User talk:Horologium/March 2008

thank you for your commetn

 * thank you for your comment i am trying to work on repairing tmy spelling errors but they arediffiult to repair since I have a very odl keyboard whose keys stick veryo ften and makes it hard fo rme to backspace when i make spelling errors and sometimes i cant get some keys to work. i should be getting one farily soon though. Smith Jones (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Apple Valley, MN
Thanks for the information and the link. Incidentally, would you happen to know how the US Census Bureau makes its non-census year estimations? Do they use standard interpolation or do they conduct a mini-census and then extrapolate from those results? If you don't know off-hand, then no worries. I don't often edit articles about US settlements, so it's just a point of curiousity more than anything else. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I'm not totally sure, but I believe it is a combination of both. The American Community Survey is conducted yearly, and extrapolates data from 3 million surveyed households. This data and data collected from local, state, and federal agencies is combined to provide both population estimates and demographic estimates and projections. Different political divisions have their calculations derived in different ways; the methodology used for the 2006 estimates for cities is here; the methodology for each division (national, state, county, city, etc) is here. Statistical analysis is most assuredly not my forte; if you can make something of the methodology from what they provide, more power to you. (grin)  Horologium  (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm ashamed to admit that I can make sense of it... :) Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing to be ashamed of...I'd venture to guess that anyone with over a couple thousand edits on Wikipedia qualifies as a geek in one way or another... (grin) Was my impression correct, that they use both interpolation and extrapolation?  Horologium  (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was. I was surprised to find that they also regularly collect new data samples, in order to arrive at more valid and precise estimates. (Though it wasn't mentioned in the pages I looked at (or, if it was, I missed it), I would assume that they also use interpolation to correct/adjust estimates for prior years.) Black Falcon (Talk) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

POINT?
you're assuming I don't actually want it deleted. But, seriously. It is absolutely imperative that either UCFD goes away, or the Rouge admins category does. The existence of both is a contradiction in terms. —Random832 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that I was one of the biggest proponents of deleting that bloody worthless category (as can be seen at both UCFD's, both DRV's; the "keep" decision on that category in December caused me to back away from the whole UCFD process for six weeks. (Wikidashboard identifies me as the seventh most active participant there, and my first contribution there was in May 2007.) But it goes beyond the rouge cat; you're also going to pull in all of the LGBT editors who have obstinately kept deleted LGBT-related categories (there are about five editors in all in those cats; a couple of them have more than one deleted category), and editors like this one, who has a snarky message hidden over his category listings, disparaging anyone who edits them out. Deleting UCFD isn't going to fix the problem; it's akin to deleting AfD; after all, articles get recreated after being deleted, so why should we bother? Let's find a real solution to the underlying issue, rather than rail at straw men.  Horologium  (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship
 Dear Horologium, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jèrriais
Ethnologue is not definitive, and in this case is quite in error. Jèrriais is linguistically, politically, and historically distinct from French. On Jersey, Jersey Legal French is an official language (being a dialect of French). Jèrriais, the island's historical language, is not official per se, but Les Pages Jèrriaises calls it "la langue minnoritaithe officielle" of Jersey ("the official minority language"), and it is recognized by the British-Irish Counil. At any rate, Jersey hardly has two dialects of French! Jersey Legal French is the local dialect of French, and Jèrriais is the local dialect of Norman, though there certainly has been some "bleed" between the two. As an FYI, Jèrriais is currently featured on the Norman Wikipedia as one of the two primary dialects. Also: While it is fine linguistically to call Jèrriais a dialect of Norman, several arguments could be made to call Jèrriais a separate language even from Continental Norman (which is politically distinct, uses a separate standardized orthography, and which contains some differing vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar). Clearly, Ethnologue is quite in error here. Do you really believe that Jersey is incorrect in thinking that Jèrriais and French are two separate languages, worthy of separate classroom instruction?
 * Jèrriais has had a written form distinct from French for over 800 years.
 * Jèrriais is not (in its spoken form, and, to some extent, its written form) mutually intelligible with French. Jèrriais' orthography was modeled off French, and as such is artifically close to French.
 * Jèrriais is grammatically distinct from French (it contains tenses entirely missing in French, for example)
 * Jèrriais is legally distinct from French on Jersey.
 * Jèrriais is taught separately from French on Jersey (but both are taught as elective courses on Jersey)
 * Jersey has a standard written form (standardized several decades ago)

Other notes: Sèrtchais is a dialect of Jèrriais. It is sometimes referred to as a "Norman language", but virtually everyone agrees that it is a dialect of Jèrriais; Sark was colonized by Jersey folk, and they brought their language to the island some 400 years ago. It is also almost dead. Dgèrnésiais is another "Norman language". It is very close to Jèrriais, but somewhat distinct, containing its own vocabulary and a slightly different orthography (though the orthographies of Jèrriais and Dgèrnésiais are similar. Political distinctions (the two remain in separate Bailiwicks) mean that the two dialects are generally treated entirely distinctly, despite similarities. Continental Norman is often treated as another "Norman language", though it is a collection of dialects.  These are sometimes as linguistically distinct as Jèrriais, Dgèrnésiais, and the Continental dialects, but they all share a single, unified orthography, and all occur in France (and thus share political unity).  As such, there is a tendency to group them together.  This has been the practice on the Norman Wikipedia (which has 3 introductory paragraphs: one in Jèrriais, one in Dgèrnésiais, and one in Cotentinais, which is a Continental dialect). Oh, and I once submitted an ISO 639-3 request for Jèrriais. I was simply making the case that Jèrriais was distinct from French. Unfortunately, it was rejected on the grounds that, while Jèrriais may be distinct from French, it had not been demonstrated that it was distinct from other Norman dialects. This is problematic, as I think it may be difficult to truly call Jèrriais and Dgèrnésiais separate languages (and certainly very hard indeed to call Jèrriais and Sèrtchais separate languages), but fairly defensible to call Jèrriais a distinct language from "Continental Norman"… Anyway, I hope this helps to clarify. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

when reverting
, please make sure that there are no intervening non-vandalims edits. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did the big revert because there were several accounts vandalizing, and I kept getting EC's when I tried to fix the problem manually. The use of the word "whore" is thoroughly unacceptable.  Horologium  (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)



 brew crewer  (yada, yada) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * My bad. My edits aren't more important then vandalism. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Kristen"
Pertaining to "Kristen"... I have now moved everything I could find within this article over to her article (with current redirect so follow directions on talk page of the scandal page it re-direects to, to access it). As I give people the opportunity to create an article on her, please move all the newbie's ramblings over to this page instead of deleting their work from now on. If you would like to start a privacy vs. public domain debate, please do so on her article's talk page. Please do not remove the information on heer page until discussion has taken place on these issues and it is determined whether or not an article on her is needed. I would currently argue a person involved in the downfall of a Governor needs a page on Wikipedia, but that is my side. I sort of compare this to "Deep Throat" (ironically named after, arguably, the most famous prostitution movie of all time, in the Watergate Scandal. If you have any thoughts, please list them. I will check back for a few days. Thanks (Nicolaususry (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Note that I have refactored the comment to remove her name, which does not need to be repeated ad infinitum all through Wikipedia. Right now, she is not notable. There is no coverage outside of her tangential involvement in the scandal (essentially, she confirmed that her client that evening was Spitzer). The financial intrigues that are the focus of the investigation have nothing to do with her, yet she is the only person involved (other than Spitzer himself) who has an article here in Wikipedia. I'd say that "Rachelle", in particular, is more noteworthy, but because her crimes are not sexual in nature, she's ignored by the editors here. It's BS like this that is creating some of the backlash against Wikipedia, this focus on tabloid-level gossip.  Horologium  (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I was just trying to clean up the solid differences between an article people were trying to write, and the one they actually were writing the article on. I appreciate the feedback as to your rationale. Thanks & Have a Good One. (Nicolaususry (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Barnstar
Awww, thanks. :)  This has definitely been a major project of mine for months now, it's always nice to get recognition.  I wasn't aware you were following the FMA case though? --Elonka 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Following, but certainly not participating. The major issue there was misrepresentation of sources, and as I am a)essentially monolingual and b)totally unfamiliar with the history in question, I had nothing useful to contribute to the discussion. After the Sanchez arbitration began, I started watching all the arbcom cases, even though I have not contributed to any of them.  Horologium  (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Babelbox naming help
I've a request for you.
 * See: User:Sf46/Userboxes/Cajun English, and the individual templates.
 * (See also User_talk:Sf46)

While I know you're not a fan of the dialectuals in categories, this is about some userboxes and related pages.

The plan it to rename the above to en-caj or en-cajun. The creator already gave his "go-ahead", but I'd like some suggestions as to what the best choice would be. Should we abbreviate to caj, similar to the other userboxes? Or is spelling it out probably better? Or is there some other, better option?

I welcome your thoughts/insight : ) - jc37 17:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Spell it out. Since there isn't an ISO 639 abbreviation, anything shorter is likely to be confusing. "caj" is the code for a long-extinct Argentinian/Arawak language called Chané; while I don't think there is likely to be confusion with with that particular combination, it is a bit confusing because "caj" is not immediately obvious, and since it's not a standard abbreviation, there's no way to quickly cross-reference with anything. It would be nice to create some sort of consistent, overarching standard to apply to all of the userboxes. As I've pointed out, I'm not opposed to such userboxes (I have one for American English on my page), but I really dislike the rampant categorization caused by indiscriminate category creation.  Horologium  (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you : ) - jc37 08:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Renames performed and adjusted the links above to match. - jc37 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)