Do you recall the reason why you set up print to not show navboxes? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They only contain hyperlinks to aid in navigation when viewing articles with a browser. They are not useful any more after being printed on paper. —Ruud 22:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Do you recall whether there was any discussion of this rationale at the time the decision was made? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't remember, but you could check the talk page archives of Common.css/Template:Navbox from around that time. (Although I'm not sure if that even was the name of the template at that moment.) Cheers, —Ruud 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, I am not Wikipedia savvy enough to do that sort of forensic work. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I am an administrator from the Basque Wikipedia and we have a problem with the collapsible tables. As you can see in this template, a small arrow appears before the title to collapse the table. We would like to have like in the English version. In the English Wikipedia it appears [hide] or [show] at the end of the title. I don't know if I have explained myself correctly.--An13sa (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. I have tried doing what you told me, but I didn't get anything. Could you please change it for us? (We would be very grateful. You can work under my permission.)--An13sa (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Latinx has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contemporary incompleteness theorems was created by Carl Hewitt or a colleague after material was removed from the article on Goedel's theorem. I would just redirect it to the main article, but the redirect has been reverted. Could you either delete the article, or protect it as a redirect? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Al-Khwarizmi's map.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Shizhao (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you are mentioned on common.js as maintainer of the table collapsing code. Is there any chance you would include (not) collapsing specific rows and columns? I have done it with this code, but I rarely code JS/DOM stuff, so this may be flawed, although it works. — Christoph Päper 10:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Wikipedia:Wikiportal/History/Categories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice that you have moved the band page from "Epica (band)" to "Epica", along with some other releavant stuff. I should tell you that the talk page for Epica still redirects to the Epica (disambiguation) talk page, in case you didn't know. Also, is there a way to restore the old talk page there? You'd probably have such information, considering your status as an administrator. Have a nice day. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 00:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you participated in a 2005/2006 discussion and straw poll on whether or not the tagline at the top of all Wikipedia articles should be changed from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know if you're still interested in this issue or not, but this exact change has been proposed once again, this time at the Village pump, and there is currently an RFC (Request for Comment) on the subject where it is being discussed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Astronomy in medieval Islam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

I'm not sure if you nominated it, but I can't find the original nomination and you uploaded it. Therefore I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Shallow water waves.gif. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ruud,

Thanks for participating in the dispute resolution at Talk:Particle_swarm_optimization#Dispute over article contents. I will stay out of the discussion to allow for a neutral review. However, I notice that you are in favour of adding external links to notable source-code libraries. I have argued for this for some time, see Talk:Particle_swarm_optimization#External Links to Source-Code but it requires a consensus to be reached through Wikipedia:ELN. It would give more weight to the issue if a non-contributor would request this, so I ask that you post a note with your opinion on Wikipedia:ELN. You can see a list of the external links compiled by multiple wikipedians over time here.

Cheers,

Optimering (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--

Hello Ruud, I was not being idealistic as much as self-interested, as the approach I defend is the one providing the highest value to me. With respect to your opinion in the PSO talk page, I'm afraid that view is responsible that 90% of mathematics articles in Wikipedia are useless to me. I would very much prefer having three words by an expert trying to explain an important idea in layman terms, and thus providing the most cherished insight on an unknown topic, rather than one hundred linked articles each with an exact formal definition. The experience of the expert can be transmitted by those small remarks in order to get a rough intuition about the precise role of a concept in a wider context. The goal is not to understand each concept on its own but to relate it to the whole picture. The best good/featured articles in Wikipedia serve that purpose quite well, so it has been done. It's not impossible at all!

You said that you've seen this kind of discussions often in math articles. Would you help me better understand that viewpoint, by which at most four paragraphs in the lead would make the article too long for someone already possessing some (but not all) of the required knowledge? Which is the deep impediment to make Wikipedia many things to many people? Diego Moya (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that by "tuning" the lead to exactly your background, you are making it of highest value for only a very small portion of the audience, perhaps even just you. Ideally we there should be a specialized version of the article for each reader, but that seems to be an impossibility. Taking the example of gradient again, while stating it's definition is useful to you, it is superfluous to any reader with some formal education in mathematics or computer science (likely a significant proportion of the audience), while that explanation would not be enough to help someone totally unfamiliar with the field in general (likely most of the other portion of the audience) help gain even a bit more understanding.

To summarize, the core of this problem lies in the fact that audience can't be clearly split into "experts" and "layman", but that there is a whole spectrum of the expertise and backgrounds individual readers have. As there can only be one article, a compromise has to be struck and for an article on a rather specific topic within the field of computer science that compromise will probably have to lie at assuming the reader to have "some education" in that field, either gained formally or by "following the links". —Ruud 09:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I was trying to be inclusive by having something of value for every audience; the changes I suggested weren't at all oriented to my particular background.

I'm afraid the compromise you support only favors those who are already 'in the know', so it's really not a compromise at all. By making assumptions about the target audience, you are guaranteeing the article will have absolutely zero value for everybody else. If you write for people with a 'general education in maths', anyone without a western formal education would be lost. But why stop at that? You could ask for people having a research background, and the article will be useless to professional programmers. Or you could write the article assuming at least some knowledge with search algorithms, and then even mathematicians from other fields will have problems following it. Where do you place the arbitrary line for the required knowledge?

There's a fundamental problem with your vision that one should educate themselves by following links previous to reading a technical article. When all articles do that, you defer giving an explanation of the basic concepts to a further, more general article. And then the general introductory article to a discipline consist mostly of links back to the particular relevant concepts, assuming that the reader can learn their meanings from them. The net effect is that all entry-level explanatory content is systematically pruned away.

Sadly, math articles in Wikipedia at this moment follow that pattern. For that structure to really work, you should have a coordinated effort to provide contents of appropriate level of expertise through all related articles at Wikipedia. If you find it difficult to do on a single article, imagine what it takes to make it distributed.

Thanks for taking your time to explain your point of view. It has made me value the ongoing effort at the Simple English Wikipedia, which proves that my vision is a viable one. Diego Moya (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your continued involvement in the discussions. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even if you think others are not. It would help if you removed your recent comment [1], and instead address the content issues only. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you are a regular, I am abiding by WP:DTTR, but letting you know that I have tagged this for speedy deletion as I do not think it meets the requirements to avoid it, or the guidelines at WP:BIO. – ukexpat (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a clue what made you think you could unilaterally remove a noticeboard discussion and put it on the talk page, but please do not do it again. If you can't keep your comments short and to the point, then you are free to link to them, explaining that you've written an essay or longer comment on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Viriditas, I moved the discussion to the talk page to get more exposure to this discussion, especially since several knowledgeable people are likely watching the talk page, while no inication was present the that a discussion was going on at the noticeboard. A clear link was left in place at the noticeboard. More people, including yourself have now commented in the at the thread on the talk page. To avoid fragmenting this discussion could please either properly merge the two discussion, leaving a link from the talk page or vice verse. Cheers, —Ruud 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got it backwards. The discussion on the noticeboard was initiated to get more exposure outside the stalled discussion on the talk page. I don't understand why you think the process works in reverse, but it does not. When we run into problems on the article and the talk page, we use the noticeboards to get outside views. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The exact location of where the discussion takes place is not very relevant, as long as it is noted that a discussion ongoing at the appropriate places. In this case no indication of the discussion was left at the talk page, the first place a discussion should have been started. I was afraid the discussion would get archived before enough people had even noticed this disucssion, so moved it to the talk page. Again, the exact place of where the discussion takes place is irrelevant, so if you insist it taking place at the noticeboard I have no problem with this, but please properly merge the discussion as the have currently diverged. —Ruud 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. However, you are mistaken about the discussion and how and why we use the noticeboard reporting system. The report was filed to get outside opinion only about the BLP concerns, not any other topic. Please feel free to ask others about this if you so desire. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ruud,

As you may recall we both participated in a discussion on particle swarm optimization regarding the inclusion of external links to source-code. We were both in favour of having such links. The main opponents were User:MrOllie and User:Ronz. Since then MrOllie has made several large edits/deletions as well as proposed deletion of an article (local unimodal sampling) which I just caught in time by pure coincidence. Because of their behaviour I was initially led to believe they were official Wikipedia administrators but I have now searched Special:ListUsers and it appears that neither of them have administrator privileges (Ronz has rollback-status, MrOllie is just a regular user it seems). MrOllie clearly has no expertise on many of the pages he/she is editing and it would be preferable if concerns were expressed using tags and the discussion page. Could I ask you, as an administrator, to review the discussion we had on particle swarm optimization and take administratory action if you find it necessary, and perhaps also inform MrOllie of the proper procedure of reaching consensus on Wikipedia through talk pages, etc. I have tried a number of times to no avail.

Thanks,

Optimering (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Ruud, I appreciate it. (Re. your reply on my talk-page.) Optimering (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed your post at WikiProject Computer science (and at WP:COMP) about the discussion at particle swarm optimization. Would you consider editing it to use more neutral wording? Right now it sounds it's meant to sway the outcome, not to obtain a broader consensus. Wikipedia has a guideline about canvassing, which is worth reading if you haven't had a chance to yet. --Pnm (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel that editing your post as you suggested would mean taking responsibility for it, which I'm not comfortable doing. I think the edit you made helped convey respect for the editors with whom you disagree.

I think you and I disagree about what's at stake. I don't think what happens in this debate sets a precedent for other articles. The consensus reached there doesn't become a policy or guideline. I respect your opinion about which links should be included in that article, but think it belongs on the article talk page, not at WP Comp sci.

In terms of something more global, I can see the benefit of such a thing. WikiProject Video games has a paragraph that interprets WP:ELNO in its article guidelines. (The mathematics and draft comp sci MOS don't mention external links.) To be useful, though, I think the topic-specific guidelines need to be consistent with WP:ELNO – by interpreting it rather than overriding it.

I'll try to participate in the discussion at Talk:Particle swarm optimization, though I think reaching consensus may take a shift in thinking of that sort: to interpret, rather than override WP:ELNO.

--Pnm (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I am the one who introduced him to the french wikipedia with a warm welcome. :)
Your claim that he is still a newbie is bizarre, he's been introduced to the wikipedia 4 time, on en.wp, ca.wp, fr.wp and commons with some kind of ((welcome)) template. He's got 259 edits on all the wikimedia projects, I fully consider him a wikipedia member by now. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please immediately unprotect any pages you have recently moved and subsequently protected on your preferred version. This is abuse of the administrator tools. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you disagree with the naming of any of the articles? —Ruud 22:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you have failed to reverse your abusive actions, I have taken the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. O Fenian (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are completely out of line here. Move protecting articles after moving them to your preferred name is abuse of admin privileges. I suggest you undo these protections now, because it is certain that such actions will not be kindly looked upon by the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have provided a link to my reasoning in the protection log (User:Ruud Koot/Biography of historical scientist). For these specific class of articles I'd like to call it an administratorial judgement instead of administratorial abuse. Again, do any of you disagree with the naming of any of the articles? —Ruud 22:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you moved one of the articles before and were reverted, you know this is contentious. Even if these moves were not contentious, moving articles to your preferred name and then protecting them violates both WP:MOVP and more importantly WP:SYSOP - "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute where they are a party. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.". You have also set pending changes for articles not covered by its usage. Please undo your admin actions. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm clearly well aware that I'm doing something wrong in the "legal" sense of the word. However I believe my actions are morally right, in the sense that they are good for the project as a whole. For this reason I'm far more interested in creating a wider discussion than simply reverting my actions. —Ruud 22:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've only looked at one of the articles, Al-Kindi, and note that that is the name used by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, suggesting Al-Kindi, and not the impossible-to-type-name to which you moved it, is the name most commonly used in reliable sources. So, yes, I object to the title to which you moved it.

  As to the reasoning you posted, frankly, I don't understand exactly how it applies here. Are you saying that the name you moved it is the full name from the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, or the common name? If not the common name, why are you using it for the title? That's not even justified in your reasoning. In any case, there is enough objection here to warrant a WP:RM proposal, after the articles are reverted to their stable titles. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that would be the "common name". See for example: Alfred L. Ivry (tr.): Al-Kindī's metaphysics: a translation of Ya'qūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī's treatise ‘On first philosophy’ (fī al-falsafah alūlā). (Studies in Islamic Philosophy and Science.) ix, 207 pp. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1974. Please take a look at the other articles as well. —Ruud 22:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait, are you saying that Al-Kindi is not the common name, even though that's what is used in the example you provide? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah sorry, that may not have been completely obvious: Al-Kindī's metaphysics: a translation of Ya'qūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī's treatise ‘On first philosophy’ (fī al-falsafah alūlā). I've underlined the part I wanted to bring to your attention. —Ruud 23:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then allow my to highlight the part I wish to bring to your attention: ''Al-Kindī's metaphysics: a translation of Ya'qūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī's

This does not seem like evidence that the longer name is more common, at best it shows that they are both commonly used. As far as I know, it's still true that "shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones." --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly Obama is even more common than Barack Obama, but our naming policy says it should be located at the latter. The situation here is identical. 23:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I finally understand your point and why you have Obama listed in that box. However, you won't find encyclopedia articles entitled "Obama". But I do find encyclopedia articles entitled "Al-Kindī" [2] [3], so I don't understand why you say the situation of al-Kindi is identical to that of Barack Obama. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think New World Encyclopedia is just a Wikipedia mirror. I think it would be more appropriate to compare Wikipedia with the usage of names in articles from, for example, [[Isis (journal)|Isis] or biographical dictionaries like the Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Small encyclopedia’s on a specific topic have the luxury that they need to disambiguate names less, because there are less conflicts and more is clear to the reader from the context. —Ruud 23:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the main point is not that you're wrong but that you're not clearly, obviously and unquestionably right, that there is room for questioning and discussion, and therefore the pages should be reverted and you can propose the moves at WP:RM. I'm bothered by your apparent reluctance to do so. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I just like to take the path of least resistance. I believe I made an improvement to the encyclopedia today. Going through WP:RM for each and every article here takes a lot of time and energy. Time and energy I'm not able and willing to put into this anytime soon if ever. —Ruud 00:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can believe whatever you want. It's when you misuse your tools to enforce that personal belief that it's a major problem. That's not what the community expects or desires from admins.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the page protection and pending changes. Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the moves, the pages have not had any activity that would justify this protection. Prodego ^talk 22:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]