User talk:Afasmit/Archive 2

Jan Janssen
Thanks for your comments, however I believe WP:DAB disagrees...
 * A disambiguation page is usually named after the generic topic (eg "Term XYZ"). "Term XYZ (disambiguation)" is not the standardized name for a disambiguation page, and is only used when there is a primary topic with an article at "Term XYZ".

From this, and WP:MOSDAB, I read that names should usually be disambiguated unless there is one clear recognised name worldwide. So, based on policy and guideline, I strongly disagree. Regards, SeveroTC 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's really been agreed exactly when a name becomes a primary, especially when it is only between two. Personally, I look for one being overwhelming, which it isn't really. And it isn't exactly laborious changing links as I use AutoWikiBrowser which makes it as easy as the click of a mouse :-) SeveroTC 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

LoPbN
Your msg and an answer has become part of User talk:Jerzy. --Jerzy•t 23:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * _ _ While my immediate freedom to be involved has recovered completely since the debacle, there's an election to which i would grant priority, even at a crucial LoPbN juncture, if LoPbN replacement or restoration turns out to be as long a project as i presume it would be.
 * _ _ While i think the first stages of "replacement" are ideally the proper domain of the developers, it may make sense to spec out the enhancements to the Cat system that would make it capable of replacing LoPbN:
 * Cats or Cat-oids (Cat-like features that might replace Cats at least for achieving LoPbN's goals, even if most Cats don't justify Cat-oid overhead) that would be driven both from the content of pages in the Cat and from that of the Rdrs that target those pages
 * (Therefore) DEFAULTSORT tags working in Rdrs (or, better yet, if absent, defaulting to following the pattern inferable from the DEFAULTSORT tag(s) in the target pages!)
 * Cat indexing more scalably user-friendly than we have yet seen proposed (Please note that several features of the LoPbN indexing scheme were dictated by the prospect that naive LoPbN users would either add entries that didn't fit on previously existing pages, or put them "in order" (at the start or end) on a page they don't belong on; an automatically generated index could be less clumsy and more efficient than my LoPbN tree-structure, without permitting the chaos that preceded it. Not needing to explicitly specify the placement of a new entry, and not needing to assign page titles to subordinate portions of the the index, would permit much more flexibility in the index and the page boundaries.)
 * I'm not sure either the rectangular index at the top of LoPbN or the on-page "access to rest of list" on every other tree page was ever a good idea; i simply avoided deciding on that about them by extending what i found. I do still like something closer to the "exhaustive list", and emulating it may be a good idea for Cat-oids (and maybe for many-page (otherwise conventional) Cats and long lists of articles on Special pages.)
 * I would have been likely to support deletion if it had begun with drawing up specs for these features, and provided for deletion only following implementation and exploitation of such a feature set. That long-term goal may be superior to long-term restoration of LoPbN, and in practice the hopefully lesser political effort of achieving it may outweigh the harm done by getting along without LoPbN in the interim.
 * _ _ As to the content, i saved enuf pages to demonstrate they could all be recovered by any admin, even without fully understanding the interpage organization, and i'd be surprised if that ever changes. If you have a concrete near-term project that depends on it, i could probably complete it before i'm likely to be drafted away from the task. --Jerzy•t 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Prominence and mountain parentage
On 16 May you reversed my correction to change Manaslu’s “parent” back to Cho Oyu. I understand your point, and stand corrected: despite the fact that Cho Oyu is over 130 miles to the east, and you would have trouble getting from Manaslu to Cho Oyu over land without descending to around 12,000 feet, it is the NEXT HIGHER PEAK. Therefore, Cho Oyu is Manaslu's parent. Now explain to me why Manaslu is not Annapurna’s parent, using your system. Manaslu is higher than Annapurna, and is located between Annapurna and Cho Oyu.

mountain parentage, an obscure science
have been doing some more research since my last comment. my current understanding of parentage is what i call the "high tide" theory. imagine that we had an unusually high tide, say 29,000 ft above normal. the earth would have a single land mass, a small island at the very peak of everest. now imagine that the tide gradually recedes to normal and we watch other islands appear. Cho Oyu, higher than Manaslu or Annapurna, appears as a separate island while the other two are still underwater. Manaslu, higher than Annapurna, appears as a separate island while Annapurna remains submerged. Finally Annapurna emerges as the tide recedes below 8000 meters. the tide continues to recede and Annapurna's island expands, gradually collecting the peaks around it.

Annapurna's parent is the FIRST HIGHER PEAK you can walk to without getting your feet wet as the water recedes. If Manaslu is still an island at this point [because it is surrounded by deep valleys] it loses any potential parentage claim to its neighbor Annapurna in favor of Cho Oyu. Presumably this is because there is a very long northern route thru the tibetan plains that gets you to Cho Oyu.

if this is it, then i do understand and you are correct. whether this use of the word "parent" makes any sense is another issue. just as subsidiary peaks on a ridge need a bit of prominence to be considered seperate peaks for ranking purposes, i think the concept of parent could use a proximity test. 130 miles is a bit far for us amateurs to understand.

any way, nice work on the highest mountain page, and i appreciate your time70.246.7.37 01:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

are you sure?
Are you sure it makes sense to shoehorn individuals with non-European names into the European convention of sorting on the "last name" first?

Personally, I am very skeptical that it makes any sense at all. In the cultures that use Arabic or Pashto the son's first name is the father's last name. Most of the captives in Guantanamo have arabic or pashto names. Further, the DoD did an absolutely terrible job of transliterating their names consistently. They added new components, or took them out, seemingly at random. There are at least two dozen Guantanamo captives where the captive's name is transliterated with different "last names" in two different places their names were rendered.

In my opinion it is far better to just sort them on the first character of the first name.

Cheers! Geo Swan 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorization_of_people#Sorting_of_surnames_with_independent_prefixes
I am trying to revive the debate on this since there appears to be only one objector, though a very verbose one. You might like to keep an eye on the matter. Thanks Johnbod 15:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kees Bruynzeel
Hi, I have not worked on this article for a long time, but I came from Stellenbosch and know all the places mentioned but I did not know that he was involved with General Box too. Don't you think some may spell his name Bruinzeel, Bruynzeel etc, making it difficult to pinpoint information?Gregorydavid 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi,in South Africa the Afrikaans language has influenced the way some Dutch people there now spel their names and other Dutch words that have become Afrikaans. The smart people think they are simplifying and refining the language.. Anyway we have an ij becoming a y etc. So Brijnzeel could be Brynzeel and it could have become Bruinzeel etc, so your guess is as good as mine..Gregorydavid 06:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Biographical project notification
In case you are interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Carcharoth 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anneliese van der Pol
I'm not sure if the last name should be listed as "van der Pol" or "Pol" but all you need to do if it should be the latter is change the "deafaultsort" template. It's easier and better than changing each one in a long list. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense and I reverted to how you had it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Egmont
I've left a message for you on my talk page. Tryde 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok...
Ok, next time I'll just correct it instead of insulting anyone. A typo? You're giving me a hard time for a typo? That's it? I accidently put the r before the a instead of the other way around. I'm sorry, I think I'm doing pretty well with the spelling considering I don't have an editor and no one else assists me in my writing (which, unfortunately, is painfully obvious at some points).Jonas Poole 00:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I wasn't offended by any of it. I'm half Dutch, so if I were to root for anyone it would be the Dutch whalemen. I haven't read any journals of ships sailing to Jan Mayen, but I have read several that described voyages to Svalbard by English expeditions. Depending on weather and ice conditions, they could take anywhere from 2 1/2 to over 4 weeks to get to Svalbard. These ships usually sailed from Gravesend, in southeastern England, so the distance wouldn't differ that much from vessels sailing from the Dutch ports. Considering Jan Mayen is significantly closer to the home ports than Svalbard, the average voyage there would have been much less, but the times may have overlapped because of those aforementioned weather and ice conditions. Seeing as how 1633 and 1635 were icy years for whaling around Jan Mayen, this may account for De Ruyter's 3 week voyage there. Giving that I don't know the average sailing time to the island, this is only a guess, but, you're right, the time it took for De Ruyter to get to Jan Mayen does seem a bit long. Jonas Poole 00:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why *?

 * I was looking for vandalism, though I accept your changes were not. I also spotted the issue you raised - you wmight want to contribute at Wikipedia talk:Categorization --Rumping 15:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

top 1000 scientists
My apologies!Regards

(Venkat Radhakrishnan 06:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

MdV
fair enough mate, next time post any comments to me on my usertalk page, as i will be notified of them quicker.Skitzo 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tex Taylor
I saw that you added the category of "Living people" for Tex Taylor. Are you certain that he is still alive? What is your source for this? I have not been able to confirm either if he is still alive or dead so if you have documentation, please let me know about it. Thanks. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bernard van Dieren
Hello, did you deliberately remove Delius's name from the van Dieren article? It was reading about him that I first heard about vD, many years ago. (I started the article, by the way - still haven't heard any of his music, though.) Rothorpe (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed reply. Yes, what a pity the original authors' credits have been lost, so it goes.  I'll restore the Delius bit now.  Thanks again - Rothorpe (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD (second nomination)
I've nominated this article for deletion. It still has no sources besides the book itself, and having got hold of a copy of the book, I find that it actually makes no claims to be derived from an authoritative survey, so I see no notability. Since you've edited the article or participated in the old AfD you might like to comment. If you have any questions about the book's actual content, I'd be happy to back up all the assertions I've made by Emailing you scans of the relevant pages. Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of K. S. Balachandran
An article that you have been involved in editing, K. S. Balachandran, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/K. S. Balachandran. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Joel Smernoff
Hi. You marked Joel Smernoff's page as unsourced or poorly sourced contropversial claims. I am wondering what specifically was either.

Thanks, mb —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBush79 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeroen van Veen (bassist)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jeroen van Veen (bassist), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Jeroen van Veen. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Jeroen van Veen (pianist)
A tag has been placed on Jeroen van Veen (pianist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Jammy Simpson |  Talk  | 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)