User talk:Jerzy/Phase 04

- - (Generated (using "subst:", and with the phase-digit "4" and month-name "April" as parameters) from 05:35, 1 April 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 = == Multiply-named section == Former content of section moved to User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR/1.

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)

My page move request
If you don't have time to act on my request, just say so and then I can ask in another place, thanks.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, i'm sorry, but there's a lot going on for me! I had looked at the discussion and thot i should make time to look further into whether it's really been adequately discussed, and if so, whether the suggested titles were right: at least the lack of parallelism needs IMO to be explained. But you're right, i've dropped the ball, and i think i'd be wrong to try and pick it up again at this point. I've no doubt that you can indeed get the matter out of the way better without me than than with, much as i'd like to make up for having let you down. --Jerzy•t 16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for your reply.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Work in Progress
"Dig we must."

I need to take a break after an extremely onerous portion of my archiving process, and have thus temporarily exiled to an archive page several discussions that i consider still active. Please be patient; they will reappear here. --Jerzy•t 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the discussions that are still not reflected here will progress no further. --Jerzy•t 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Motif of harmful sensation

 * (This discussion straddled my archiving checkpoint, and is copied back from an archive.)

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 any other user-space in question that might be proposed. I do appreciate your kindness and concern. --Jerzy•t 04:41 &08:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem if the text in question is moved to someone's user space, with the whole history. The problem arises when someone cuts and pastes the text of the deleted article. It is a violation of GFDL, and if after this the text will wander all over the internet without paying due respect to the original contributor this would not be nice. - 7-bubёn >t 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The original contributor doesn't mind that, nor does GFDL recognize any status for initiators of articles who are not among, IIRC, the 5 prinicipal contributors; BTW AFAIK i am not. --Jerzy•t 17:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(after dab-wrestling ...)
Perhaps a small task force should survey current patterns of WP:OR deletions. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a priority for me, tnx. --Jerzy•t 17:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Campbell (security)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Thomas Campbell (security), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Try as I might I can't verify this. Not sure it is notable either.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thomas Campbell (security)
I have nominated Thomas Campbell (security), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Thomas Campbell (security). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Scott Mac (Doc) 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the WWI flying aces
Despite your breaking the List of World War I flying aces down into smaller components, there are still concerns with loading times. Because you are familiar with the material, I would ask you for two considerable favors:

1) Please revamp the sections you have already carved the list into; I have added more material to complete them, and some now are more than 32 kb limit. I would recommend making them about 30 kb per segment.

And then, for 2), carve off the textual explanation at the beginning, add a table of segments at the bottom of the "page", and then place the segments on their individual "pages".

Voila! We would then have a master "page" linked to all the segments, and all pages would be speedily loadable even unto the crankiest dial-up connection in Lower Slobbovia.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds doable. Remind me if i haven't started in 7 days. --Jerzy•t 04:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoa, I should have expected such enthusiasm from you. I am disambiguating this list. Could you please wait until I am finished the dab? I am leery of unforeseen difficulties if you juggle things about while I'm working. I'll tell you when I am done with the dab. And then, after your revamp, I think we might have a Class A list, good sir.


 * Georgejdorner (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good plan. When the time comes, here are some of my thots:
 * Your stated concern is one of loading time for dial-up users. I don't think i'm quibbling in saying i'm not sure you're clear about the basis of the 32 kB figure. My recollection is that the long-standing concern is about ensuring the ability to edit for users of old browsers with a limit of 32 KB on the buffer they use for the edit pane; as i understand it, such browsers either truncate the longer page or section being edited, or crash trying. Thus it's considered that 32,000 or 32,768 is an absolute ceiling for editing, and that 30k or so makes it unlikely that such a user can make a typical expansion.
 * My observation is that there are important articles that have been permitted to grossly exceed 32 kB for long periods of time; i infer that this is considered less problematic than an individual section exceeding it (even tho many editors seem unaware of the section-edit facility, and even tho it's obnoxiously complicated to change the order of sections without using a whole-page edit).
 * The issue of accommodating dial-up users in deciding on page sizes is not one i've been aware of other than with the topic in question. I think that that concern is less deserving of consideration than the ability to edit, bcz
 * the matter of buffer limits is largely a yes/no matter abridging our "anyone can edit" policy goal,
 * the burdens associated with low data rates are matters of degree that the relevant users are used to adjusting to, and
 * the evident difficulty of treating some topics without exceeding 32 kB per articles suggests that a practice of limiting the quality of content in order to accommodate readers (non-editing users) whose facilities are below those that are both commonplace and typical of our most intensive editors.
 * (In this context, i am prepared to argue that WP must not downgrade what it provides, in striving to maximize accessibility. Rather, we should strive to provide as broad and well organized coverage as possible without in practice substantially limiting the editor pool, and readers whose needs are poorly met as a result should be accommodated via importation of our content e.g. to Wapedia for small-screen users, to other-language Wikipedias for non-English-speaking users, to simple:wp: for users with limited English vocabulary, and perhaps Slowpedia for dial-up users, each optimized for the corresponding users or circumstances.)
 * On the other hand, while i don't expect to support what i think is an artificial fragmentation of the list in question into multiple articles, i think i can assist you (without violating POINT) by implementing what you propose, as a concrete enunciation of your approach, leading hopefully to a fruitful discussion of the issues involved.
 * I don't think your proposal can hope to accomplish anything unless the natural title of the topic, List of World War I flying aces, is the master page (or what i'd call an index page), but i think it can offer a lk to say Consolidated list of World War I flying aces where broadband users could browse the whole list more freely than is convenient for the dial-up users. And i think it should be feasible to ensure that both lists benefit from further editing, by having them each transclude the same set of template pages containing the actual entries.
 * --Jerzy•t 06:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts about your thoughts


 * And please keep in mind, you are dealing with a non-technoid; i.e., I am very much a writer and very little an editor, and a technical editor not at all. And now, by the numbers, my reply....


 * 1. There is a discussion posted atop the list; in it, Panth brings up the problem of his dialup connection loading sloooowly. As for 30 kb...I truly don't see much room for expansion of this list...maybe a few added notes, so there is little chance of 30 kb chunks expanding to exceed 32 kb.


 * 2. Don't think problem cited with list has to do with section edits, but with initial loading of list--which is why I suggested "pages" that could be easily successively loaded.


 * 3. For now, there are folks with dialup, and they shouldn't be excluded.


 * 4. and 5. I love the list in all its unsegmented glory, and if that entire list were preserved somewhere, I would be ecstatic. However, I am obviously open to making it available to one and all, whether dialup, T1, cable, satellite, or even (lol) intergalactic connection.


 * Finally...I hope you have read the discussion page about splitting. It's too much to hope that you can find the other prior page on this subject, but its tenor is pretty well represented on the list talk page.


 * Georgejdorner (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As to point 3, i'll reiterate and emphasize that IMO you are simply confused. If the purpose of WP were to provide to everyone the encyclopedia service that they want, we would not be so diligent about copyvios, and simply rely on fair use in light of our own non-commercial status. The purpose of WP is to create a free encyclopedia -- even tho it turns out that fairly wide accessibility to non-editors furthers that goal by drawing in editors from among the users. Serving users in specific situations becomes undesirable when doing so would interfere with e.g. the coherence of navigation, and your dogmatism about making WP all things to all users is moving me away from the desire to facilitate discussion of the changes you have in mind, and toward treating the restructuring you have in mind like a policy change that requires a wider consensus before implementation.
 * As to "the other prior page on" splitting, will your article-talk contribs help you locate it?
 * I just read Talk:List of World War I flying aces; what do you want me to learn from it? My general impression from it is the uninformed attention to the false dichotomy between a page on aces and pages on various country's aces (or on their air services, including material on the aces); i'm not aware of prohibitions on pages that refactor other pages or groups of pages.
 * --Jerzy•t 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As to point 3, you are correct, and I did not know or understand the difference between the mission of creating WP, and its availability to non-editors. Thanks for the enlightenment.


 * If I seem to be dogmatic...well, dogma is not my thing. It is a personality trait of mine that I tend to try to oblige as many folks as possible, and sometimes go overboard, as I seem to have done in this case. My harping on dialup connections is not dogma, but a symptom of my non-comprehension. I did warn you, I tend toward the non-technoid. The corollary of that is, I can be slow on the uptake about tech matters.


 * It seems you most certainly have a superior grasp of the splitting situation. I defer to your knowledge in this case.


 * Georgejdorner (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Walsh disambiguation

 * re Jim Walsh & talk:Jim Walsh

Hello, Jerzy. I don't know if you still have this one watchlisted still, but the vandalism has changed but is still persistent, particularly on the Talk page. I think it's probably connected to the Pieface vandalism of before, as it's persistently been taking off your information about these incidents. Any idea where we can go from here? I thought we'd got it sorted for a while! Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming your inferences are correct, and IMO, we're approaching the point of blocking 256 IPs at a time. IMO again, that means two things:
 * Inquiring into whether the ISP who owns the IPs should be approached first
 * Considering whether (on the grounds that Pieface is probably Walsh or, if not, has Walsh as a major interest) the deleted bio should be undeleted and converted into a user page for Pieface-whatever-the-#-is -- an option that probably should have been considered when the deletion was done
 * If you'd like to start getting your hands dirty in a new realm, it seems to me you've demonstrated the needed level of motivation. Let me know if you'd like to
 * open discussion of "userification" of the deleted bio, on the Dab's talk page, and/or
 * look into whether the pages i created for tracing the sock-puppet patterns have also been under attack.
 * If you don't think you understand enuf yet, you can ask me questions or poke around in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces. If you don't care for that, i'll get "a round tuit" before too long. I just prowled around a little myself, and note with interest 2 pp i'd never visited before: Abuse reports and (new & perhaps irrelevant) Abuse filter --Jerzy•t 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Control panel (computer)
(re Control panel (computer)) I'm still learning, don't even know enough to decode your edit messages (bcz?). Could you give me a little longer explanation (here, in your talk page) of what was wrong with that article, please. Thanks 69.106.242.20 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the inconvenience. (And BTW, your edit was essentially a collateral-damage casualty of the repair of a edit that preceded yours: what you added was IMO a pretty good edit in response to your accepting that preceding edit at face value. But that preceding edit was very bad, and when the problem was fixed i treated your edit as no longer relevant, if i recall correctly because the deficiency you seemed to be addressing was no longer there.
 * I said
 * Reverted to revision 177643520 by ClueBot; Rv illegitimate content fork, claimed approp bcz of improper Dab tag
 * and (14 minutes later)
 * Not a Dab page now; probably was not at time of 22:45, 23 September 2006 edit. But it is a stub
 * "Reverted to revision 177643520 by ClueBot" is provided by Twinkle (an "Editing gadget" that registered users can select on the Gadgets tab of their Preferences page) to describe my action of replacing the version you created with the 12:45, 13 December 2007 one that the editor before you started from. The number is part of the foolproof URL for seeing that old version, although it's not as useful most of the time as the links on the edit-history page -- which i assume is more or less where you found me using "bcz".
 * _ _ "Rv" is Wikipedia (WP) jargon for "revert". I meant "This edit reverts...".
 * _ _ By "illegitimate" i meant "contrary to well established practice, and probably to a WP policy or at least guideline".
 * _ _ WP:content fork may not address the concern i had, which is that no improvement resulted from duplicating the content instead of keeping the links to the articles, and that it was harmful bcz some future improvements to the presumably identically duplicated texts would be made in one place and some in the other, delaying development of a version incorporating all the improvements.
 * _ _ "Bcz" is a general-purpose American informal abbreviation for "because". Prior to computer communication, i probably used it in taking notes on lectures.
 * _ _ "Dab" is WP jargon for both "[to] disambiguate" and "WP:disambiguation page".
 * _ _ Hopefully "approp" is obvious in meaning "appropriate" (the adjective).
 * _ _ The Dab tag is Disambig.
 * _ _ I said that the Dab tag was improper bcz the contributor of the big 05:14, 27 March 2009 edit i was reverting summarized it
 * this page is pointed to by dap page "Control panel" thus should not have been another dap. Moved various computer control panel texts here.
 * (clearly meaning "Dab" in saying "dap"), and did not understand that neither the Dab tag nor its brevity made it a Dab, and the initial prose and the multiple lks per bullet point were contrary to Dab standards). (BTW, there are plenty of examples of Dabs lk'g to other Dabs.) I also had in mind my judgment that the topic "Control panel (computer)" is not appropriate for Dab'n, bcz that title is not appropriate for any of the examples of computer "control panels" that are linked, and the article should move in the direction of mentioning each (still linking to it for users needing more detail), with a few details about each one that help demonstrate the trend of the development of control panels and the control-panel metaphor. (No, i don't expect most editors to infer that much just from the edit summary, but i think most experienced editors will put something like that together for themselves.)
 * _ _ The 22:45, 23 September 2006 edit was the one where the Dab tag was added. I was saying "just a mistake that no one has bothered to fix."
 * _ _ Stub is a WP adaptation of a formal software-development technical term. Here it means, roughly, an article so short that the only justification for its existence is to assert the hope or belief that a decent sized article covering its topic is feasible, to invite the editing that will take, and to provide at least a little bit of info that (at least if the full article gets written) doesn't belong in the articles that link to the stub.
 * As to your edit, please consider my removal of your text being "without prejudice". It, or its substance, may have a role in expanding the stub that didn't occur to me. Let me know if i can help further. --Jerzy•t 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)