User talk:Jnc/2004A

If you go to Hypoteneuse, and click on "What links here", some "C" pages still link to it. (Perhaps in other languages? I don't quite understand what's going on.) I'd delete it for you, but not as long as some pages link to it. Noel 12:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Noel, thanks for your quick reaction. I was expecting a week-long voting period. Should I have put the vfd on the [|speedy deletions] page?


 * Those three links are all "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C", so it must mean the English article C. But the current English C article doesn't link to hypoteneuse; I checked. Could it be some kind of database corruption, especially since there are three of the same bogus links?


 * The links to hypoteneuse are new, by the way. They weren't there before. I think that deletion would be safe; there cannot be anything useful there.


 * &mdash;Herbee 13:36, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

You asked on the village pump about the banning of anonymizing proxies. I don't know about on Wikipedia, but it was definitely discussed on the mailing list recently... you could try searching the archives if you are still interested. Pete/Pcb21 (talk)

The link to the mailing list post enacting this policy is now available at Bans and blocks. (Tim Starling provided the link at Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks.) -- Cyan 23:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cheers! Mark Richards 23:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I could use your deletion services again though, since I inadvertantly uploaded I file I should not have - thanks - see Mark Richards 00:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mark Richards 04:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism:

Hi there - I blanked a load of pages this afternoon because of vandalism, but could not delete them - could you do me a favour and go through and delete the? The all have clear title lines - Thanks! Mark Richards 21:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you Noel, you're very kind. I went back and tried to find them, but couldn't, I may have been delusional... Mark Richards 23:45, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

JNC, We had an exchange on the Talk page about alternative theories not too long ago. I have a sense of the other shoe not yet hitting the floor about it. Did my reply address your concern(s)? Need I still think about a shoe in free fall? ww 16:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Noel, The 'other shoe' was merely a timer in the back of my head which had gone higher than a preset alarm value. Nothing else intended. As for an article on conspiracy theories, I'm fine with it, but am insufficiently well versed in variety and details of the species to feel I'm the best (or even reasonable) person to do it. I'll contribute as I can. The primary question just now would seem to be what to leave on the Attack page. That is, how brief can the coverage be to 1) still be fair to the 'looking for an overview' reader w/o 2) leaving the alternative believer feeling slighted. I invite ideas as I see no reasonable path through this sticky wicket (sorry about what I think is a misuse of cricket terminology, but I'm a Red Sox fan).

I'll risk a question on another subject in which you have an interest. There is, is there not, a B minor prelude and fugue for organ? I've been racking my brain to recall the piece I heard Anton Heiler perform live many years ago. It was a profound experience -- one of whom I was convinced the details would never dim -- but the gray matter has been leaking of late... ww 15:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It is with some embarrassment (sp? -- no variant looks right) that I tell you that the piece in question is the passacaglia and fugue in C minor (BWV 582, I think). It bothered me so much that I chased down someone from years ago and asked about it. He remembered my reaction to Heiler's performance and also remembered the name of the piece. I still remember vividly leaving the church, sittting at the base of a tree, and resuming breathing about 15 minutes later. Most extraordinary experience I've ever had. Maslovian, even. Anyway, that's the piece.
 * On the PH alternate theory business, you may find the most recent addition at Talk:PH of interest. The constellation of perceptions in those two paragraphs are not untypical of the genre. It was for that sort of reason that I thought (think) there's no real solution in WP terms. ww 17:22, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my Duane Allman edits:
 * I removed "tragically" because it is redundant (of course it's tragic - what other kind of unexpected death is there for a young man?) but you are right, this isn't worthy of an edit war.
 * Putting intial-capitals in the quotes is Associated Press style even if the quote isn't the start of a sentence from the original speaker, but that is not universal style so I didn't need to push it.
 * I changed the "Duane" because sometimes we use it and sometimes we use "Allman" to refer to the same person, which might confuse people into thinking that the "Allman" somehow refers to somebody else, such as Greg - or at least make them stumble over the matter. (First names sound fannish, too.) A.P. style in this case is to use both names if confusion is possible. I would like to do that, although perhaps a bit of rewriting can minimize how often it happens. I would say that in any paragraph where Greg is mentioned, we need to use both names when referring to either brother after Greg comes up, but in a new paragraph we can call Duane just "Allman," since he's the topic of the article. How does that sound? DavidWBrooks 17:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we have reached a fine compromise on Duane Allman - if I was King of Wikipedia, I would tone it down a little more, but you were right about the use of "Duane" - it works fine.
 * Speaking of toning down, though, what about the Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs page - what do you think about toning it down a bit, too? (I speak as a man who has worn out two vinyl copies of the album, and own all of Clapton's pre-Lay Down Sally output, so no disrespect intended). Adjectives like "hopelessly" falling in love seem like overkill, as does the too-long description of the first meeting with Duane Allman. Let the facts speak for themselves - if we need to beat the reader over the head with adjectives, we've done something wrong. DavidWBrooks 18:42, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)