User talk:Pcap/Archive 2

Hello
Hello. Please notice this edit summary. "In geometry..." or "In algebra..." or "In number theory..." tells the lay reader that it's mathematics, and of course "In mathematics..." does so as well, but "In order theory..." doesn't. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll remember that. I don't think my version was that confusing because order theory was linked, and the article was also tagged as a math stub, but making it more explicit couldn't hurt. Pcap ping  11:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Type system quote
Hi! You recently added a quote by Mark Manasse to Type system. That quote contains a malapropism: the word "insure" is used where "ensure" would be correct. Since the quote is from an offline source I don't have, I can't check whether the error is present in the original or was introduced as a typo. Could you check? If the error is in the original, we can add "[sic]" to the quote, or alternately replace "insure" with "[ensure]" (in brackets) to show the correction. Thanks! --FOo (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a typo of mine. You can check on google books, by the way. Pcap ping  11:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking! --FOo (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting
Thanks for making an effort to improve this article. When you are all done, I hope the cursory reader will get a glimpse of why people talk about rewriting. (My impression is that the lambda calculus is part of the inspiration, though the article does not yet make this point). Also, as I imagine you've already noticed the See Also section is a bit too large. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I hope the cursory reader will get a glimpse of why people talk about rewriting"
 * I'll add a simple, but non-artificial example that actually has some explicit rewrite rules (those I've commented out did not). There is a simple example in the ARS section but it's "artificial".


 * "My impression is that the lambda calculus is part of the inspiration"
 * Yes, lambda calculus has the Church-Rosser property, but not necessarily normal forms. I was getting to that. The word problem (in algebra) is another important motivation; We have an article on the word problem for groups and I've linked it in the proper context.


 * "the See Also section is a bit too large"
 * Yes, I was the one to tag it so I'll remember to prune stuff from it after it's mentioned in the article.
 * Pcap ping  22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. To explain the historical motivation and the main application we need an article on equational logic. See discussion here. Pcap ping  17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: guidline
I think that the totality of the wiki rules and the guidlines that currently exist put experts too much on the defensive. E.g., Instead of me spending a lot of time in these sorts of arguments, I could simply point to some guidlines that make the same point. Count Iblis (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My experience from a year ago or so tells me that the wikirules are only good for those endless battles between scientists and creationists (and similar reenactments of real-world conflicts on the wiki) in the context of ArbCom, WP:ANI etc. If policies like WP:SYNT, WP:V were actually followed to the letter in math articles, they articles would be terrible. So, I gave up trying to have any policy or guideline changed, and quietly do my bidding in the way that CBM suggested: explain concepts and iron out differences between sources. He wrote at one point something along the lines: it's amazing how often one finds inconsistencies between authors when trying to write a wiki article on a concept. Luckily for me, in the articles which I'm interested in, I'm amongst a handful of editors that ever touch those articles; some don't see substantial changes in years. Honestly, editing a high-traffic article and then defending my changes against WP:RANDY isn't worth my time. Given that you are a someone involved in research, ask yourself if it's worth your time to battle Randy instead of working on some problem that might make a difference. Pcap ping  16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of newbies not understanding what they write about. This error of defining a list as tuple, in the lead, and in red, survived for two weeks. Pcap ping  19:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Void vs. Unit type
Dear Pohta, you seem to have a specific mathematical or type theory in mind, where "unit type" is a well-known concept. However, in most computing contexts, that theory is neither well-known nor needed. The term "unit type" is meaningless to most readers; whereas most readers (even the theorists) will surely understand what is meant by the key being void. Without reference to a specific language or theory, "void type" and "unit type" are two names for the same context. The assertion that "void cannot be stored" may be true in some programming languages, but it is only a trivial and arbitrary compiler restriction, not a logical impossibility. On the other hand, in most prgramming languages one cannot even declare a variable or field as being of "unit type". In summary: "void" is not a bit less correct or precise than "unit type", but is much more accessible to readers. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. The section on unit type where you "clarify" the difference between "void type" and "unit type" is mixing up (a specific) abstract type theory with the type systems of specific languages. As said above, the C restriction against allowing void types or variables is merely an arbitrary decision by language designers.  The restriction could probably be lifted by simply removing the explicit test in the compiler.  (By the way, while standard C may forbid an empty struct, GCC allows them, as in "typedef struct vac {} vac; vac U, V; U = V;".) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If unit type is meaningless, the reader can click on it and become educated. This is Wikipedia, not CS101 at some community college where all they teach is Java. Besides, it's not such a difficult concept; it's implemented in quite a few languages. As for "it is only a trivial and arbitrary compiler restriction, not a logical impossibility", you should know that void type is just an implementation hack that C-derived languages propagated (void is defined as empty in the ISO C standard); it's not a theoretical concept taught in a PL class or described in a PL book in more than a passing mention (Pierce has about 3 lines on it); the theoretical concept is unit type. Pcap ping  21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a technical journal, it is an encyclopedia. The target reader is not the specialist, or the CS student who has taken a course in type theory; it is the general reader, who has not even taken CS101 in Java, and knows about programming only enough to want to know what "set" means in computing. Those readers (and even seasoned programmers) will hardly understand the  definition given in the "unit type" article — and theyshould not be required to learn type theory in order to understand what a set data strcuture is.  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. See last bullet in WP:TECHNICAL which recommends against dumbing down articles. Propagating wrong info is not the way to go. Besides, User:Cybercobra made a reasonable change to the article in the mean time. So, I think this matter is closed. Pcap ping  21:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

hints for editors
Comment such as this really ought to go on the talk page. But why not just move the content yourself, instead of putting on a tag? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone currently editing it doesn't agree? After all, that article had the same contents for a long time. Not that that means very much for a Start-class article like that. Pcap ping  17:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Wikipedia's software is chiefly unsuited for concurrent work because it employs the "first committer wins" paradigm, and has no automated merging capability whatsoever. Even CVS is better in that respect, and modern systems like git and darcs are light years ahead. Pcap ping  17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, I'll let you do some work on the article over the weekend and come back to it later. Pcap ping  17:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

PL-stub
Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Grutness...wha?  23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the new comment at WP:SFD... Grutness...wha?  03:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bot
Frankly, I don't have the inclination to write a bot. In fact, I should be working on another software project of mine but keep getting sucked into Wikipedia editing :) --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit note
Maybe a little more polite note next time, than "Please be more discerning with your linking", or perhaps edit the article so that it follows Wikipedia's WP:MOS by italicizing ALL book titles, which would prevent the problem. We even have Citation templates for those who are unable to properly format a citation. Really, three different citation style in one article for only three citations is even bad by Wikipedia standards. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I offended you, but since you edit mainly movie articles, you should have realized that those three math/CS topics are probably unrelated tot the New Age Beyond Words Publishing, an article you have edited extensively, even without italics. Besides, the publisher is indicated clearly enough as Springer Verlag "In G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa, editors, Handbook of Formal Languages, Vol. 3, Beyond Words, pages 457--534. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997". Making the volume name appear in bold is not really a typographic improvement. There's a good reason not use those templates at times; they suck in some cases. Pcap ping  07:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Best not to make assumptions, as please point me to the movie articles I edit. Next, extensively? Really, 2 edits out of more than 50,000 on Wikipedia would, at least to most people, not being anywhere near extensive. And in what way to you contend the publisher is clearly indicated? That name (which was not linked) could just as easily be another author or name of a journal, as it is really hard to tell with the three sources listed there all using different methods, plus there was no ISBN listed to make checking easy for anyone. My suggestion would be next time, revert, but then just mention it in the edit summary (rv not the publisher), or if you must leave a message, leave a polite note explaining that it was not the publisher, but hey who could actually tell from the lack of coherent citation (after all it is almost universal, and I know of zero exceptions, that the page numbers go after the publisher and not before, as was the case prior to my involvement). And as to the WP:CITE from your edit summary and general references, that's actually somewhat degraded, as basically no article will ever pass GA or FA without footnotes, thus why old articles that go with general references, normally get tagged. Good luck with editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care about GA/FA for those articles at this point. There are entire books about trace theory; trace monoid is a very basic introduction, so WP:CITE applies. Besides, few Math or CS theory articles have FA/GA status precisely because of the silly insistence on footnotes, which is inappropriate in many cases for articles like that; most FA/GA articles in that list are biographies. For non-biographical articles, footnotes are used far more sparingly than in articles from other areas, and mainly to document social/historical claims in the article, or when a large number of general references are given, which would put an undue burden on the reader in finding more details/verification for less theorems. In the trace monoid case, each of the three general refs covers 90-95% of the wiki article, and certainly 100% of the mathematics, in the page ranges cited. Our trace monoid article is pretty much at the level of Group_(mathematics) section, which has virtually no inline references, despite being part of a FA. Thanks for your concerns. Pcap ping  08:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see that you edit mainly articles about Oregon rather than movies. Sorry about my presumption. Pcap ping  08:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gadzooks, I'm beyond words. linas (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist
Hi, thanks for the invite ... I see from your page that you are "semi-retired" ... so am I. I plink on occasional articles but hardly have a "watchlist" -- too time-consuming/exhausting.

I am very annoyed that WP doesn't have a system to keep out idiots like User:Aboutmovies, above. The guy comes in, vandalizes an article he knows absolutely nothing about, provokes an argument, and then goes on his merry way. Now, I'm an idiot too, and have probably embedded hundreds of mistakes into WP articles... but these were accidental, and not brazen ...

I'd like to see a system that allows factions such as WP:WPM or WP:WPCS to put a "seal of approval" on certain versions of an article. The idea is that ordinary users can make edits, but only subject-matter experts can place a "seal of approval" on the latest version. This would help keep "subtle vandalism", such as that by 'Aboutmovies', at bay. linas (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think User:Aboutmovies was meaning well. The main issue is a cultural difference between editors active in different areas, and the rather strong language in WP:CITE encouraging inlines; never mind the FA criteria. In some non-math/science articles it's common to make a pastiche from different sources in order to write a decent article. Most math and science articles here can be written from just a few sources. The same goes for biographies of famous scientists or mathematicians. They sometimes aren't because different people have access to different sources. Sometimes the request for inlines in math articles does make me chuckle. For instance, someone (not Aboutmovies) thought Gödel numbering should have inline citations, even though it cites a paper of you guess who. It's true that the "generalizations" subsection there probably doesn't come from the paper cited. But the same editor tagged other articles like this, this, this or that. Guess what I've done with one source...
 * Regarding oversight (in the common sense of the word) of changes by wikiprojects: if WP:flagged revisions are implemented, the technical means will be there. As far as I know, the German wiki uses flagged revisions for all articles. Of course it would a fairly big step to allow only certain editors to flag revisions in given areas. But I suspect such specialization may evolve naturally. Pcap ping  22:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the pointers. Hermel (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Independence (mathematical logic)
Please don't take this personally, but I was surprised by your edit to the article on independence. One the one hand, if you tag an article as a stub, the stub tag already implies that the article is in bad shape and woefully incomplete. So there is no need to add other maintenance tags, unreferenced tags, etc. On the other hand, for a basic topic such as independence (mathematical logic), it is a 5 second endeavor to verify that whatever mathematical logic book you favor does mention the term, and then add that to the bottom as a reference. Thus it's somewhat impolite to mark the article as "unreferenced", since this takes almost the same amount of time for you but implicitly forces someone else to come along and deal with it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, pardon my ignorance, but off the top of my head I was not aware of a reference that covered a sufficient amount of material on that page. Surely, the definition is in any textbook, and so is the independence of ZFC of AC and CH. I wasn't so sure about the other two, Souslin conjecture and Kurepa tree. My reason for tagging was that someone would add a text covers those as well. I assume the ones you added do so. Thanks, Pcap ping  17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As for tagging as stub the article, I only changed the stub type from logic-stub that was already there to mathlogic-stub. Pcap ping  17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd wager the refs you added don't mention AD+. But I have no intention of being pedantic here. Pcap ping  17:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why the first general reference for the subject of "independence" has to cover every esoteric thing in the article. Everyone is always welcome to point out things that are particularly doubtful, but tags that ask for references only for the sake of having references are less than useful. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your view is certainly a valid perspective, but I for one only add general references to existing Wikipedia text when I'm convinced they cover most of the material in the article. Other editors are way more demanding than me given what WP:CITE says and GA/FA standards; see discussion in the "Edit note" section above... Pcap ping  00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I simply ignore FA and GA. They say nothing to me about my life, as the line goes. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Threats
Do not threaten me to immediately start making reversions of my edits. If you don't think they are appropriate, either revert them yourself appropriately, or report me for some valid policy violation.

For the longest time at formal language it was a cyclical go-around of deleting relevant material. Splitting the formal language article was the only way of preserving that material. Either the group needs to cooperate and be inclusive for a comprehensive article or there has to be a split. The group has made it clear for some time! There is no crying about it if the links get split up now. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If formal language (in mathematics and computer science) really is different from formal language (logic), then why are you changing links in Math and Compsci articles to point to formal language (logic)??? All your actions appear to me nothing more than WP:DISRUPTION because other editors did not like the image you wanted to add to formal language. Bear in mind that I didn't even take part in that discussion. If you want to change links in logic articles to point to your favorite article, suit yourself, but when you abuse WP:AWB to indiscriminately change links in articles in other fields, I cannot remain silent. Pcap ping  01:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * High rhetoric describing innocent behavior. Listen, I don't want to upset anyone, and I don't have control over how annoyed people get. Some of those edits will be reverted --and I'm not worried about it. The appropriate ones will stay --and I'm not worried about them either. There is plenty of time to evaluate which will link to which, and it is not necessarily obvious right now. Your claim that my actions appear as disruption appears to me like you are NOT-AFG. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

formal language
perhaps make some attempt to actually include the expansive notion of the idea of a formal language in the article, until then, the article is just a pov. looks like pov to me, sure a mathematical pov, but still not npov. oh and kindly... try to stay in good taste in commenting on other people's walls. --Buridan (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling Mathematics "not npov" is the action of a WP:RANDY, especially since formal language (logic) was written based on Math-popularization book, not on a book from another field. Based on your "understanding" that the notions of are different, please answer the question I asked of the article writer: can you give an example of a language that meets the definition of a formal language (logic) but not that of a formal language? Pcap ping  03:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hunter's Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First-Order Logic is not a "Math-popularization" book. You really need to be careful about your claims. It is a "book from another field" specifically philosophy. Again, you objection seems to be based on the idea that there is no difference between formal language and formal language (logic). I AGREE. I also believe that Theory and Theory (mathematical logic) are the same, and yet there are two articles. These splits are the result of politics not academics. Now I realize that we shouldn't have splits because of politics. You are going to have to talk to your mathematical brethren about not being so political. I am sorry, but that is the pragmatic reality. If legitimate content is repeatedly removed, then either it must stop, or there must be a way to save the content from the politics. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "Hunter's Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First-Order Logic is not a "Math-popularization" book." is bullshit. Quote from preface:

My main aim is to make accessible to readers without specialist training in mathematics, and with only and elementary knowledge of modern logic, complete proofs of the fundamental methatheorems of standard (i.e. basically truth-functional) first order logic, including a complete proof on the undecidability of a system of first order predicate logic with identity. [...] The book is intended for non-mathematicians, and concepts of mathematics and set theory are explained as needed.
 * As for your self-admitted WP:DISRUPTION trying to WP:OWN a WP:CFORK, which you call (wiki)politics as usual, I am simply flabbergasted. Pcap ping  03:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The preface of Hunter's book makes it clear that the goal is to make the topic more accessible to those who do not already have a strong background in mathematics. Each author has his or her own POV, which is why it is important to take the entire literature into consideration, rather than just a single book. If only one text on first-order logic feels the need to use the term "token", while [almost all the others do not], that is not evidence that the majority of books are incorrect or incomplete, while the one book that does mention "token" is correct. More likely, it is evidence that the one book has an idiosyncratic viewpoint. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) ::: Also, you show a gross misunderstanding in your assumption that theory can only mean theory (mathematical logic); scientific theory is definitely not the same and so forth, so an overview article called theory is well-justified in that case. Pcap ping  03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. This is a bad attitude and a lot of high rhetoric. You seem to be in an ideological attack mode. No, there is no "self admitted" disruption. There is no "point." There is no evidence of "own" either. You really are lowering yourself quite a bit with this whole line... ignoring some points and harping on others wildly.


 * "Accessible" means accessible which is what WP should be doing. My image of a "popularization" book is not a textbook, which this one is.


 * The characterization of Hunter as "idiosyncratic" is, in my view, an ideological opinion. Tarski, Carnap and Quine all deal with the type-token distinction, so your characterization is just plain wrong, Carl. I have considered your words, have you mine?


 * Gross misunderstanding eh? So theory doesn't just mean theory (mathematical logic)? Really? That's not exactly brilliant criticism, and very presumptuous. Why don't you stick to criticizing my actual claims without stretching, presuming and reading in all kinds of nonsense.


 * I am interested in high quality articles that stand a chance at FA and I don't play games "Pohta." Furthermore I will not stand for the content to be deleted for those very reasons. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is my last answer to you: theory doesn't mean just theory (mathematical logic) because not all theories are expressed in a formal language. I won't bother to reply to the rest of your points because you're playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please don't post here anymore. Pcap ping  04:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I doesn't matter that a particular theory isn't spelled out in a formal language. What you are crying about is the difference between a theory and a formal theory, as if I were not aware. However it is still true that every theory can be constructed as a formal theory, and therefore theory (mathematical logic) is more general (in fact they even call a formal theory X a "generalization" of theory X when they spell it out etc.) They are still the same in a very fundamental way. I am pretty sure you are "playing ididnthearthat" on several points as well here, so poorly played Pohta. I hope someday we get past this attitude and become constructive together at WP. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Symbolic logic and Mathematical logic
I worked on Symbolic logic and Mathematical logic a long time ago, but as best I remember, I separated the purely formal aspects of logic from the mathematical applications of (usually informal) logic because that's what Wolfram (Mathworld) did. But, as I say, it was years ago, and I now have no strong opinion one way or the other, except to say that if we combine the two the article may be too long. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure how they were in 2007, but today symbolic logic and formal logic are merely WP:DICTDEFs on Mathworld. Pcap ping  14:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, they define logic to be mathematical logic: "the formal mathematical study of the methods, structure, and validity of mathematical deduction and proof." Most philosophers would disagree that logic only deals with mathematical proofs. So, MathWorld is not necessarily the best source for definitions that aren't strictly mathematical. Pcap ping  04:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian
I've responded to your concerns. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * and I changed my own vote at Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian to support, in view of the further explanation he gave. Thought you might like to know.   DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking another look. I appreciate it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation for the typeface collaboration
I hope you can contribute in this section. Happy editings! - ☩ Damërung ☩ . -- 20:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Merge Proposal
I was randomly going through some articles, and when I came to Discordianism I saw the merge proposal, which was given by you about a year ago. I think it would be time to close the debate now, as, judging from recent edits to the section, the debate is still kind of open. Fruckert (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Traian Basescu
I would appreciate if you could use more courtoisie when editing. The edit summaries here and here denigrate me as a fellow editor. We may disagree as much as we wish content-wise, but please keep it civilized. I would also appreciate if you could please not revert anymore. Something bothers you: use the talk page to clarify the misunderstanding, please. Dc76\talk 03:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec with your comment below)We have edited simultaneously, therefore we got many edit conflicts. Please, review carefully the edit history and note that I did only one revert in response for you (for the second time) inserting the titles to controversy subsections after I explained why it is preferable to avoid them. You have however 2 reverts. I suggest to show more courtoisie to each other rather. We are editors, not politicians.


 * BTW, I am sorry that during my one revert I did not notice one sentence that you introduced and I erased it (Compare here the last sentence). You will observe that I have immediately corrected myself.


 * What is your take on our editing of this article today: should we call this a misunderstanding, or you have something else to say? Please, look at the current version, and tell me if there is anything in it that bothers you (note the total effect of my edits today). Thank you for your cooperation. Dc76\talk 04:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please engage in discussion on the article's talk page instead of removing reverting for obvious bogus reason, and that raising phony courtesy issues after you're being rude. There's no rule that saying that criticism sections cannon have subsections, as you claim in your edit summaries. You started with with a wholesale revert of recent changes with no arguments, which is typical of POV warriors; thankfully that was caught by User:Anonimu. You have yet to reply on the article's talk page. Pcap ping  04:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not been rude. All my edits were explained in the summary in a civil manner. Please, I would appreciate if you would not call me: "reverting for obvious bogus reason", "raising phony courtesy issues after you're being rude", "You started with with a wholesale revert of recent changes with no arguments", "typical of POV warriors". By now I haven't said a single bad word or expression about you. You have said bad words about me 1+1+4=6 times. I suggest you to stop and I am willing to forget the whole incident in that case. Dc76\talk 04:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dc76, just keep on ignoring the personal characterisations and focus on the content, you're doing fine. Do be aware though that a blanket revert of a whole series of edits is often seen as quite rude. I've done it myself a few times then realised that I took out some good stuff with the revert. My own feeling is that if you revert a series of edits then unless they're all totally silly, you should put a note on article talk explaining your reasoning.
 * Pcap, remember that we are writing content, not opinions on the motivations of other editors, this applies to edit summaries as well as talk discussions. Also, be careful when you count another editor up to 4RR, you may have done so yourself (hard to figure this one out) and edit-warring happens long before the fourth revert. You both should have taken this to the talk page and looked for more opinions. I happen to agree with Dc76 that criticism/controversy should be put into appropriate areas throughout the article rather than all kept in one "poison" section with BLP's wherever possible. You're not wrong though that sub-headings can be used within a "Controversy" section - but they must have neutral titles and they shouldn't all be collected just to have a section titled controversy.
 * So can both of you get back to discussing issues on the article talk? Is there a Wikiproject where you both can post to get wider input? Franamax (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Romania, although looking at the biographies of other living Romanian politicians here, I'm not convinced that more Romanians would make the article better NPOV-wise. Pcap ping  14:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I just want to make a quick comment concerning your expansion of the Băsescu article. With or without those good faith edits, the article still needs improvement in tone, sourcing etc., both POVs and how they're reflected in the article taken into consideration. Both criticism and praise deserve better and better quoted sourcing, with less editorial voice and more direct quotes/attributed opinions. That would be part of a larger discussion, longer and more applied than I can follow up on at the moment. But please allow me to point out WP:MOS and specifically WP:OVERLINK: to the many format problems the article has (most of which trace back to it being a prominent "battleground"), you inadvertently added another one, by duplicating links to the same article all over the text. It's a common (and innocent) mistake, but it takes a lot of effort to sort out, particularly when it's added and re-added within a complex edit - please see the OVERLINK guideline I cited about how to approach the internal links. Thank you in advance and best regards, Dahn (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Overlinking is easy to solve. I added only a few paragraphs, so I don't think I've made the problem much worse. Pcap ping  23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to seem like I was blowing this out of proportion. My intention (and partly the point of my comment) was to let you know about this before you based your other edits, there and in other articles, on this misconception. The above is not intended as a way to dismiss your edits, but merely as my cue for introducing you to some of the more subtle aspects of editing, which fine users often tend to miss. Sorry if I seemed pedantic.
 * Concerning Voiculescu: I did watchlist it, but forgot to watch it :). In my defense, I was only moderately active these past weeks, and I'm still catching up with the world. Dahn (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of the repetition, e.g. PCR in the lead, was added by newbie editors that descended on this article after it was featured "in the news". It's not really worth fighting (all of) them right now. Pcap ping  23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the IPs and what they're doing, also on the "not worth fighting" issue - reason why I notified you as one of the select few literate and competent editors who still take an active part in editing that article. As for the general problem: I do believe the long-term solution would be something along the lines of what I did with Antonescu, preferably with the participation of several editors (you included). We could sandbox the article and rework it from the ground up, separating fact from opinion and making the entire article into a competent text. While I have voted for the man, I have no objection to adding and sourcing the existing legitimate (that is, competent and not in a conflict of interest) criticism of Băsescu from what the sources say - and in fact am looking forward to adding such text (for example, quotes from a very interesting, if, in my opinion, misguided essay on populism in Eastern Europe, written by a Polish researcher and published in Lettre Internationale a while back). The article is unbalanced (and citing some improper or misinterpreted sources for some essay-like content), but, just to make it clear, I don't aim for a panegyric of the president, and am looking forward to getting many people with many opinions interested in improving the text with respectable sources and respectable stable content. If and when we achieve that, if the IP problem persists, we can easily argue for a semi-protection of the article - in its current state, it's so "no man's land" that the disparate efforts are likely to be ineffective.
 * (1) I don't like working in sandboxes because it seems unwiki to me, and also because my free time is somewhat unpredictable, so the worse is better approach gets some stuff done in my case. (2) If by "competent and not in a conflict of interest" you mean only researchers or historians, you'd have to wait some 50 years before editing this article... Pcap ping  00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I respect that, but I still hope you'd give it some more consideration in the future - it's practical, and it's not as exclusive as to be "unwiki". It's a manner of producing reliable and stable content, not a coterie. 2) No necessarily. Historic distance is an advantage (though not always: it didn't help much that the Romantics or the Marxist-Leninists were 50 years away and more from the events they discussed and so grossly misinterpreted), but I was talking about a process of finding reliable sources of all hues in the mainstream, be they journalistic or scientific - meaning not that [all] the sources already in there are "wrong", but that the process of sourcing needs to continue. If you look over the notes in the present version, you'll notice that some are faux references (they don't verify or even indicate an actual source for the text they're attached to), and others are highly questionable; several are used to state an opinion as a fact. In my above, I wanted to underline that my dissatisfaction with the article is based not on the fact that it is critical of Băsescu, but on its overall lack of reliability and its failure to achieve balance. Dahn (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "several are used to state an opinion as a fact". Just fix them; the same goes for the other problems, most of which were certainly not created by me. Instead of lecturing me abstractly, over and over, on the existence of problems in the article, most of which are blindingly obvious, and were certainly not created by me, please spend your time fixing them, or at least raise concrete issues them on the article's talk page if you wish to ascertain consensus on more controversial changes. This is what I have done. I don't think the version before my first edit (a couple of weeks ago) was anything to be proud of, with disputed sections and loads of unsourced controversial material dating back to 2007. Over and out. Pcap ping  10:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. For starters, I apologize again if I gave you the impression that my comments related to your edits as opposed to the state of the article, let alone making you responsible for the article. You definitely improved it, and the core of my suggestion was that further improvement is needed, not on your edits (aside from the overlink issue I mentioned), but on the text itself - I proceeded to detail some of the problems this article has, because I want to eventually get feedback from all users who are interested in improving the article, and, as stated, generate a common and transparent effort to improve all of it. On one hand, there was my comment on your excusable unfamiliarity with some parts of MOS - since I had to explain it to you, there was admittedly no way in which I could avoid the "abstract lecturing" for that part. On the other, there was my dissatisfaction with the article in general, my agreement with your statement that small efforts, though welcome, are probably inefficient (the "no sense fighting all the IPs" part), and my explanation that my frustration does not stem from the fact that the article is critical of its subject. Since it was unclear to me how much, for all your obvious competence and reason, you were familiar with other wikipedia policies and guidelines, I also attempted to detail how my concerns relate not to personal opinions, but to the application of those polices and guidelines - so that me may have a common starting point in them. And since we seem to be equally aware of them, there really is no problem.
 * About "fixing" the problems: precisely. If we agree that it's a massive job (so massive, in my opinion, that it may require restructuring the entire text), if we agree that it takes an eye for detail, and if we can agree on the problems being both widespread and obvious, I was hoping we could also agree on a way of approaching this globally. Not an imperative, just a suggestion. I allowed myself to explore this option because you are not just interested in fixing the article, not just obviously competent, but also because it seems to me that our political views differ, and I welcome that difference when it comes to tackling subjects that are at the center of non-frivolous controversies. All of these "ingredients" can help move this article, this article in its entirety, to a decent level, and I suggested sandboxing it for the practical reasons I mentioned (be it in my sandbox or yours, be it in another sandbox altogether). That is the way in which I would fix the problems; that is, IMO, the best solution to contributing a version that is good, not just better than the alternative. I have vague plans of eventually doing this myself if no one else will, but I hope that you'll at least be interested in lending me a hand when I eventually do.
 * Please accept my sincere apologies if I've insulted you in any way, and sorry for taking up this much of your time. I still look forward to feedback on this issue, at your convenience. Dahn (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * About SOV - good start, and I also agree with your point on that one. I hope I'll be able to apply myself to adding more content at some point in the near future. Dahn (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: MM
Unfortunately I don't think I'll have time to cotribute more than  light copyediting on WP until after New Year. However I'll keep that article in mind for when I have more free time in RL.Anonimu (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: EEML-related info
I don't follow the wiki drama closely, but I was surprised to find out today (from User:Anonimu's talk page) that User:Dc76 and User:Biruitorul have been involved in the EEML list. Algthough less nefarious explanations are possible, I was a little intrigued when Biruitorul recently showed up at a 3RR report I filed against Dc76 to defend his many reverts as justified under BLP. Pcap ping  06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Biruitorul has edited that article plenty of times before and likely has it watchlisted. Incidentally, you'd be best to raise issues on one of the case pages, rather than on my talk page where it is unlikely to be seen by anyone. --bainer (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if we believe this evidence, they also coordinated on the EEML about editing this very article. But, I don't think this event is something worth adding to the already huge body of evidence. I'm somewhat disconcerted, but not completely surprised that rules limiting the number of reverts per account, like 3RR, result in on- or off-wiki coordination to game them. After all, humans survived and progressed because they were good at banding together against enemies, prey etc. And it's good to be certain who the enemy is: "I did not know that many Romanian editors in WP are members of political parties, but their common action (only) around the time of elections speaks of itself.", Pcap  ping  14:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: <20090424-1829> "I think this is one time our team can, through effective coordination, achieve some real results. Let's not allow the opportunity to pass. I'm willing to help however I can, but I won't make a move without orders (so to speak) [...]",<20090609-1540> "Fresh enemies list :", <20090216-2033> "Could you please give me the link to the ANI thread where I can comment as well. Also, please tell me in 2-3 sentances what should be the tone of my comment, i.e. how far should I go." 04:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Arbitration Committee Elections
We need to contact you privately to discuss a potential issue with your vote in the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, however you do not have email enabled in your preferences. Could you please get in touch, either by email to, or find me on IRC (I'm in #mediawiki most of the time). Many thanks.

For the election officials,

Happy ‑ melon 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Aww, my first barnstar! ::pumps fist::

AfD nomination of DenyHosts
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is DenyHosts. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/DenyHosts. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Denyhosts
Thanks for adding info to DenyHosts. I usually argue about sourcing, but for this one I think I will just let the AfD run for a bit to gather opinion and might close it early. Links about exploits don't generally meet my ideal standard of notability, but they will probably meet the community standard. And FYI, if there are article you are interested in, I have a tracking page of things I have tagged that I want to revisit. It is a lot easier to hunt for references without being under the gun of AfD. Miami33139 (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is your list? I wasn't able to find it on your user page... Pcap ping  16:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ron h jones (Talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!
Thanks! Golly.. a barnstar! and a very nice one at that! I'm glad you were able to use the search template. I saw your entry at the village pump, and commented. I see what you mean by WT:Med. I will check into adding a search when I have some time. As for you adding the option to not display the sections searched, that is fine with me. This generalized prefix search evolved out of a search I created for all the deletion discussion areas which you can see here. I wanted a way that people could easily see the areas searched without having to display the "code". But I agree it is annoying to have defunct links when you specify a prefix with an ending "/" to search only the archives. Imo, if a URL ends with a '/', it should display the URL just as it does on the rest of the internet: Wikipedia without ending "/" Wikipedia with ending "/" But, Wikipedia does its own thing - which I'm sure also creates a lot of user confusion. Thanks again for the barnstar. stmrlbs | talk 05:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD
I have that tool, but I usually forget to use it. I'll use it from now on. Joe Chill (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Delta Tao Software
Thanks for your willingness to change your mind. It's genuinely appreciated, and every time someone does something like that, it reinforces every editor's willingness to AGF. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind after you added the info about the Solitaire shareware/demo that shipped with every Mac. IMO that made it clear that company had a long history of notable products, even if the sources from those days are scarce. I wasn't impressed by the Color MacCheese info, because low end competitors arise all the time. Pcap ping  04:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf
I've removed your comments from this page as I don't think you meant to add yourself to the case, and I see you already have posted to the evidence page. Should your comment on the main case page go there as well? Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that case was already open back then, and also didn't realize that the rest of the "opening" comments had been moved to talk page. Sorry for the mess. Pcap ping  15:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Re the prod evidence, I linked those that I happened to see in my watchlist in the collapsed wikitable here with that batch beginning on December 19th, 2009. Another example just prior to that batch was PJIRC, which had this reference in it when JBsupreme added a prod, followed by a prod-2 added by Miami33139:

The only reason I don't remove the prods is Miami33139 and JBsupreme will just AfD articles anyway and then argue that any books or other sources either aren't a reliable source or are not "enough coverage" per the notability guideline, see the mass-prod and AfD campaign linked in the same wikitable that began in late September for past examples of those behaviours and AfD arguments. Also see pisg and the pisg AfD which reference the same book (see the history of both the article and AfD pages). --Tothwolf (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Pisg closed as no consensus, so I think articles prodded on similar grounds should be deprodded and taken to AfD, which is less of a vote than prod+prod2. The closing admin would have to agree with the arguments, not just delete because the time expired. Pcap ping  23:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See the collapsed wikitable here for the entries listed September 25th to October 1st. Those will show why it is far easier and overall less disruptive to let this play out until the ArbCom case is resolved or an injunction is placed. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think Miami is after you personally. I've obtained a list of his deleted prods for 2009, and there's a fair bit of software he deleted that you probably never touched. I've asked for some of the obviosly notable ones (when sources can be found in the 1st hit on google books) to be undeleted by the admins that deleted them (that's the protocol). I don't see why I should wait for ArbCom case to close to do that. ArbCom is not going to decide on content. 18:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Miami33139 targeted me personally when he tried to have articles deleted that he saw from Special:Contributions that I had edited (in the very order in which I had edited them at one point). He began to target things I had edited after I tagged a few articles for the WP:COMP bot that he had prodded. His focus prior to me was pretty much exclusively on deletion of multimedia software articles and wikihounding Ed Fitzgerald. See the AN/I discussions linked here. After the late September mass-prod/AfD of articles I had worked on, Miami33139 tried to become superficially involved with various WikiProjects where I am active (such as WP:COMP) and began targeting articles edited by others who were regular WP:WPIRC contributors in an attempt to have his actions blend in. If you check Miami33139's contributions (both live and deleted) you'll find my description above to be quite accurate. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How people feel about deletionists off-wiki
Hello there. We’ve been working on the same arbitration case, and I have to make a point. If you go off-wiki and to discussion boards discussing Wiki, there is a very strong sentiment: The deletionists have gotten out of hand. Go over to Slashdot and every time Slashdot posts a story about the Wikipedia, in the comments you can see a lot of people who are very unhappy with the deletionists here and how people who contribute to the Wiki see their article deleted.

The Wikipedia, quite frankly, has given too much power to the deletionists. Any idiot can nominate an article for deletion or prod it for deletion; with TW this can be done in just a few seconds in a couple of mouseclicks. Then we have to go to books.google.com, scholar.google.com and what not to find references for the article in question if we want to save it, even when a trivial search of either of these resources shows that a given open-source project is notable.

It is important that we make things harder for the deletionists. If a deletionist wishes to delete an article about, say, some open-source project, they had better already done a scholar.google.com and books.google.com search first and not find anything immediately notable. Wikipedia needs a system where admins can quickly and easily punish editors who try to delete articles that a simple Google search shows to be notable. Samboy (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have policies for that. They just need to be enforced. Pcap ping  17:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately some commercial software triggers an overreaction, even when it qualifies per WP:N. Those articles weren't overly promotional (e.g. google cache of one). Pcap ping  17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/ has articles deleted from the Wikipedia. Samboy (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not all of them. . Pcap ping  17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don’t think it’s being updated any more. “Ladder Theory” also isn’t there.  Samboy (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Behringer
I see you have put a notice on the talk page of Behringer noting that 3 users are related to the company (or similar thought). Even if you don't intend to, this warning could suggest "the article is biased because 3 people close to the article wrote it". However, this is far from the case. Those 3 people wanted the legal cases out of the article and those 3 have been blocked. So your warning tag might be removed so it doesn't convey the wrong message.

I think everyone in Wikipedia should have a full disclosure. If they donate money to an organization, disclose it. If they support politicians, disclose it. On the other hand, some people want to have privacy. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They contributed more than that, pictures from outside and inside the company (for example), which are still in the article. And Uli's account hasn't been blocked. The tag is usually applied in cases like that; see for instance Talk:Bayer or Talk:Delta Tao Software. It shouldn't imply any impropriety; the template is not protected, so go forth and tweak the wording if it seems otherwise. Pcap ping  01:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I didn't realize the post above the one I was referring to, so I apologize. You may close it and I shall continue over there. Drama, drama, drama.  Zoo Fari  07:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored pages
Sorry it took so long, but I restored Bing (program) & Fping in light of the history of the prodder. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

TurboPrint
Since you've found it has sources, it might be helpful to add a few of them    DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a bunch. You can easily find more. Nevertheless I'm sure some jerk/randy will show up and say the sources are not reliable or some such. (How often does a printer driver get an article in the mainstream press?) Pcap ping  19:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

SUPER (software)
Userfied to User:Pohta_ce-am_pohtit/SUPER (software) per your request on DGG's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I saw your message there too. Pcap ping  16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Open BiBilio
You are right that it is not the most popular program, but it is gaining wide support in the wiki environment as an open software for cataloging and other functions. And you were right in pointing-out my use of the word vast. That is why I removed it. Regarding the piece itself, I believe it has enough coverage in scholarly works and news reviews to be included on Wikipedia. I am going to rewrite the article itself with better references that should establish a case for notability. However, to be honest, it will never be a large piece, but should be a good short piece. Regarding DGG, I was just surprised that he would express a delete given his background as a librarian as mentioned on his user page. I just now looked at his talk page and do see both DGG and your comments with regards to the system. I will try and re-write, as I said above, and maybe you and DGG will agree to keep. By the way, how long does the article stay at AFD before being deleted. Thank you. JAAG  Talk 15:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It stays at AfD a week (unless relisted). You can ask for it to be WP:REFUNDed to your userspace for development even if deleted. I've done that with a few articles when I found sources for them afterwards. Pcap ping  15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. JAAG  Talk 15:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack
Verbally attack me once again and I will report you, Pcap. If you do not recognize "What rock do you live under?" or the act of calling people mentally ill, or "You are clueless" a type of personal attack, I know administrators who very well consider this very rude and uncivil. Do yourself a favor and do not cross the line. Fleet Command (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should not be lecturing me on civility after you've been extremely rude and impolite on multiple occasions, continuously exhibited battleground mentality, even after I politely asked you on your talk page to desist. See ethic of reciprocity. You have also quoted me out of context or downright misquoted me. In detail:
 * You started off by claiming that books from O'Reilly Media and other textbook publishers are not reliable sources for computing material. My rightfully indignant reply to you was, quoted in full: O'Reilly Media is not a reliable source for computing material? What rock do you live under?. You then commented out the second sentence as a "personal attack". See WP:COMPETENCE.
 * You then kept claiming that because I'm providing several sources at AfD I'm doing something wrong: Stop bludgeoning. And don't show me gibberish. The "gibberish" being books from Pearson Education etc. You've also removed from the AfD my entire reply to that unwarranted accusation as a "personal attack". How convenient: you get to make false accusations, but then any rebuttal is a personal attack.
 * You've also personalized content disputes by claiming that whatever problems you percieve in an article are just your smallest issue (referring to me), even though I've never edited that article before the AfD.
 * You then used haughty language asking me to Pay attention, and linked to a policy you don't seem to really grasp. When I asked you to provide examples of language you find promotional in that article (and gave you a link to another article where I had highlighted promotional language), you failed to give any, but declared: "I think this article is beyond redemption and you think there is no truth-telling saint that is more sacred than this article". I obviously said no such thing, and kept an open mind by asking you pinpoint problems. In the same diff you invite others to "cast their votes", clearly ignoring the fact that an AfD is not a vote. I chose not to reply and WP:DISENGAGE instead.
 * On the other AfD you made yet another false accusation claiming And please do not try to make the list of your sources big by inserting duplicate links. It is dishonest!, when I've done no such thing. My reply to you started with: "Your comments are dishonest or clueless", which in light of you history of poor competence and repeated false accusations appear a fair commentary on that particular post of yours. You quoted that diff in your opening statement here as "You are clueless"&mdash;yet another distortion of what I wrote.
 * And you continue with more trolling Shame on you, etc.
 * Looking at Talk:DivX (and ), where I was not involved, I see you're quick to engage in unfounded accusations against anyone that disagrees with you, and that you obviously lack the WP:COMPETENCE to evaluate technical material.

Per WP:TALKNO: do not threaten me with administrators you know. Since you've reverted my olive branch on your talk with a belligerent comment, you're not welcome to post here anymore. Besides, I see you reported me to admin User:ESkog already, and also decided I'm not acting in good faith. Your post-report "warning" here is obviously just WP:HARASSMENT. Pcap ping  22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, no-one was lower than other. But I agreed with Pcap. This is for you, Fleet Command:
 * Pcap called you, that's right because I think you are deletionist, who always wants to delete, to ruin people's hard work. That's so lame.
 * "...even though I've never edited that article before the AfD": So, I think the article will be better, without your hands touched it.
 * "I did not think your standard of quality is so low!": This is really dis-honest words.
 * You threatened Pcap, and that's not nice behavior (with everyone at Wikipedia).

Silverlife (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have something to say on ANI please say it
If you have something to say in the ANI, please say it, this is much more effective than subsections. Thanks. You are probably right, they probably are socks :/ Ikip 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize at first that the complaints involved multiple articles, so the intervention of Dream Focus appeared off-topic. I think I've managed to separate the concerns a bit now. Pcap ping  22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusing and on its face potentially contradictory stances
On another talk page you colorfully write ("colorfully" is not a compliment but an admonishment, "colorful" editors tend to get blocked) :
 * ArbCom just decided that repeateadly nominating stuff for deletion that passes the Google books test is not a punishable offense. So tell Mr. Wales to pound sand ;-)

But in the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf evidence section you criticize these two editors for their deletions:
 * "The main issue is the apparent lack of prior research before nominating articles, and the insistence the article has no source, or that they are unreliable when challenged. Sometimes they do change their mind though. And, yes, sometimes they do nominate article that ought to be deleted. But overall, it appears to me that that not enough effort is put in preserving content."

Your comments are described twice in the arbcom as:
 * "A number of editors have expressed good faith concerns about the volume of JBsupreme's/Miami33139's deletion nominations, and whether JBsupreme/Miami33139's has followed deletion best practices in making those nominations"

So which is it, do you support wp:before and wp:preserve, or not? Were you simply frustrated at the arbcom's decision? Ikip 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I take it that although you linked to the diff you didn't read my "sour grapes" edit summary. I also assume you didn't check to see that ArbCom linked the evidence I provided in the findings of fact regarding WP:BEFORE in that case. Suggesting that I may be blocked because I disagree with the ArbCom on this is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Pcap ping  18:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? I am really glad you did assume good faith, because I am in no way claiming you will be blocked in arbcom.
 * ("colorfully" is not a compliment but an admonishment, "colorful" editors tend to get blocked)
 * Was not me saying you will be blocked by arbcom. Nope. I have been following the ChildofMidnight RFC and ANIs, and he makes colorful comments too. It was just a friendly suggestion to be careful, nothing more. The most effective editors on wikipedia are those who always sound neutral, even though they clearly are not.


 * Regarding my confusion. When I read your comments on DGG's talk page, I clicked on the arbcom decision you citied, and then clicked on one of the links, and was surprised to see your name. I then started to read what you wrote, and was surprised and confused, very confused.
 * In the arbcom you strongly support wp:before and wp:preserve
 * On DGG's page you seem to disregard Jimbo's wp:before argument.
 * Can you see my confusion?
 * I skimmed Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence and if I read it right, I agreed.
 * Ikip 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll be explicit. My point is that WP:BEFORE appears nigh impossible to enforce in the current Wikipedia culture, even for repeat violators in dead obvious cases, when significant coverage can be found in the first hit on google books. So, Mr. Wales's suggestions aren't likely to have any effect on the ground. Do you know anyone that has been blocked for not observing WP:BEFORE? Pcap ping  19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspected as much, per above. that was the only thing that made sense.
 * Nope, never seen anyone blocked for WP:before. Recently the Guardian newspaper wrote:
 * "On one side stand the deletionists, whose motto is "Wikipedia is not a junkyard"; on the other, the inclusionists, who argue that "Wikipedia is not paper"...."
 * "The two groups had been vying for control from early on in the site's life, but the numbers suggest that the deletionists may have won. The increasing difficulty of making a successful edit; the exclusion of casual users; slower growth – all are hallmarks of the deletionist approach."
 * One of the reasons I no longer quote Mr. Wales as a prophet is because I see Mr. Wales as responsible for the way wikipedia is, its harsh company culture. We didn't get to were we are at by accident, most organizations are not run from the top down, those in authority create the company culture.
 * I think you would absolutly love my two dozen articles I have collected on deletion. I added your blog post too. I need to figure out where to post them so you can read them.
 * Are you familar with WP:NEWT WP:Article Rescue Squadron and WP:Incubator? You are welcome to join all three. Ikip  20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "blog post"? I don't have a blog. Pcap ping  20:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for ARS,, , but I've never seen anyone get involved in one of the articles I've listed there. Pcap ping  20:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion again. the blog I am referring to is:
 * http://www.talend.com/blog/2009/12/21/the-totalitarian-wikipedia-regime/
 * ...which you refered to in the arbcom.
 * Let me know if you are interested in those 20 articles or wikipedia and deletion. Nice talking to you.
 * RE: your rescue tags. yeah, that is a problem, a big problem, which I am trying to get editors to help me address. The problem with general purpose groups like ARS is the wide spectrum of articles. I don't hold much hope for WP:Incubator for this very reason. If you tagged a fictional article, or a movie, a couple of ARS editors would probably start finding sources that same day.  Ikip  02:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: MediaCoder first of all it is going to be kept. Second of all, the sources are already there. Formatting those sources are going to be a bitch, which I have no interest in. Have you contacted relevant wikiprojects about this AFD? The key is finding editors who are interested in the subject. I am not. The majority of the articles that come through ARS I have little interest in actually :/
 * FormatFactory, not interested in it much but I will make a good faith effort to show you that ARS really works. :) Ikip 02:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There aren't any significant WikiProjects dealing with software in general (non-videogame). WP:WikiProject Software is pretty much one guy's sandbox for playing with fancy/gaudy HTML layouts and adding a "wikiproject coordinator" userbox to his page. This is in pretty sharp contrast with WP:WPM or even WP:COMPSCI. Pcap ping  02:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You could always create such a wikiproject. Dream focus (or was it A Nobody) created the ultima wikiproject (a subproject of videogames) to help editors source ultima articles to avoid deletion. There is a definite need. Creating wikiprojects is easy.

MediaCoder

 * Moved from user talk:ikip

LOL, the nominator changed his mind. And to "strong keep" nonetheless. Pcap ping  14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator deserves a barnstar of peace and comprimise for such behavior. You deserve to be in the Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame for this. Nice job. Ikip 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to barnstar him. He might take it the wrong way if I do it. Pcap ping  15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Award from: Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame
Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame. See: Article_Rescue_Squadron/Hall_of_Fame

See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?

Coding:

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All-ones
Thanks for keeping on top of the All-ones vector article and following through with the AfD. The criteria for PROD are pretty strict so I had a feeling it wouldn't go through. I actually think a merge is more appropriate, see my entry in the AfD for why. It is kind of a pity that "Incredibly obvious that it's not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article" does not work for PROD and the only alternative is the long and painful AfD process. What I usually do in a case like this is just replace the article with a redirect, no admins involved and no discussion is needed unless someone reverts it.--RDBury (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to reply at AfD. Pcap ping  15:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from Bhaskar
Thanks for your advice on my user page. I am still finding my way around editing content for Wikipedia. Bhaskar (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessments
Personally I don't see it as a requirement to have an uninvolved outside agency do assessments up to point (GA and higher) and haven't seen any guidelines or discussions that say otherwise, but I'm happy to leave it and have someone else reassess. Regards, wjemather bigissue 23:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries
You win some, you lose some. There’s deletion review, there’s other wikis, and since the content is CC-BY-SA, it can be mirrored on other pages. Nothing to get upset over. Just to let you know, I deleted your comment from my talk page because it had a negative vibe to it; I appreciate your edits, but I like keeping things as positive as possible. Have a wonderful day! Samboy (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to realize that with the arguments you and Lulu raise you just antagonize the closing admins, most of which are pretty deletionist, in that they want to see sources. Pcap ping  05:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem kind of negative and bitter. I hope whatever is going on in your life to make you so negative and bitter gets better.  Since the Wikipedia is an anonymous place (which I think isn’t ideal, but oh well), whatever that may be is none of my business.  Have a good one.  Samboy (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cognizant Technology Solutions
Yes, that is pretty bad. Pages like that have indeed influenced my conclusion that only businesses with household-name brands or genuine importance in technical developments really rank encyclopedia articles. Services businesses that serve other businesses should seldom or never qualify. I used to count myself as a fairly fervent inclusionist, but this stuff ... not only is it badly written and "accentuates the positive", but the only thing that makes some of these businesses get articles and others not is the diligence of their marketing people.

Bad writing is what really tees me off, even more than spam. I am unlikely to find these articles unless they toss around phrases like "management solution". And I wonder how much is genuinely intended to deceive, and how much is by non-native English speakers tossing around the buzzwords from bad prose they have read and are using as models. Even that English is always going to be more fluent than my Kannada. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.
I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing
 * --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No consensus
Just a quick word. no consensus at AfD does not mean the article has to be kept as it is. As Juliancolton states the keep arguments were weak. Merges/redirects can still go ahead but best to seek consensus on the article talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the edit on the Solid (Object Oriented Design) article; I was going to remove that section next, but you beat me to it. The article was/is pretty awkward, but has potential… Thanks again! —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 06:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not yet convinced that it's widely used. The initial article of Uncle Bob had all the principles, but not the SOLID acronym, so it appeared to be that the blogger coined it. Thanks for clearing that up. Pcap ping  06:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going through material; that said, I am only on page two of Google results and I have no more time left tonight to work on the article on WP, so I will have to come back to it. But there is stuff out there that builds on “Uncle Bob”’s work (which of course itself builds on many others).  I think it is just a very young article that has not caught anyone’s attention yet, myself. —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 08:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Romanian local barons
Hello. I restored the article because it wasn't substantially identical to the article that was deleted under the prior AfD, and therefore didn't qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD. If you feel the new article has some of the same problems as the old article, feel free to PROD it or nominate it at AfD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome message
As you proposed, I have a question regarding Wikipedia editing. Each time I sign an edit summary on a page (with 4~), the edit is signed with my login, but I have 4~ in the text. What is wrong in my way of doing edits ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captone (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The four tildes (~) are to be used on talk pages, such as this page. (Because you didn't sign above, a WP:BOT did it). The edit summaries are not normally signed, and the four tildas do not get expanded to a signature in edit summaries. Pcap ping  20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your unsubstantiated claims
Could you please retract them? To say an administrator's action was based on "vote counting" is very offensive, especially when I explained my rationale very clearly. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That how I read it. Sorry. Pcap ping  22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do explain. Where did I say I engaged in "nose counting"? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Pcap ping  22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed the proposed deletion tag from Hermitech Laboratory.
Hello, I removed the prod tag from the article because it seemed too controversial; the author had objected to a prior speedy deletion by stating that the article shouldn't be deleted for lack of notability, a sentiment shared by another editor who removed the tag. While that wasn't a prod tag, it still seems to be controversial to me. You might want to bring the article to AFD instead, personally I think that you were correct about it not meeting WP:CORP. I thought I would let you know, thanks! --  At am a  頭 23:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I was about to tell you the same thing (that a prior CSD, not a prod was contested there), but I agree that it's probably better to AfD this. Pcap ping  23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

giFT
Feel free to make a better list, if you do ill try to find the info to flush it out. MrMacMan Talk  03:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Taelus (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

AfDs
"I assume that guidelines which have been enacted and confirmed by over WP:100 editors in the last RfC have more consensus than particular AfDs, most of which see only a handful of votes." Actually, I agree with you&mdash;I explained my position in some detail in my answers to the questions. Basically, I believe that consensus should be interpreted according to the outcome of the discussion, but that interpretation should take place within the framework of the broader consensus developed by the community at large. It is the responsibility of an admin to uphold consensus even if they disagree with it. But I know some people still have concerns about the issue, so I've pledged to refrain from ever closing an AfD&mdash;which doesn't trouble me since I know I'd never want to close an AfD anyway. I can back that up with history: in my previous 2.5 years as an admin, I never closed a single AfD. Everyking (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Is there a reason
Yes, I did notice that. But I don't want to run the risk of screwing up the bot since you may never know how it will perform when someone made accidental changes to it. The newbie also broke the signature and the timestamp of the bot update. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the bot seems to have regular hiccups that are fixed by manual editing by multiple users. This did not appear out of the ordinary. Pcap ping  17:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But now it is definitely not a hicuup (more like a down-time). Sometimes these interim fixes may hamper the bot's owner speed to put it back online. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply
— <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Romania articles
Here are the Romania articles I found. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Monica Anghel - Mircea Albulescu - Radu Vasile - Radu Marian - Dana Macsim - Argentina Menis - Christian Badea - Claudiu Bleonţ - Dan Alexandrescu - Elena Gaja - Gabriel Cotabiţă - Horia Crişan - Ionuţ Pavel - Luc Deacu - Marcel Pavel - Marius Moga - Mihaela Miroiu - Mihnea Motoc - Tiberiu Bărbuleţiu - Stana Izbaşa - George V. Grigore - Vlad Vanca - Gheorghe Megelea - Mihai Stoica - Valeriu Stoica - Francis Kish - Bogdan Olteanu - Dan Bittman - Eugen Bejinariu - Florin Fabian - Florina Kendrick - Gavril Dejeu - George Maior - Gheorghe Nichita - Ghervazen Longher - Ioan Condruc - Margareta Keszeg - Mihai Olteanu - Petre Budean - Tudor Gheorghe - Sandu Tăbârcă - Beatrice Bleonţ - Costi Ioniţă - Daniel Cristescu - Daniel Iftimie - Dragoş Băjenaru - Fiţa Lovin - Ilie Bărbulescu - Marian Petre Miluţ - Mircea Ciugudean - Mircea Vintilă - Octavian Guţu - Şerban Ciochină - Florin Fizeşan - Gabriel Liiceanu - Ileana Silai - Ana Maria Brânză - Ionela Târlea - Mihai Covaliu - Valery Oişteanu - Tudor Popa - Dumitru Dragomir - Petru Filip - Dan Roman - Victor Pădureanu

Thank you! Pcap ping  23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

On voting
I'm sorry but I am unable to do as you requested, for it would be to game the system to merely vote in opposition to the fact that they are voicing delete votes. I do agree that such policies are incorrect, however to counter them in a WP:POINT method is counter-productive. Also, see WP:NOTVOTE &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If WP:Notability (software) were to become a guideline or policy, I believe we would have sufficient reason to warn exploiters of WP:Software notability as Notability software specifically states that editors should do research before hand. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No holding my breadth that will pass. Pcap ping  06:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you to just vote based on some bogus reason. I asked to participate in AfD and !vote based on the current guidelines. Pcap ping  06:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake, the wording seemed to imply that. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Dan Roman
I declined Dan Roman for speedy deletion under G10, as it was not an attack page. If you believe it to be a candidate for speedy deletion, please tag it appropriately. Thanks, Stephen! Coming... 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking through the CAT:ATT list, I see you have nomintated a number of articles for speedy deletion as attack pages: Dan Roman, Costi Ioniţă, Mihai Stoica and Victor Pădureanu. None of these are attack pages.  Please review the requirements of WP:CSD and ensure you tag articles correctly.  If you have any questions, please drop me a note on my talk page. Stephen! Coming... 10:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

CSD Criteria and Use of Twinkle
I have been looking at your recent requests for speedy deletion, and have found several that have been incorrectly tagged. Please review the requirements of WP:CSD and tag correctly. If you are tagging for notability, then please note that even a small amount of notability, even if it is not referenced, makes the article immune from speedy deletion.

Far more serious is your incorrect tagging of non-attack pages as attack pages, and then warning users against such edits. This assumes bad faith, and is not acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines, even if your motives are good. I notice that you use Twinkle for these notifications and tagging. Please note that if you continue to incorrectly warn and tag using Twinkle, you may have your rights to use the tool removed.

If you have any questions or comments, you can post them here; I will be watching this page. Stephen! Coming... 12:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All of those unreferenced BLPs said the the person was unemployed, or that the public does't like him; obviously contentious material. I hope you have provided references for any material you restored. In case you didn't get the memo, Jimbo and the ArbCom said that something must be done about the unreferenced BLPs. Pcap ping  16:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, those aren't attack pages. I invite you to use WP:AFD, WP:PROD, or a correct WP:CSD though. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  16:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (says the guy is unemployed and not much else), (says the guy is famous for making bad decisions as a referee).,  (says the guy is very controversial in an unspecified way).  (says that guy had "vocal attitudes" in "numerous instances"). I see Dan Roman just got deleted. Pcap  ping  16:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As A7. You can make A1 arguments or A7 arguments for all of those articles (except Mihai Stoica). But they aren't attack pages. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  16:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate what Prodego stated above: as they were not attack pages, you cannot tag them as such, and warning users about them incorrectly is a definite no-no.
 * When administrators review the articles, we will review them against the tag criteria. If they are incorrectly tagged, then they will not be deleted.  Sometimes, if it is blatently obvious that an article should be deleted under a different category, we will do so.  However, it saves a lot of time if the articles are correctly tagged. Stephen! Coming... 16:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I still think you should not have restored the contentious parts: "That the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included". Pcap ping  16:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) A sentence or two of controversial content does not necessarily make the article an attack page. I agree, that those sentences hould have been removed; maybe if I had looked a bit deeper at those articles, I might have noticed them. However, you had labelled the entire articles as attack pages, some of which had multiple editors. I was more interested in going around and deleting the inappropriate warnings you had left people rather than consenrating on whether or not an article that clearly was not an attack might have been valid for deletion by another method. As I said before - an article that is not tagged correctly is less likely to be deleted for another reason.

The reason I concentrated more on removing the warnings you left (even deleting a talk page as it was the only warning) as those warnings were assuming bad faith. Might I also point out that it may be seen as bad faith to call an administrator "irresponsible" in a thread, particularly if you do not let the administrator know about the thread. See my comments on Jimbo's talk page. Stephen! Coming...
 * Not reading the material you restore, which you've just admitted, is responsible? Since you said you looked at my contributions, you should have seen I've single-handedly provided references for most of the Romanian BLPs in CBM's list above (and listed at WT:ROMANIA as well). So much for WP:AGF. Pcap ping  17:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)As I said, the sentences in question should have been deleted, if only for being unreferenced. I had read them, but they did not have the feel of an attack.  Saying someone is unemployed is not an attack sentence, nor is stating that someone hasn't done a lot since some event or other.  Certainly not in the context of the rest of the page.  I missed them; I admit that I'm not perfect and I shall certainly be more careful in future.
 * I had been looking at your contributions (where the edit summary stated that you had nominated for deletion or left warnings), but whether or not you have been referencing other articles, is irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me if an editor has contributed to every feature article every written, is a member of Wikimedia Foundation, or a complete newbie.  If they are giving inappropriate warnings and badly tagging articles, I will inform them as such.  If I report them, I would also give them the right to reply, by informing them of the topic in question. Stephen! Coming... 17:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The hell it isn't (a personal attack or worse). Thankfully most of these have since been corrected or deleted.  Yeeesh.  JBsupreme (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Attack page defines an attack page as "a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject". So the question is "was the primary purpose of the article to disparage?" One disparaging statement in an article does not make the whole article into an attack page. There are many reasons why information should be removed, or even why a whole article should be deleted, but tagging as an attack page is not correct simply because there is some information in the page which is unacceptable: it must be restricted to those cases where the primary purpose of the page is to attack: other defects are dealt with in other ways. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Gosh, my first wiki barnstar! Maybe I'll DYK it to scandalize the Romanian internet. Picture this.. Costi Ionita on the WP homepage... probably it would be a breaking news on Realitatea and Antena3 :)).Anonimu (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Really
Please do not accuse me of behaving improperly--- I put some talk page comments, which are brief and to the point. You are making it look like I was doing something wrong!Likebox (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, from the nature of your request, it seems that you are interested in mathematics. If so, then please read over the discussion, and see if you find the material I put on the page relevant and important. If you do, then perhaps you can argue for its inclusion.


 * The issue here is that the proofs of Godel's theorem and related results are usually surrounded by irrelevant baggage caused by the history of the thing. Godel's proof was greatly simplified in the 1940s by Kleene, and the simplified proof has often been presented in ways that are difficult to understand, because computer programs are not automatically considered part of mathematics, for several reasons. The ideas I presented in the talk page of the incompleteness theorem are in no way original to me, however it is probably possible to extend this line of thinking to prove original results.Likebox (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

GNU Oleo
I nominated GNU Oleo for DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciated your comments
I appreciated your comments at Requests for comment/Biographies of living people thank you. Ikip 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration? - wording slightly ambiguous (?)
It reads: "It's obvious that Unitanode and Lar that what they are doing is justified"
 * Shouldn't it be like: It's obvious that Unitanode and Lar THINK that what they are doing is justified Power.corrupts (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to correct. There was a word "think" in there with a link to a diff, but I removed the diff, and inadvertantly the word "think" when I later realized that Lar reiterated his point right above, so a diff looked silly. Pcap ping  20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

JWASM AfD
Hi Pohta ce-am pohtit:

I wonder if you have any idea what is going on in the AfD discussion for JWASM. There are thousands of words on both sides, very few of which (on casual skim) have any obvious connection with actual keep/delete reasons. There seems to be some sort of background war going on whose motives and history I don't understand. You may know no more than I do though. Just curious though.

Btw. I really appreciate your work on the deletion sorting. I'm sure you've noticed that I tend to lean more towards "keep" on software topics than you do, but I've found your opinions and arguments always eminently reasonable, and the evidence you find to be helpful. I can confess that I came to monitoring that AfD category recently largely because of what I perceived as dramatically overzealous deletionists; while I am likely to remain somewhat on the inclusionist side, I can see enough that really do merit a "delete" !vote that their motives are at least a little bit understandable.

All the best, LotLE × talk  04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell: that AfD was linked from WP:ANI. :-) Pcap ping  12:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A generalist WikiProject like that is less likely to be effective than handing over to established WikiProjects BLP lists in their area of interest. Take a look at WT:WPM; based on the amazing dedication of the participants there, that list will probably be resolved in another week or so. On other WikiProjects the progress has been much slower though, because the ratio of editors (doing the work) to unsourced BLPs is very unfavorable, e.g. in WT:ROMANIA. So, perhaps a central pool of editors willing to give some help is somewhat useful. Pcap ping  11:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree fully. Always appreciate your comments. There definetly needs to be more work with the wikiprojects, as many editors mentioned on the user page above. Ikip 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Usenet 2.0?
Greetings back! Nice to have you with us in September 2.0 ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC) September prevention expertise greatly appreciated where present. TINC!
 * You wrote an unref'd BLP: Jan Terlouw. You're banned for 3 weeks! The beatings will continue until morale improves. :P Pcap ping  17:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I'm usually pretty upbeat ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

VG delsort
I'm sure exactly what you're asking, or what "Vandenberg's tool" is, but I just list the discussions at WikiProject Video games/Deletion. I hope that answers your question. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it you don't use any script assistance then. See User:John Vandenberg/Deletion sorting tool. It only "knows" queues listed at WP:DS/C, and the queue format is a little different (not split by days for a start). There's a queue called (rather uninspired) "game": WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game there. Pcap ping  21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, no script. I assume you wanted to sort a discussion under VG and it didn't come up? There have been discussions in the past, but the overwhelming resistance has prevented any merging. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Maros (Mures) County template
Hi Pohta ce-am pohtit, Thank you for you comment on the topic. The template is not meant to be offensive for Romanians, I am sorry if it created an impression that it has direct political or ideological message. I am ready to change the template in order to reach a compromise. The coat of arms for example may be re-placed with the current one, or left out. I made a separate template as (1) alphabetical order is important (2) with a separate template the information may be added only to certain articles where it may carry relevent, additonal information. Rokarudi 12:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)