User talk:Jerzy/Phase 03

- - (Generated from 05:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) revision of user-Jerzy-talk generating template User:Jerzy/Fresh Talk Page, based on 3 January 2009 revision of User talk:Jerzy; later retrofitted with dynamic transclusion of User:Jerzy/Past Archive Phases.) Rough Overview of this Page
 * 1) Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)
 * 2) About Communicating Here
 * 3) Note to Non-Native Speakers of English
 * 4) Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archives
 * 5) Detailed  Table of Contents  of whole page
 * 6) Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him

= Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter) =

Leaving me a message
The end of this page is always a good place to leave messages to me, and for most users, by far the easiest ways of doing that is:
 * 1) You probably have simulated file-folder tabs (not "browser tabs") at the top of the box enclosing the text that you are reading from: rectangles a little taller than one line of text, with the fourth tab from the left reading something like "+" or  "+comment". Click on that tab -- or here.
 * 2) Fill in both the single-line edit pane  with the title or subject of your message.
 * 3) Type your message for me into the larger edit pane below it.
 * 4) As the last line, type
 * 5) Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
 * 6) If changes are needed, make them and repeat the the previous step (and then this one).
 * 7) Click on the "Save page" button, making your message a new "section" on this page.
 * 1) Click on the "Save page" button, making your message a new "section" on this page.

Leaving followup messages
If you previously left me a message on this page, and now you have more to say on the same subject, follow this link to this page's Table of Contents. If it hasn't been too long, you should find the section with the previous message from you, and to its right a link reading
 * [edit]


 * 1) Click on that "[edit]" link.
 * 2) Confirm (perhaps by previewing) that it's the same section as before.
 * 3) Type type more below the old message in the larger edit pane (below the preview, if any).
 * 4) As the new last line, type
 * 5) Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
 * 6) If changes are needed, make them and repeat the previous step (and then this one).
 * 7) In the small edit pane below the larger edit pane, type a few words summarizing what you're adding (and preview and revise if appropriate).
 * 8) Click on the "Save page" button, replacing your previous message a new longer one including it.
 * 1) Click on the "Save page" button, replacing your previous message a new longer one including it.

Guide to the Rest of This Page
The remaining material consists of
 * A warning about a highly idiosyncratic aspect of my grammar
 * Help finding things that were previously on this talk page, but have been moved
 * (These are some people's top priority, but most will prefer to jump to the Table of Contents, or add a message at the end.)
 * A Table of Contents listing every section currently on the page
 * A number of sections each containing either messages from on editor, hopefully each on a single topic, or a two-way discussion

Note to Non-Native Speakers of English
Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.

(I also say the above, and a bit more, on my User page.)

Mixed-topic Archives
These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section, exhaustive (outside the "Topical Archives" topics) for the periods they cover but (presently and probably permanently) cover only through 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC).


 * /Archive Index

Topical Archives
These include nothing newer than 2004, and each concerns one area of interest, sometimes oriented toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected.
 * TRAC Programming language (6.7 kB, 2004 Nov 8)
 * Carleton College (9 kB, 2004 Nov 6)
 * Wikipedia Categories (9 kB, 2004 Nov 4)
 * Turkey (often re Armenians) (19 kB, '04 Jul - Oct)
 * Jerzy as Administrator (16 kB, '04 Sep- Oct)
 * Dialogue with Adam Carr (14 KB, 2004 Jul 16)
 * List of people by name (14 kB, '03 Dec - '04 Mar)

Access to Most Recent Entries of ToC
(If the page gets large, it's easier to scroll back up into the ToC from here than to scroll down thru it from its top.)

= Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him =

Ki
Your suggestion looks fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ian Sommerville
I am sorry if I inadvertently breached protocol.

If I remember correctly, what happened was this: I created an article on Ian Sommerville (the academic). I noticed that there had been a number of red links, which now pointed to this academic, which meant that I may have inadvertently associated the academic with the wrong person, so I attempted to remedy this by changing all the old redlinks (one of which was, as it turned out, on a talk page) to point to the disambiguation page. I explained my general dilemma with the disambiguation at some length on one of the talk pages, but can no longer find that after the deletions/moves. I think my edit summary was meant to indicate that I had to amend the link immediately to avoid breaching WP:BLP. I would, of course, not normally alter a text signed by someone else but I felt obliged to remove a valid (but incorrect) link that we had, in effect, jointly created; on reflection, I should have sent you a message.

I now saw your moves, with the comment "nothing else lks to the academics bio". There were in fact several links to the academic's bio, and I was just now attempting to disambiguate the references to the two Ian Sommerville's (using "What links here") when I made the same mistake again (and undid it immediately). I will now await your reply before continuing with any disambiguation or leave it to you to correct the links appropriately.

At present, "what links here" for Ian Sommerville (which was only the academic till recently) has


 * Talk:William S. Burroughs (links) [technician]
 * Agile software development (links) [academic]
 * Debates within software engineering (links) [academic]
 * NHS National Programme for IT (links) [academic]
 * Talk:Software engineering/Archive 4 (links) [academic]
 * Functional requirements (links) [academic]
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Participants (links) [academic]
 * Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality/181 (links) [?]
 * Sommerville (links)
 * Software quality management (links) [academic]
 * Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (science and academia) articles by quality/13 (links) [academic]
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata/List of biographies/10 (links) [academic?]
 * Talk:Software engineering (links) [academic]
 * Ian Sommerville (disambiguation) (links)

And "what links here" for "Ian Sommerville (disambiguation)" (which was never intended to receive links known to refer to the academic) has


 * Talk:William S. Burroughs (links) [technician]
 * Beat Hotel (links) [technician]
 * William S. Burroughs, Jr. (links) [technician]
 * My Education: A Book of Dreams (links) [technician]
 * Dreamachine (links) [technician]
 * 34 Montagu Square, Marylebone (links) [technician]
 * Ian Sommerville (academic) (links) [refer-back from academic's disambiguation link]
 * Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages/A-K (links)
 * User:MisterHand/Links to (disambiguation) pages/A-K (links)
 * User:Canis Lupus/DaB/Page 12 (links) [?]

--Boson (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Boson (Should i consider calling you Dr. Bose, or just take care to maintain the opposite spin?), and thanks for such a prompt response to something i didn't assume you'd continue to track. (I had been thinking over -- while picking my way up a slippery gorge a few hours ago -- how to write you on the subject, as i see myself owing you to do. I had thot i'd best finish the associated tasks first, so i could refer to a state that would then not be about to change further.) As to your sense that you "... should have sent [me] a message" around the time of the talk edit, if you'd done so, i'd have spent a couple of years occasionally scratching my head about it, and finally said "Aha!" the other night, when a colleague put a Dab-CU tag on the Dab, and i finally became (bcz "Ian..." falls in the alphabet close to "Jerzy") aware that even one Ian Sommerville exists! I'm a terrible busybody, and enuf of a pedant that others sometimes mistake what i intend as thoro-ness and precision for a barely restrained sense of having been personally wronged. In any case, i seem to have been careless in checking for article lks (which i meant but may not have specified) that should be to the academic, and i expect i should apologize (to interested colleagues, and esp'ly the (unnamed) previously mentioned one -- i.e. you) on an appropriate talk pg, once i understand what happened. [A little later, after getting dessert together: Oh. That was pretty stupid.] And since i've moved the Dab, and the academic to permit that, i'll have to repair all the academic's lks. My plan is to finish cobbling together pieces of the tech-mentioning articles into a bigger stub, in order to forestall deletion attempts, but to fix the acad lks before finishing moving refs to the Dab for the tech. (I did a couple already, to forestall further DabRL-based editing of the Dab.) The above of course calls in question my assumption that equal Dab'n was more appropriate than the making academic the primary topic. May i suggest that we defer that discussion until i've finished building the tech's bio-stub? In the event one is started, i'm prepared to at least stipulate that raw count of linking articles is a poor guide to what is the primary topic, and concede that several of the 6 or 8 articles that i counted for the tech are IMO, well, "pretty light". Hmm, the what-lks-here tool substantially lags changes that affect its results; perhaps you've already compensated for my renaming, since my what-lks queries show only one lk to either the old or the new acad bio. (IMO, moving the lks is non-controversial maintenance, and does not prejudice against a possible move back.) In case i'm still just confused, i repeat my willingness to be responsible for fixing the lks i made unsuitable by my moves. It sounds like my inferences about your intent (i had looked at the history of the acad bio & the Dab) were correct, and that your effort at clarifying it to me was unnecessary; i was tempted to add on the talk page that AFG was redundant (since good intent was clear), but decided to leave it as i did, lest i sow confusion in trying to make my thrust clear. --Jerzy•t 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jerzy! Thanks for your prompt reply. I still had Ian Sommerville on my watchlist, partly because I had been vaguely thinking of trying to resolve the disambiguation better. I don't know what accounts for the "what links here" discrepancy, but I will leave things alone for a while to let you finish work on the tech's article (and see if anybody wants to delete it).--Boson (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it lost track bcz of the rename, which it probably never actually "knows about" -- i.e., it probably just sees runs thru pages in a fixed sequence to see for each if it's been edited/moved since it last saw it, redoes a list of its lks, and puts/takes the page's name on/off the what-lks-here list for each lk that's new or newly disappeared. Now i see an appropriate quantity of names like the ones you mentioned. If you're anxious to get them moved, feel free, bcz i gotta sleep soon; otherwise i'll work on that in abt 12 hours. (I think i'm done with the 's bio.) --Jerzy•t 07:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD for List of hospice-related topics
Jerzy I have listed Articles for deletion/List of hospice-related topics I wanted to notify you. jbolden1517Talk 03:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

#4
Hi, Jerzy! Please accept my apologies for not promptly returning to this subject upon my return from vacation. I am a bit tight on time to be able to continue this discussion with due diligence, which is why I've just restored the most recent version of the municipal okrug entry as edited by you in hopes this would constitute an appropriate interim compromise. I hope to return to this matter in future, hopefully at a time when I am explicitly focusing on St. Petersburg administrative divisions. At any rate, if this compromise does not work for you, please let me know what would. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:36, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

Lifeline
The GFDL requires that this edit history be kept, since it's the edit history for articles that were split out when they grew too large. It seems to me that the best approach is to just clean up the confused mess in place. No deletion required, just editing. Note that there's very little on lifeline (disambiguation) that isn't already on the primary page. You might as well merge the former into the latter. A partial merger was already done last year. Just finish the job. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tricia Wilds
An article that you have been involved in editing, Tricia Wilds, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Tricia Wilds. Thank you. Dismas |(talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alfred James page
Hello, Jerzy. I was wondering if you had any advice for this page, which is a list of those with these 2 given names, but none with it as a personal name. I think it's as good as it can be, but I think it should probably be deleted. I used to PROD dabs like this, but recently an admin has been removing these, stating that PRODding is only for articles and not for dabs; I'm unclear how we delete these pages anymore. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Re Alfred James:) I asked just such a question recently, having gotten that response or an analogous one in a similar case. I wondered, probably on the Dab's tk page, whether we needed to pursue a Dab-specific CSD, and a DabCU colleague pointed out Db-disambig. As i read it, the Tl presents its use as a common-sense variant of G6, implicitly designed to avoid instruction creep. I can't recall if i actually used it, but i think i did and that i'd have noticed if it were rejected, and in any case i see it as sound enuf that i added it to my boilerplate collection. I'm not anxious to start executing Db-disambig speedies without seeing some succeed, so i'll add this Dab to my watch list; if you use it & track the result, and it is rejected, i'd be grateful to hear about that. And i'll let you know of my next experience with it. --Jerzy•t 09:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd give PROD a last try. I nominated another article, Frank William, on the same grounds; you might be interested to look at its Talk page. I'm unsure if this is one editor disagreeing with me or a wider difference of opinion between editors, but I'll use this as a test case and then perhaps raise it on the Disambiguation Discussion page. I'm concerned about the implications of accepting these type of pages - if we had pages for every possible combination of given and middle name we'd be inundated. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the non-retention of such entries on Dabs is absolutely non-negotiable, even if only via moving them into given-name pages and making the titles Rdrs, or tagging the move-tool Rdrs for speedy. I will indeed track FW as well; i'm not sure the complaint against ProD is anything but a foolish excess of literalism, misinterpreting "article" when it must have been intended to mean "main-namespace page", so i will support anyone who wants to pursue that. And so  to bed. --Jerzy•t 10:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

primary
Hi, that reference of mine to the above template was a mistake, I meant to link to primarysources. For what it's worth, I reckon that primary is pretty much obsolete and as it's only used on 9 article pages there shouldn't be much objection to it's deletion. (you could just as easily type what it transcludes anyway). Sorry to waste your time, regards, ascidian  | talk-to-me  21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

are u gay?
are u gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.176.97 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Editing WP constructively cheers me up enormously. --Jerzy•t 20:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77 Dispute Resolution process
The two former sections created by User:Proofreader77 forced this talk page well beyond 32 KB and have been moved to User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR. --Jerzy•t 17:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to disambiguation pages
Hello, Jerzy. I was wondering if there's anything you can do about the constant vandalism to Chris Brown and Jim Walsh. Chris Brown is vandalised almost daily with comments about how much users love or hate the singer Chris Brown. Jim Walsh has been the target of a very persistent editor, who seems to be adding himself from various usernames (at least one of which was blocked because of it) and several IP addresses. This has been going on for several months, with the user adding Jimi Walsh (guitarist), who doesn't meet MOSDABRL; a Google search shows only his own advertising on sites such as Myspace. It has been added, or the username who added it has blanked the page on its removal, 31 times in the past few months. Any help you can offer with these would be great - it's driving me mad seeing them pop up on my watchlist! Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I think they would be appropriate. Chris Brown was blocked to IPs for a time and this mainly resolved it; I think the same might limit Jimi Walsh, but the user has created a number of accounts only to add this person to this dab, but it might help. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanna go to bed soon, but it sounds like most times in the next 24 hours will be about equally good. I should brush up a little, but yes, i'd like to at least take a look. Do you have an offhand impression whether some form of protection, or warnings and blocks are likely to be appropriate? --Jerzy•t 10:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, i don't know if you've been around sock-hunts; my recollection is that blocks alone turned out to be pretty effective in the one i led. I'll look in my block log, and see if i can't work back from that to the title (a musician bio [smile]) and show you the case i made; your feel for how similar the situations are might help. And we can find out if the success held or not! (I asked to be notified if there was further vandalism, came back once & found very little, and pretty sure no one ever complained to me.) Bye for now, --Jerzy•t 11:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Vand against Jim Walsh
Thanks for your attention to this. He is the more straightforward case of the two, due to the clear pattern of related IP #s, and i will concentrate on blocking IPs on that one first, then be sure i've checked all the reg'd editors. (Do you agree w/ my 1st impression, that the two vand campaigns against the respective Dabs show no sign of a common source?) Thanks again, --Jerzy•t 01:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like he got you; i'm gonna fix on that assumption, but please inspect to be sure. --Jerzy•t 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely no common source. I've no experience of tracking down the Jim Walsh vandal, so am glad to have your help on this one. Chris Brown is vandalised from many different sources, I think but Jim Walsh is the one persistent offender. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As to JW, it's not just experience: the permission of admins that almost never gets mentioned (in contrast to blocking and deleting and protecting) is inspecting deleted revisions and their edit-history entries (and it works whether or not the page currently exists). IIRC, you were one of the 3 or 4 nominators for the deletion of the bio article -- a ProD, perhaps. You may not realize that it was speedy-del'ed 3 times -- and in much less than 24 hours. I'll give you a lk to the big picture when i'm done, so you can see the somewhat elegant sock-wrangling tools. I'm going to only warn the first username about the repeat submissions of the article, but block it on the basis that it's implausible even tho possible that the other two usernames and the IPs are anything but socks, and invite each of the usernames to request checkuser (or request me to do so, if that's how it works) if they claim innocence, rather than burden the checkers in advance of an appeal. There are less satisfying ways to serve the project! --Jerzy•t 07:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the newest in the last half day. I've blocked the 3 registered users and a flock of the IPs, with maybe a half dozen left (and the earliest may call for a bit different wording). If only for your satisfaction, glance at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pieface007, which, except for the text, builds itself as i tag and block new accts. Please don't make the effort to research the question i'm abt to ask; i expect to look in more detail than you recently have anyway, and i don't want you to waste energy duplicating what i'll do shortly anyway. But if you happen to recall, i'll organize that effort a little differently: I think Pieface was the 1st of the 3 named accts i've worked my way back to. Do you think either that there was an earlier one, or that the total of named ones was more than 3? You'll notice that from the fairly nicely ordered Cat list that the IPs so far come from two 64K blocks of IP addresses; i think the longest that one IP was used is an hour and a half. This could happen two main ways: drawing at random (e.g. taking the first one that comes available) from a roomful of PCs, say in a large library, or in some form signalling completion of use of a temporarily assigned connection even tho always using one or a very small number of computers, e.g. dial-up or i think DSL (you y'all have that?). I'll do a little statistical analysis, and some research on who owns those IPs.  Two (non-protection) avenues of attack are to simply seek the assistance of the owners in dissuading the user, and blocking large ranges of IPs from IP-editing.  In the second case, registered users, maybe even new ones, could still edit freely, and even the already blocked IPs can still be used to read w/o editing. (Conceivably, there could be trusted people on site who could register, and forward requests in behalf of specific users who individually approach them, for accounts or limited time unblockings to admins, even if they are unwilling to hunt down vandals after the fact. And it's not unthinkable to shut out a whole institution from both IP editing and new accts, perhaps until they find the resolve to figure out how to be helpful. But that's getting ahead, and some of these speculative measures be may be ruled out by our policies, since surely these problems are not new. I will in any case be reading up on range-blocks.) I also assume that protection and semi-protection (a distinction i must learn) for short periods have sometimes been effective, tho this v'l has been too persistent to be optimistic abt, IMO. Finally, if you're not sure, look at the Gadgets "tab" on your Preferences page, and see if you have the Navigation popups checked. I recommend them heartily, and i'm likely to start suggesting you look at things that are easier to do if i describe them to you in terms of using the popups. --Jerzy•t 11:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you've been really busy on this! I think there were only 3 usernames, the rest were IPs. Hopefull this will help, as the persion has become very persistent again in the last few days. Thanks again, Boleyn2 (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed, in rereading, that you used the phrase "was blocked to IPs", i assume meaning "... protected with respect to IPs", which was not a flavor of prot that i had taken note of. (I just looked, and found i'd increased my block log by 18% re this Dab. Prot may be even simpler, but new all the same.) You make me feel silly for all my discussion of massive-blocking strategies! I'll research that, and also see if i can find any discussion of whether that has previously led single-issue vandals to branch out, and how (if possible) to monitor activity of a whole block of IPs. (Hmm, you could use Related changes to see when they get warning templates....) I'm a little distracted tonite, but hopefully not for long. --Jerzy•t 07:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure, I think it was made so that you couldn't edit the page unless you were logged in, although this user would only have some avenues cut off by this and would probably continue to vandalise. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Law of the Jungle
Utterly disagreed - Works are for works - Books are for books. There are categories that include article about related infromation but these ones are not they! :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  13:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ken Davies
Hello, Jerzy. I was wondering if you think this page is OK, if it could be improved or if it should be deleted. Both links are valid per MOS:DABRL and there's a link to a dab of a similar name, but I can understand why it was nominated for deletion. What do you think? Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and a request
Thank you for setting up Jonathan Carr (writer) in response to my article request. I've made a few minor changes and inserted links pointing to it into other WP articles.

I noticed that you've indicated your willingness to act on move requests. Could you please look at Talk:Patricianship and perform a multi-page move, in line with the table on the page but with one change, namely new page Patricians (post-Classical) instead of Patricians (Middle and Modern Age), in line with the suggestion made by user:Simmaren. We do not have unanimity among the editors on that page but I think it is fair to say that there is consensus. In addition, the discussion has been stale for quite some time and it is unlikely that waiting longer will generate more opinions. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Motif of harmful sensation
This article which you started some time ago is now up for deletion at AfD. Perhaps you could clarify the concept and the origin of the term.DGG (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Motif of harmful sensation
As a token of respect of your work, even if deleted: Village_pump_(miscellaneous). - 7-bubёn >t 17:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My practice has been to treat "my" user-space as space provided by the project for the furtherance of my work on behalf of the project, so i don't see putting it into my user-space as appropriate. Nor do i think it would be seemly, either in the light of my taking that position, nor in view of the obvious interpretation that i would be an admin acting on my own behalf, for me do the required undelete and move into the user-space in question. I do appreciate your kindness and concern. --Jerzy•t 04:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)