User talk:M4gnum0n/Archives/2010

Revisit?
I was wondering if you can revisit your comments here. The FL is seriously lacking in a review. Res Mar 13:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't understand what exactly means "revisit your comments". --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at it again, see if all the stuff is adressed, look at the article itself again, and either give more comments, or close it as Resolved comments and/or a Support or Oppose. Res Mar 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously the issue is addressed now, I just didn't know I had to close resolved comments. I have found the right template and have done it now. Cheers, M4gnum0n (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

PIIGS/ Image
I’m at loss for words to describe the clearly unconstructive (to use a polite word!) behaviour of DinDraithou: first he kept on vandalizing (“bye bye yet another time”) the paragraph on “Corrective Policies” without which the article would be meaningless….; and now he’s making up faux copyright issues (User Yion has established picture is under 3.0 CC) to justify his erasing a pertinent picture- perfectly illustrative of the content of the article in general & of the paragraph in question... => I’m not an expert with WP protocols: is he allowed to erase the picture definitively after a week, even though there’s no copyright infringement here? Moorehaus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC).
 * The image is being deleted on a copyright issue and I don't know the relevant "WP protocols" either. His behaviour is, as you note, unconstructive, but tolerable as long as he doesn't breach policy.--M4gnum0n (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback --Moorehaus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC).

hi
hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi hi Yddam (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods
Hi '! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention. There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure
I am sorry.Will certainly look into the core policy and I assure you that the changes were done in good faith.Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperU (talk • contribs) 07:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Evergreen (software)
Hi, I wasn't sure if I should use your talk page or the article's talk page, so my apologies if I'm breaking convention. Re: your edit, do you have suggestions for making that article look less like a promotional piece? I think the Obtaining Evergreen section could go (the project has a website), and that Equinox and the other companies that have sprung up since then (and should be added) could be lumped together into a Support section, as is done with the PostgreSQL page. Would that suffice? Thanks! Phasefx (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that would not be enough. In addition to Obtaining Evergreen, I have also removed the Design and Adoption sections, incorporating non-promotional sentences elsewhere. See if you can work from there.--M4gnum0n (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gracias--Phasefx (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Apologies about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs&diff=374460654&oldid=374453682 that not totally sure WHAT happened... I think I was trying to revert another article. We had an OTRS ticket about that article but it was complaining about vandalism that wasn't there anymore (fucking instead of sex and some other issues) Vandalism wasn't there and I said as much on the ticket so not sure what happened... going to look back over so I can try and figure it out. Thanks for the undo though.  James  ( T   C )  06:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

edit summary
Hello M4gnum0n. I apologise for my laziness. I'll be sure to do as you have suggested. Datagoal213 (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Pls remove References Tag From Serializability
The references 1 2 at the beginning of this section (same as beginning of article) are considered THE TEXT BOOKS in the subject, and well cover all this part of the article (as well as others that are not referenced specifically, as every expert in the area knows). The reason for your tag, and repeated insertion are completely unclear. Pls remove it, or give specific reasons here or in the article's discussion. -- Comps (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The referred textbooks may very well be enough to support the entire section, as you say. In fact, the problem resides in the citations' placement. I have replaced the tag to reflect this. Greetings, --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm still confused. Could you demonstrate it with a specific example of a possible correction/improvement ?


 * PS At least two history entries between your entries disappeared from the list in the History page. How come?  -- Comps (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Inline citations should be at the end of key sentences(see WP:CITE), referring to a specific page in the book (see WP:Page numbers).


 * I see your point. WP:Page numbers says:
 * Identifying parts of a source
 * When citing lengthy sources, you should normally identify which part of a source that you quote, paraphrase or cite. For example, in the case of a book, specify the page number(s). Page numbers are especially important for lengthy, non-indexed books, but they are not required for a reference to the source as a whole, for example when describing a complete book or article or when the source is used to illustrate a particular point of view.
 * When citing lengthy sources, you should normally identify which part of a source that you quote, paraphrase or cite. For example, in the case of a book, specify the page number(s). Page numbers are especially important for lengthy, non-indexed books, but they are not required for a reference to the source as a whole, for example when describing a complete book or article or when the source is used to illustrate a particular point of view.


 * The material presented in the article Serializability is considered "classic" and appears in both refs 1, 2 (newer material is explicitly referenced separately with detail). I find it unproductive to show reference for every "key sentence" in the classic, well known Serializability Theory covered in both refs 1 and 2. Both books are well indexed, and people who access either 1 or 2 can easily find the respective sections there by matching keywords from the Wikipedia article's section names.


 * Thus, I do not believe that what you suggest can really help the readability and understanding of the article. On the contrary: excess references to the same books (1,2) with page numbers will unnecessarily generate a too long ref list. I have read many scientific Wikipedia articles, and have not seen such level of reference detail in mainstream, established material. Citing once a popular textbook is satisfactory in most of them. The current article has been scrutinized since 2006 by experts, and there has been no indication re any deviation from the main texts in the classic material.


 * Thus pls remove the tag. -- Comps (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus says it is productive and recommends it. The spirit of WP:BURDEN (part of WP:V) is that cited information should be readily accessible: searching the textbook for a specific piece of information is a task that should be done by the person who added it to the article, not by the reader. The list of references is never too long, see for example this estabilished scientific article, whose referencing spans 11 pages on my browser.


 * Thus I am not removing the tag as it addresses a valid concern. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, General relativity !!! I'm really flattered by the comparison but disagree. You compare a 100 years old scientific theory, THE THEORY, still under intensive research, with a stable, very simple (relatively speaking...), Serializability theory, that its core (presented in Serializability) is summarized in one chapter in each of the 1,2 refs there... In comparison, if you look into Commitment ordering (developed over 4-5 years), and The History of Commitment Ordering, later chapters in Serializability theory, which are not properly covered in textbooks yet, you will find all the refs, a much longer list (but not as long as in Relativity theory...). Thus I do not find your example of GR a good one for our case.


 * What I do, I'll add page numbers to 1,2 (for the Serializability theory respective chapters there). I may split them each to pinpoint also the Distributed serializability respective parts (I have to recheck these books). This may fully meet what you have intended. I'll let you know when done. -- Comps (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I don't really know what you are referring to. I made three edits in the article and they all appear in its history.--M4gnum0n (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake. All appear in the history AFTER your first post in Serializability, which I overlooked... (I thought you only posted twice, and thus was looking between your last two) -- Comps (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mistakenly inserted by me post below removed -- Comps (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have found it impractical and ineffective to add a reference with page number for every detail. Instead I have added a general comment about sources at the bottom of the lead section, and the reader can pinpoint by key words. I believe this answers most of your concerns, and I remove your sources tag. Thanks for the comments. --Comps (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree, as your solution goes against established practice. I am not reverting, though, because I do not want to cross paths again with you, as I already said. --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent changes in Concurrency control
I have just noticed your changes:

They have not been done by an expert in the field who knows and understands the terminology and its nuances. You erased common synonyms for terms, which have been intentionally put there to allow the interested person to match the article text with literature he may read. I believe your massive editing caused damage to the article, especially the CE one. This is an important introductory article for the subject, background for several more detailed articles, and I strongly believe it is less effective after your changes. You spoiled too many important points.

The best would be reverting your CE edit and dealing only with language/style issues that you may have. Please leave the content alone, even if you think you see unnecessary redundancy or unnecessary text.

For example: "Serializability" is not a theory. It is a schedule property. Thus the term "Serializability theory" is an important term (also during search, to lead to the article), and should remain intact. You removed it and presented "Serializability" as a theory. Wrong. Unlike "Theory of relativity" and "Relativity" which are used interchangeably.

Repairing your changes will be a quite long effort and unnecessary waste of time. I think that only experts in a specialized field should edit related content. Language, style, procedures, etc. comments/changes are welcome.

Also, I view the "See also" part as a recommended list, even if elements there appear already in the article body. I selected its elements carefully.

-- Comps (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

After reading the resulting article itself (and not just looking at the changes), I take most of what I have written above back. I like the end result, its compactness and conciseness, though I'll have to re-edit to bring back some lost elements I consider important (yes, even if some apparent redundancy exists...). -- Comps (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you retracted. In the future, please think twice before commenting on contributors' expertise or other characteristics: this is usually considered rude. I have reinstated the word "theory", fulfilling the only concrete request in your post. Also, note that CE stands for CopyEdit, i.e. an edit that leaves the content mostly unchanged.


 * Regarding the "See also" section, the relevant guideline is WP:ALSO (part of WP:LAYOUT), which says:

Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section


 * P.S.: This message does not even need a reply, I'm done with "your" articles. --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if offended you. I appreciate your mastery of language and expertise with Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and will be very glad to have your participation in the future in whatever articles I'm involved with. But maybe first in notification/discussion when massive changes, to make sure important facts and nuances are not lost. The articles are "mine" only in the sense that I have initiated some of them, and try to take care of their usefulness and accuracy. Unfortunately I deal with an apparently problematic area, with many misconceptions and much bad academic literature, which makes it hard to get good feedback beyond editorial. Hence my "sensitivity." I hope that "my" articles make a difference for the better in this area by making it accessible to a much larger audience than historically, and believe I already have seen evidence for this since I started to edit Wikipedia in 2006.


 * I'll try to continue improving them (readability, usefulness, and accuracy), even if sometimes stretching the Wikipedia guidelines, which are very good guidelines (all that I have seen), but not always strict rules (I believe...). I think that the goal of top quality articles justifies this sometimes, with the legitimate possible consequence of criticism and argument through discussion.  -- Comps (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:195.195.247.18
Hi. What problem did you see with "collapse old warnings" on this talk page? You wrote "breaks formatting", but the collapsed version displays OK on my (Firefox) system. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You collapsed section headers together with older warnings. That way new ones do not appear anymore in the "Warnings" section. This is what I meant with my edit summary. Anyway, feel free to revert as it was a purely aesthetic change. Cheers, --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:108.65.0.169
With this edit and this edit, I reverted your warning to IP editor 108.65.0.169. S/he made the edit to the Intelligence article before receiving any warnings for unsourced material, vandalism, etc. So, not only should s/he not have received a Level 3 unsourced warning, we would have needed to wait to see if s/he continued to make unsourced, egregious and/or libelous edits without provding a verifiable reference/citation. I thought a few of his/her other edits were out-and-out vandalism until I engaged in a conversation with him/her on one of the wikiarticle talk pages and discovered that s/he genuinely believed the edit made had been a correct one, and therefore did not constitute vandalism as per WP:VAN since the edit had been made in good faith. Hence why, when I gave him/her the unsourced warning template for a later edit s/he made, I reset the warning Level to Level 1. I think that prior to that Level 1 warning, s/he did not know that s/he has to anchor statements with verifiable references/citations. I have explained to him/her in the Natural Resource article talk page that WP:V is the “prime directive” at Wikipedia. Of course, if s/he has a different IP address the next time s/he logs in, it will all have been for naught. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  17:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave the warning following the usual escalation, but unfortunately I failed to notice the timestamps. You have been absolutely correct in reverting my edit, thank you. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Anytime! And thanks for not minding. —  Spike Toronto  19:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ok
yes, those comments I'ld write whenever possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.143.138 (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ž in italian translieration
italian people almost exclusively translitterate russian Ž with ž, you can easily check italian wikipedia or any book in a store/library —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.67.103 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Italian language does not have that letter. See also Caron. It is usually translated as zh or g, as in Ilya Prigogine. --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Contention:VB
Why using " == == " makes a disambiguation page hard to read? You made me think you are cheating for edit counts via undiding. If you want to find a person, or a software, and so on, the contents make it useful and this is the importance of " == == ". Undid Vandalism detected, message auto generated by Sasuketiimer (Download now/Report a bug) 07:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

I have no time to play edit wars against you. I read the welcome page, but there is nothing I want. All I want is a reason which can convince not only me, but also everyone.--Sasuketiimer (Download now/Report a bug) 07:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to edit war either, and I don't know how you got that impression from one single revert. Section headings are perfectly fine in a disambiguation page, but boldface in headings is not. This is why I pointed you to the Manual of Style, which supposedly you did not read. --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicaraguan twenty-cordoba note
Hi, I've declined your WP:A1 nomination of Nicaraguan twenty-cordoba note because the article has enough context to identify its subject; I have added a bit to it. I agree it does need work, though. Airplaneman  ✈  00:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Edit Summary
Dear M4gnum0n,

Thank you for the warning. I recently edited the "Clone Troopers" page, and made sure that I left a summary. If it is not acceptable, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Professor 007.5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor 007.5 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that it was just a friendly notice, not a warning. Anyway, I see no problem in your edit summary. Please note, however, that every content addition should come with a citation of a reliable source directly supporting the new information. Keep up the good work! Cheers, --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Unified Modeling Language tools‎
Thanks for you addition to the article. It's usually customary to add articles that have been created not the other way around. You also have not created the linked article, that was done by another editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you... misclicked? This notice really belongs to User talk:173.252.37.29‎. --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is quite possible. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)