This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Dear Nigelj,
You undid my addition with the comment "No, that's just unnecessary confusion. What you refer to is called "home education" in UK. " Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly, but I was referring to the historical derivation of the term "public" school in the UK. While what you write may be true today, in the 16th century the term "public" education came into use in a similar fashion to the word "public house" (pub), i.e. a house that was open to the public. Prior to the 16th century education of other than the nobility was only available to a very few people through the religious orders. In the 16th century, as a result of the reformation and the rise of Protestantism, the idea that an educated populace might be desirable began to take hold, and grammar schools--public-schools--became established in order that the children of the growing middle class might receive as good an education as had previously only been available to the people in the very top stratum of society. Public schools were established throughout England, even in small towns, for example the King's New School in Stratford-upon-Avon where Shakespeare received his superb education, one so good that even today people argue that his plays must have been written by someone else because he wasn't one of the "University Wits".
This is explained in detail in the Oxford English Dictionary: "Public education, education at school as opposed to being privately 'educated' ..."
jdoniach
Hi, can you help me and take a short look at tkWWW article? Either I or User:Pmedema is not familiar with the wp rules. THX mabdul 19:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mabdul, I too am a bit busy with 'real life' at the moment. I also had never heard of tkWWW until just now, but it does sound like it has a place in history. I've added it to my watchlist and will read up and try to help there starting next week. Thanks for the heads-up. --Nigelj (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Methods by themselves are not idempotent. It is very common for people to use GET to do all sorts of non-safe things. By declaring a method as idempotent, you basically telling your users that calling the method repeatedly would give them the same result. So, what counts is the semantics implied with each method that counts. Back to PUT and POST, the only essential difference is that PUT should be idempotent while POST is not. However, not all updates are idempotent. If you use PUT for such situation, a user would wrongly assume that repeated PUTs would give them the same result but in fact it is not. In situation like this, POST should be used because it conveys the correct semantics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.228.149 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 November 2010
Please see Portal talk:Renewable energy#Task force ?... Johnfos (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Nigelj
I tried to contribute an article only to discover you reverted my contribution. Could you explain your reason for doing this as I'm sure this issue can be resolved.
Regards Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lickandqui (talk • contribs) 10:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nigelj
Thank you, I see your point. I'll go away and research how best to transfer text to wiki. Ref one of your points, the general flow does not go with the main article, could you suggest where the edit might be placed on Wiki. I'm the author of the document, there is no copyright concern. I realise the text needs proof reading, which presents as poor punctuation and will work on this.
Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.223.135 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
... at "the distain of many standard evangelists", which is sourced to a personal blog that does not even mention "the distain of any standard evangelists") I'm sorry that you see this as an "opinionated swipe", but I'm not willing to butt heads with you over this issue. However, the blog post I quoted as source is an overview of some of the most influential web developers' negative reactions to the logo. Amongst them the Web Standards Project (WaSP) -- and if those guys don't count as "standard evangelists", who do? --Takimata (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you notice this? An IP impersonating Winkmann99 at Talk:Vulva. Slightsmile (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I like your cut of your jib !!. I have tried to raise a smile or three with a new related section on the Talk? (novelists corner, weepy show revisited) page. Francis E Williams (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I think your recent edits to Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs are very well done, improve readability, and strike a good balance of neutrality on what is apparently an emotionally charged topic for some people. Thanks for the time and effort you put into improving the article. In particular, I think the phrase "...one supporter of the incandescent light bulb is..." flows much better than my earlier attempted edit. --AdamRoach (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Nigelj, are you the IP from (2007) the Diamond-caution.svg talk? If yes, your are right (the PNG is better), but where is your SVG, you have not uploaded any file here? You know now, how you can upload files? Greetings --Perhelion (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Nigelj
I modified this page because I couldn't find the MIME type of JSON text. However now I see it's called Internet media type. Should my edit be removed? talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfmanson (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Would appreciate your help regarding this: "The ozone layer experiences the highest level of depletion on record as a result of cold temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere last winter." which currently appears in the "in the news section" of the main page and strikes me as misleading. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nigel:
Would you like me to send you a copy of the Spalding Guardian article that quotes Jones, that you removed from the CRU controversy page AWB? I have a local copy (which I had misfiled) on my desktop now. I just double-checked, and our quote is accurate.
This assumes I can figure out how to put a web page copy as an email attachment ;-] ... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed that you reverted my edit of Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs regarding how energy efficient bulbs may not save nearly as much energy as we're made to believe. I thought my addition, though not explicitly cited, went along well with the previous citation. For those not familiar with the concept (and since most people would not bother to look up the citation's article), I was trying to make it clear why energy efficient bulbs may not actually save ANY energy in colder climates, and in fact may actually waste energy (perhaps depending on thermostat placement, as you pointed out).
My concern & frustration is that packaging on virtually every CFL or LED bulb claims that they will save the consumer some specific dollar amount on their utility bills over the life of the bulb (neglecting differences in killowatt-hour billing rates). And of course the packaging says that the bulbs are "eco friendly", making us all feel better about it at the same time. But they mention nothing about the fact that these bulbs will save NO energy AT ALL; none, nada; if they're used, for example, inside the heated living quarters of the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station or any other buildings that are constantly heated anyway. ALL of the "wasted" energy of a conventional bulb serves to reduce the heating requirements of the building's furnace, and energy efficient bulbs merely make the furnace run more to make up the difference. An energy efficient bulb in that environment will cost its user more than the equivalent incandescent bulbs over the same period of time, and will save no energy at all. The only difference would be due to the bulb (obviously) using electricity, while the furnace uses another form of fuel, and the relative cost differences for the same amount of energy between the two energy sources.
Of course most homes do not run their furnaces year-round, so the real savings is somewhere between "zero" and the stated savings on the CFL/LED bulb packaging, and of course dependent on the portion of the year that the home runs its furnace and the portion of the year that the home runs its air conditioning. And, have you ever walked into a room in your house in the middle of winter, where the room had been un-occupied (with its lights off) for at least several hours? Unless the heating vents are opened wide (heating the room disproportionally from the rest of the house), the room is probably several degrees colder than other rooms that you've been occupying (with their lights on). After being in the room (with the lights on) for an hour or so, the room won't be nearly as cold. My point was that if the whole house is lighted with CFL lights, then NONE of the rooms will be heated up as much by the lights as they would have been with incandescent lights, so the furnace will have to work more to heat the house to the same temperature. As you pointed out, minor differences such as the location of the thermostat may make significant differences, but my point still stands: If the furnace has to make up the difference between the heat output of incandescent lights vs. CFL lights, the whole house is affected, not just occupied rooms. Normally one would think the thermostat would be in a typically occupied room, and since that room is now lighted with CFL bulbs, the furnace is now pumping out more heat to the WHOLE house to make up for the difference, and even unoccupied rooms are now being heated more, which would waste far more energy than the incandescent lights would have "wasted" in the first place. Of course this condition only exists during the portion of the year when the home's thermostat is set to 'heat', the reverse condition exists when the home's air condition is in service (and the CFL bulbs come out shining as real energy-saving heros during that period). One would hope that CFL-related energy savings during the summer exceed CFL-related energy losses during the winter, or else we're really doing ourselves & the environment a disservice by using CFL at all.
I'm sorry if you thought my contribution was confusing; I thought it was pretty clear. Is there another wording of the same idea that you'd like to replace it with? I don't think the existing article adequately addresses this issue.
--Phonetagger (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Anything to stop User:Arthur Rubin from deleting other's User Talk? User:Arthur Rubin (wp:Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, this time on User Talk:Zodon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834) ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277) and User talk:OhanaUnited (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249) 99.190.85.26 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I came across this diff and felt obliged to comment. It is quite obvious that there is indeed a class of adjectives which are capitalised as though they were proper nouns: "English" is an excellent example. I would suggest that both "Web service" and "rich Internet application" are correctly capitalised (although the latter is usually presented in title case in the wild). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you forgot to sign here Pass a Method talk 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#Add_Climate_of_Denial:_Can_science_and_the_truth_withstand_the_merchants_of_poison.3F. 99.190.81.239 (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Per your edits of Climate change policy of the United States ... any Talk:Climate change policy of the United States comments? 99.181.140.243 (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
My last edit to Vulva is not vandalism: I removed all real vulva images from the article. ColderPalace1925 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The Education and skills Act 2008 raises the leaving age to 17 in 2013, and 18 by 2015. There are alternatives to school, but dropping out is not one of them. that seems to me to make it "compulsory". I did try to revert your edit and refer to the act in the note, but my work firewall is blocking my save of the page. Perhaps you would care to reverse your edit in the light of the above? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching all those "Argue"s.... especially since I put in a couple of them (to replace something worse, ims.) Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Per your encouragement, I've started the first subsection addressing the second statement in Mr. Rubin's "dispute". Please feel free to comment or make suggestions for moving forward. I will not be able to address statement 1 until sometime later tomorrow ("Global warming conspiracy"). Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nigel, I finally studied your reply on the Talk:Positive feedback page. I still have major issues with that page: 1) needs better discussion of the DANGERS of undampened (and otherwise unlimited) positive feedback in dynamic systems, 2) the preamble should begin w/a clear assertion: "Positive feedback IS -----"... Anyway, we'll come back to that... On one issue, I just wanted to say thanks, and I stand corrected. I have been working around digital electronics for ~30 years, and only with this discussion have I finally understood how a latch works. I couldn't understand why you were showing a digital circuit, which CLEARLY shows negative feedback, when you should really be showing an electrical circuit, which would better show the positive-feedback Schmitt effect. But NOW I see it!!!!! It is there.... For all these years, my eyes have seen an OR symbol, and substituted a static, logical representation for it in my mind, forgetting that there is a very live analog and non-linear electrical circuit underneath.... Thanks for helping me correct this false-view I was carrying :) --Bill Huston (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, You were faster than me... I clicked post and got an edit conflict response. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change regarding image. The image adds to the article, for some too much (Climate change denial) ... further discusssion? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Nigelj— FYI, see here. —Scheinwerfermann T·C16:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by "simple, bald statement" about his eye color? Surely a source that indicates they used genetic analysis to figure out his eye color is more useful than that Discovery reference with no real explanation of how they came to that conclusion? Hergilfs (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Could use your input on Talk:Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Consensus_on_median_in_summary. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Positive feedback, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Equilibrium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nigelj! Just wanted to check if you had any comment on the revisions I proposed to the draft at Talk:Document Object Model#Explaining what the DOM is without being vague? Thanks again for the feedback.
--Qwerty0 (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your reasoned response to my sincere but perhaps overly forceful question on the talk page. I really don't want to clutter that page so I'll clutter yours. :-) If I understand you correctly, you believe attaching the word "anthropogenic" to present-day CC or GW is redundant because that is the only kind that is occurring. If we limit the article to anthropogenic, we leave open the possibility that there is also non-anthropogenic (natural) CC or GW. Since NASA and NOAA and the IPCC, et al, don't believe there is any significant natural warming now, we don't want to open that possibility. (From p. 5 of the report: "During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.") You're saying there's only one kind of change going on right now, and to specify that it is human-induced suggests a contrast to natural CC, which the experts say isn't happening now even though it has in the past. (NASA: "It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system. Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps. But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun.")
There, I said it twice. Did I get it? Yopienso (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. William's insertion of the graph supplied the timeline I was clamoring for, so my question about the word "anthropogenic" is more for my own understanding than to modify or improve the article. Yopienso (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Technically, WP:SELF (as I read it) is designed to prevent people reading an article on an other website to feel lost (broken links, "this website", ...). I don't think using our domain as a little self promotion for the project hurts :). -- Luk talk 11:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
example.org
' and removed the rest so that it wasn't a potentially confusing mixture. I suppose you could argue that the others are only examples and not strictly covered by WP:SELF, but the best place to do that would be on the article talk page rather than here, so that other editors can comment too. Please feel free to copy this thread there if you like, to start the discussion if you want to pursue it. --Nigelj (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)A comment on your reversion of my edit to the Internet page, which was based on the concept that the "singular they" is acceptable English usage. In teaching writing, I try to impress upon my students that we have singular and plural pronouns for a reason. I like to see that even if the rules are broken often in colloquial speech, my students know them, and use them when they do formal writing. I'm a little saddened, if what you did represents any kind of official policy, that Wikipedia is going to be working against us on that front. I understand that the words I changed are acceptable in everyday speech, but I'm chagrined that you would revert my changes, as if there were something wrong with what I did. This contributes to students' getting the impression that correct grammar doesn't really matter, "See? Wikipedia said you were *wrong* and removed your silly edits." --Capouch (talk) 20:52 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Nigel; here's looking at you! Yopienso (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
I understand your concern :-) No worries! --Addihockey10 e-mail 20:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nigel,
I see from you profile that you're a very experienced editor, way more than I.
I'm referring to the "bold deletion" on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JSON&diff=418834420&oldid=418815901
I can see where the discussion of other formats was getting a bit long and a bit off topic, but it WAS useful information. But it could have been moved to another page, perhaps the comparison of data serialization formations, or split off into a page like "other json-like formats".
When somebody is about to wholesale delete the work of many other people, I think the burden falls on the deleter to look for a new home for it, rather than just removing it.
My proof? It existed for quite a long time without causing problems. Many others added to it, including myself. I was useful, I discovered the deletion today when I wanted to review the info and went looking for it. It wasn't clearly wrong or profane. The only "violation" was your (seasoned) opinion that it was off topic for that particular page.
On a larger issue, I'm less likely to edit wikipedia these days due to the aggressive deleting of a few individuals. I've tried to follow guidelines better, and my stuff isn't normally deleted, but still there's the doubt in my mind "how much time am I wasting?" I also have a friend who's stopped editing all together.
I understand the need to delete things sometimes. And people should learn the guidelines. And I'm sure being a volunteer editor that deletes things opens you up to rants, which I'm not trying to do here. And in a case like this, where content was generally accepted and expanded for quite some time, shouldn't that burden of finding a new home fall to the person doing the deleting?
Would you please address this?
Thanks, Mark
Ttennebkram (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nigel,
I suspected the formal policy had something to that approximate affect. I'm not saying you violated a policy.
But where you say " I have had large amounts of my own text radically altered and outright deleted over the years...", that's not entirely applicable here. That content had lived in that article for some time, and been happily edited and added to by multiple users. I liked it so much that I was motivated to add one additional subsection. At some point I'm suggesting that the burden ought to shift a bit. I'm not sure it should be a "rule", but I think the burden should shift as content becomes more and more established and contributed to.
You mention "I'm not sure that it is my problem ...", I'm suggested that for long established and thriving content, maybe that statement isn't entirely true. Maybe it is still true in the "letter of the law", the official policy, but I think it's too easy to just delete things that others found useful. (which isn't the only criteria for WP, sure)
Also there's the efficiency of senior editors knowing how to quickly fork a page or relocate content, vs. the junior editors who might not even know what other options exist. Can't a page could be somehow forked then have overlapping content redacted. That still gives the "deleting" editor power to remove things, but with just a bit more effort to them to find someplace else for it.
There's probably some way to amend policies or whatever, some committee.... ultimately senior editors should still be able to trim articles, it's the /dev/null of content then was around for a while and had multiple contributors that I think needs some "adjustment".
I did see your offer to me, and I'll likely take you up on that.
I'd like to ask you: If I loosely define "long lived and thriving content" as large parts of an article that have been around for > 6 months, and have had at least 3 contributors (new content, not just edits), then how often is such content removed?
May I ask, do you even notice when you're deleting the work of a half dozen or more people that other Wikipedia users have found acceptable for months and months? Does that even enter into it?
Has there ever been any discussion about deleting that type of content? (vs. the "normal" deletes of spam or quickly removing 1 individual's off topic rants?)
I suppose an editor could argue that they shouldn't be encumbered with such things, that it's the content that matters, etc etc. I would take some exception to that, or at least in terms of "move" vs. "delete".
People stop contributing to Wikipedia because of aggressive deletes. A Sr. volunteer who understands everything might think that's acceptable, but then I hear the Wikipedia founders worrying about participation rates, etc. Without compromising the quality standards, there's got to be more that can be done.
I do appreciate your discussion of this.
Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttennebkram (talk • contribs) 00:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)