, I thought it was so good I nearly fell out of my chair. I'd much rather see improved cites than content loss, and I thank you.

There's a lot to learn about WP:FICT in general and WP:WikiProject Babylon 5 in specific. I don't think I should post all I've learned here, but we may want to start a discussion over at WT:WikiProject Babylon 5 if there is a lot to say.

Within the scope of the Project, I tend not to pay real close attention to the ship and character articles, instead concentrating on the episode articles and the main article. The main article was close to Good Article status, but it's not real clear how far it has to go to get there. Regarding cites specifically, I've revamped the first 13 cites on the article, others should definitely say their opinion on the Talk page, because I'd like to do all 121 cites "in minute detail", but it's a lot of work. While my tendencies are toward the episode articles and the main article, I've watch-listed every article I can find that mentions Babylon 5 to insure that accurate details don't get dropped. There are quite a few, including lots of bio's, List articles (including "Energy being"), and media and popular culture articles such as "Media portrayal of lesbianism".

I did notice Project member User:Octurion was working on the ship articles recently, and I thought I noticed a trend toward preparing to consolidate the smaller ship articles in those edits.

Personally, I'd love it if you and the few others who are active would add their names to the Project page, so we can get some consensus editing done inside the Project.

Since you're a good researcher, you may want to study the article "Babylon 4", and its references, and weigh in with your opinion at A few things... after researching the subject of "ship" versus "station". After getting agreement against my own personal opinion that the silly thing is indeed a ship in this discussion, a project member editor unilaterally contravened previous consensus. I had also previously notified the editor of the discussion and the evidence at the editor's User talk page before the editor unilaterally made the edit.

You may also be interested in WP:ENGVAR as I notice many of the Project editors speak "other-than-American" English, and per the guideline I find I have to keep from stepping on that style with my edits.

So, as you can see, there's plenty to research, especially looking at archived discussions of what has already been decided, and what there still is to decide. As far as the in-universe problem, I've added some media at commons:Babylon 5, which staring at sometimes reminds me that real people made all this stuff. Project editor User:Jclemens has also written some stuff about how to do fiction properly such as User:Jclemens/FICT and "that which can not be talked about", so our edits "stick", so to speak. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll look around those articles you mentioned. As to B4 being a ship or a station. Dunno, never thought about it. But I noticed this on a sci-fi site, talking about the original idea for a spin-off (Babylon Prime). Relies heavily on a memo jms released in the 15th script book. I don’t have a copy of it myself.

http://www.republibot.com/content/hidden-evolution-babylon-5-part-ii-%E2%80%9Cbabylon-prime%E2%80%9D

So it would appear, originally at least, it could travel in space and time. Not exactly TARDIS like but it does seem to imply it was a ruddy big ship.

As for signing onto the Babylon project. Maybe, but I don't want to commit to something that I may not be able to spend any sort of time on. Minsk59 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a pretty good read, actually. I know how you feel about putting your name on the Project page, because I felt much the same way. Turns out most of the editors there are inactive or off doing other stuff, so it really doesn't matter one way or the other in the long run, that I can tell. Some times they come out of dormancy, or not. It seems pretty laid back. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize I had pushed it over the limit. Some of the things I added are clearly expendable (100 million miles in 24 hours...), but some seem kind of important, like Robby's inability to harm a human. But I think that kind of rule is only a guideline, not something like the five pillars that needs to be enforced too strictly, unless one is hoping for featured article status, or something that brings out all the sticklers. It is kind of arbitrary, after all. But anyhow, revert if you like, or ask for other opinions on the talk page. I'm a 2001 fanatic myself; though F.P. was the best sci fi film before that, in my opinion. I happened to come back to it after sending this link from LHC to friends, one of whom remarked, "I think those guys have seen Forbidden Planet a few too many times", which cracked me up. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, good point. More off-WP commentary comparing LHC and FP would be entertaining.

I can say that your edit fixed "is awoken" to "is wakened", and the universe is much pleased by it.

I grant that the 400-700 word thing is merely a rule-of-thumb, easily ignored when we feel like it as editors. But the point I wanted to make is, that it seems to me that the more we add to the "in-universe" synopsis, the more we're actually arguing in favor of having these articles we like AfD'd on WP. The balance starts to tilt toward "in-universe" and "un-encyclopedic". If you look in to the history of the FP article, you'll find this has already happened to the Altair IV article, for, I suspect, this reason; the "in-universy" started out-weighing the "out-of-universy" big time, until the article finally went down in flames and got merged (it seems the editor who tried to save it may have done exactly the wrong thing to save it).

There are some TV episodes on WP that have 6,000 word synopses.

I've just noticed that we seem to have a type of WP:CREEP, or something, going on in fictional synopses in the articles I watch. I don't see reverting much of it, where it's a factual statement within the fictional universe. I did just see my favorite quote go down in flames from the Star Trek IV movie synopsis; the editor who re-wrote the synopsis was correct to remove it, and I had to bite my tongue about its removal (the Chekov quote about the "nu-cle-ar wessels"). For quotes, I note, they should be moved to WikiQuote, rather than removed. Oh, well.

Also, certain writings in the scope of WP:FICT guidelines point me to the idea that if we hit the point of "re-writing the movie", we've essentially stepped on the creator's copyrights, and are acting against both our own interest as fans and the interests of the Wikimedia Foundation; for us, to support the creators of the work, and their rightfully-earned profits from it. Just some stuff to think about. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah putting references on disam pages is very tricky. What is the reference that they want to add? I assume they want to put a reference up that shows that Sheridan was indeed the captain of that vessel? I'll see if I can get it worked out. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's there in the edit history to John Sheridan; the IP editor added, I reverted a redlink with no reference, the editor re-added, with an edit summary pointing at the article with the reference. I wikilinked it in the disam page per protocol, but I didn't enjoy it, knowing I committed the crime of circularity. Thanks for helping. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 points that need settling: The IP editor thought their edit would "stick" better if they wikilinked it to nothing (leaving no links); I'm pretty sure the opposite is true, you have to wikilink somewhere on a Disam page, or there's no point to having the pages or the references. 2) The reference in the article HMS Terror (1813) I don't know how to fix because I'm not dis-believing the info in the article, I can't just remove the reference. The article is cited, just not inline or online, so I can't read up on the specific subject of who this Captain Sheridan guy was; so I'm at a loss to unlink, redlink, or what. Expert dis-ammers like yourself are more accustomed to barging in on other people's work and justifying a fix to the dis-am link than I, that's really why I asked for help, I can fix it with some ham-fisted redlink or something, I'm just not sure I can justify whatever fix I might choose. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You offer someplace statistics about Wikipedia users.

Is there any way I can found out how many users are accessing a particular article or entry?

Thanks.

JPFay (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the people over at MediaWiki are the best to answer the question, since they know the software the best (see the logo link in the footer right of every page). There are probably several other better pages to ask the question I don't even know about. The Help Desk comes to mind.

When referring to 'users' of an article a distinction needs to be drawn between 'readers' and 'editors'. I will attempt to draw it.

Here is what I know: The four 'External tools:' on the 'History' tab at the top of the article fork over a bunch of stuff, some of which may actually be comprehensible. I can find out how many other editors are watching an article, telling me roughly "how many care" by choosing 'History' / 'Number of watchers' (someday I'm going to find out who to complain to that it won't fork over a number if it's less than 30; that's silly). Overall reader popularity of an article for the whole the project may be documented at 'History' / 'Page view statistics', it is for "Babylon 5" and "Hamlet" but not for "Albuquerque, New Mexico". It does fork over monthly page views nonetheless, not the most convenient format, but there it is, something about reader interest.

I can also find out the total editors and edits (establishing a consensus estimate across the entire history of an article) by choosing the page left 'Cite this page' / 'Revision history statistics'. (The info is provided in a different format than at the 'History' / 'Revision history statistics', and can be mentioned externally to Wikipedia in citations, if the target audience cares.)

Finally, when I first read your question, I thought it was about magic words, lots of interesting stuff there to play with (and cited on my User page).

Anyhow, if you find out more, come back and let me know.  :-) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For fixing up and adding the correct references to the article in the Albuquerque page. I find it funny how people revert it but they do not realize how horrible it looked, or even fix it up for that matter. ZekeW (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical note: This conversation ended at SPI. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to draw your attention to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Section_names_in_technical_articles. You are needed. — CpiralCpiral 02:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to get to it. I just keep getting distracted... —Aladdin Sane (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

At MoS talk, you made a comment about en dashes as separators. I wasn't sure whether you felt the status quo in which the dash is spaced where there is spacing within one or both elements is desirable, rather than:

New York–Sydney flight (York to Sydney?); the New Zealand–South Africa grand final; 3 June 1888–18 August 1940.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Spaces_in_endash

Tony

Yes, I've weighed in once. In the example, "Is it Guinea-Bissau–Senegal border or Guinea-Bissau – Senegal border?" I felt strongly that the en dash needs spacing. With the spaces, my comprehension of what is being expressed is near-instantaneous. Done the other way, it takes at least three to four repetitive reads before the meaning of what is expressed finally sinks in, due to the exceeding similarity of the hyphen and the en dash. Had there not been a counter-example, I probably would have entirely missed comprehending what was actually expressed. In these cases I doubt my discomfort at reading a language I've spoken, read and written in for over 40 years is unique; I tend to think in these cases I speak for a majority of readers. The spaced version feels like an "Ahhh", like a breath of fresh air.

The rest of the arguments are, I feel, relatively pointless in the sense of "academic"; appeal to authority impresses me less and less as the discussion proceeds; clarity in communication does impress me. Of course one has to space en dashes between otherwise spaced terms, else one is being ambiguous about what is being dashed. I just made the argument at Talk:Avoid weasel words, "we are not here to be erudite". We are here to communicate clearly. It is a challenge to me, the editor, to get the ideas expressed across to the reader in "terms so plain and clear as to command their assent". There are, potentially, 500 million to 1.6 billion readers on the other end of what I write, I intend to be as inclusive as possible, without attempting arbitrariness or omniscience.

I don't have a big problem with the idea that some specialized areas do things differently; the bit about inline cites in humanities articles is, I believe, one of those areas where editors go off and do things their own way in their own field, regardless of the stylistic preference of the majority. As an editor approaching an article, I find there is forensic evidence left behind by the other 100 or 1000 editors of "what consensus is here", and it is not difficult to understand that certain major changes would go against consensus for the article or the Project it is in. Mathematical theorems may be another of those areas; I'd really leave it to those with some experience in the specialized field to tell me "how it's done there", rather than let MoS do the dictating.

Here's one of the earliest comments from WT:MOS:

...don't poke your head in unless you're willing to get it shot off.  :-)

I find the advice well-considered, eight years later. I note in a broad stroke there doesn't seem to be as much concern at WT:MOS for the reader of the encyclopedia as there is for the sheer joy of ivory-tower argument removed from practice. Of course, with 111 archives over eight years, it is what I expected. I've come to regard the debate in terms only Dalí could express clearly. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think my brain is melting like those clock faces at the moment! ArbCom election fuss with the SecurePoll closing time.  :-( Tony (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re your change to putting 'fasciculus' in italics in Fascicle, it was originally that way in one of the two source pages, and I initially replicated it in the merged page. But the main use of the term is in anatomy, where, like other Latin terms, it's not put in italics, so I changed it. However, it's probably ok either way. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Very noteworthy, thanks. I'll try to keep that in mind, though I doubt I'll take on any anatomy articles (never know).

My encyclopedic interest as an editor is to write general English for the reader, not the English of any specific discipline, and I certainly wouldn't have known the specific detail that you mention. I'm much more prone to studying the general issues of language use, and trying to extract their principles. The disambiguation page is, I feel, about as general as you can get when trying to write proper English for the reader. I'm sure the specific rules apply to articles in the specific discipline.

While I hadn't heard the word before (no reference in my memory, at least), not long after the edit I came across the word, fascicle, in reference to the design of the OED. It's a good disambiguation page, I feel.

Ah, here's one specialty style I do know, genus and species in italics. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You posted the following comment after a very thorough, constructive, well-put discussion entry that I wrote yesterday: "I didn't understand a word of that. If you think the article isn't an WP:FA, please nominate it for a WP:FAR". Although everyone on wiki is entitled to their opinions, I feel that your comment was unnecessary and not constructive. I kindly request that you change/edit it. I feel that I am approaching edits the right way, discussing first and reaching a consensus before changing the entry. As my post states, I simply feel that some important, general information about the movie ET should be included in the lead. Thank you for your assistance. Dougmac7 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied per request at Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial#Lead needs work. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

... for cleaning up after me :) --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 19:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Man, I can preview one krazillion times and still miss something. It's just weird how that works. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is proof that it exists. http://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-Complete-Martin-Sheen/dp/B001KGDNAW/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1262133682&sr=8-5 Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not what I meant, and I should have been more clear in my edit summary: Don't make me look it up on Wikipedia to prove it exists, is what I meant: As an editor, simply give me the right wikilink in the first place (that's what I did in my edit: I looked it up on WP, found it, wikilinked it, now it exists as a simple assertion of fact, rather than editorial rumor, and all is fine since the reader can find the assertion that the actor indeed played the part, using Wikipedia). I think that off-WP references, if any are needed, go in the Kennedy (TV miniseries) article, and are not actually required in the Sheen article; we don't have to re-prove every acting credit in every actor's article since they are proved, or should be, in the article about the work produced, to which we linked.

Basically my edit should have said, "Please give me a wikilink, but since you didn't, I'll provide it for the reader instead, since the reader shouldn't have to do a separate lookup to find the work because we have these really cool things called wikilinks". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your revert here, as noted in my own edit summary, I'm not hellbent on including that recommendation. However, your edit summary didn't strike me as very convincing tbh. Far from presuming anything, I decided to include the pointer to WP:First after having witnessed many situations like e.g. this one (for the record, that IP is of course also me). I'd say it's not Creep when it addresses an actual issue. Too many registered editors do not, in fact, seem familiar with some basic guidelines like First. Would you consider reinstating it, maybe in altered form? --78.34.207.232 (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(Also, but this is just conjecture, I think it's plausible that quite a few editors may be looking at WAF at an earlier point in their wikicareer than at First because of all the WAF links included in maintenance tags in many fiction articles.) --78.34.207.232 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you might have a point here. But I think guidelines should only be edited after consensus is reached. I've addressed your concern at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Navigational problem with this guideline article concerning WP:FIRST. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD applies to all Wikipedia pages. When a revert is done, that's when the discussion usually starts. I only suggest edits instead of just doing them when the edit might hit resistance or is problematic for some other reason. Also, not that it matters, but I am the principal author of the current version of WAF. --78.34.237.205 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC) (Another reason I rarely suggest edits is because the usual level of response is the same as to your section at WT:WAF so far. --78.34.237.205 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Please restore the ((refimprove)) template to this article. I would like for you to be the one to do it. Your argument that referencing belongs purely in each individual parent article is flawed and incorrect. Every article in Wikipedia needs to be sourced, and there is no such thing as too many or redundant sources in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a story named Aladdin. Woodsy dong peep (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Deleter Bot is Miszabot III? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodsy dong peep (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were on break. I hope you are well and to see you return soon. Synchronism (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Per [2]. Watch your cussing, please. That is not justified. –MuZemike 05:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe my entry was justified in the way I expressed it--you are correct. I have entered my apology as diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vonda_Shepard&diff=354261599&oldid=350860054. --Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, screwed the link to the diff (actually lost it altogether so I may be criticized for this; it did not save per plan), but here it is, and I admit to going overboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vonda_Shepard&diff=355039525&oldid=354261599 --Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the Pelicans got me. See top of page. --Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:B5 A-Race-Through-Dark-Places talia-tosses-gloves scaled.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, doesn't that just WP:SUCK. I've uploaded very few fair use images, and by the rules, the template is correct, I have to argue the deleted article, not the image, and I'm not prepared to do that at this point. I spent hours rewinding that DVD to get just the right expression on Talia's face as she threw down her gloves. And hand-writing the fair use rationale for its inclusion in the article, to address all 10 Rationale points individually. Thanks for nothing Wikipedia bots, I suppose this is a quite sterile operating room that excises these painstaking human edits on the whim of a bot.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)