User talk:R. S. Shaw/Archive 2

Commons
I am Commons:User:R. S. Shaw and vote for #10. -R. S. Shaw 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Word size
Please look at my comment and whether you agree. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.93.218 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Autocoder
Sorry for not giving you a heads up on the deletion requestion for the Autocoder article. Look I have an article written by Alick Glennie in 1953 where he talks about Autocode and I don't see him mention Autocoder anywhere. I also have an article by Campbell-Kelly about early programming for the Manchester Mark 1 where he uses the term "autocode" everywhere, but never uses the term "autocoder". Also, I've tried a couple google searches on autocoder and can't find any mention that it is a generic term for assembly language, other than FOLDOC and web pages that are clearly just scaping FOLDOC. There are a couple of other entries in FOLDOC that I find suspicious so I'm not completely trusting it.A B Carter (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've copied your comment to Talk:Autocoder and responded there. -R. S. Shaw 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work
Just read the complete rewrite you did for Autocoder and it's excellent. Fairly short but well foot noted and extensive references. A B Carter (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Scholarpedia
Just read your article and wanted to warn you to watch it carefully. I got very angry when my article on scholarpedia was deleted on grounds of notability and I had no possibility to comment in time. Izhkevich has some problems making it tip in fact if you check scholarpedia longpages. Just for the record, I think it is noteworthy as a project and I think Izhkevich could make it if he had some support. Ben T/C 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on mitosis
Hi, I have just cleaned up multiple vandal edits on the mitosis page and noticed you recently reverted an edit with the note "Reverted 1 edit by 63.215.27.201 identified as vandalism to last revision by 75.4.45.137". Please note that 75.4.45.137 is actually vandalizing the page and 63.215.27.201 was reverting part of the vandalism. Therefore, your reversion resulted in accidentally restoring part of 75.4.45.137's vandalism. Please check multiple preceeding edits before reverting edits on that page. There are often multiple anonymous edits in quick succession and not always is the latest version before an edit a good one. This article seems to attract a lot of kids frustrated with having to learn the stuff for biology class. - tameeria 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories Computing, Computing by Operating Systems, Operating Systems
Would you know what the difference is between 'computing by Operating systems' and 'operating systems"?  Not obvious to me, why not just eliminate it and add the computing category to the operating systems category page? tooold 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I was unaware of the Category:Computing by operating system until now. It seems to be a redundant subset of the Category:Operating systems.  Perhaps it should be proposed for deletion at Categories for discussion. -R. S. Shaw 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Template:Navigation and common.js

 * There seems to be a problem with Template:Navigation, common.js, and/or some related mechanism which is causing templates using Template:Navigation to intially show the wrong word out of the ("hide"/"show") word pair. Someone took your suggestion and modified Template:Navigation to cause a default hidden state (a default I like, BTW), but it seems that the result is currently that the using template, although in fact hidden, shows the "hide" button name rather than the "show" button name, which is the appropriate name to cause the body to be shown.  (Toggling the button gets them into proper sync; it's the initial display that's the problem.)  I don't know where this is going wrong as I haven't found where the hide/show text is coming from, but it smells to me like the area you changed in common.js may be involved.  Could you investigate and resolve?  Thanks.  -R. S. Shaw 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked for the behavior you describe but can't find it. Please tell me a specific page that this occurs on (back on my talk page.) Also, remember to clear your cache as I'm sure you've already done by now. &larr;BenB4 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sp100 nuclear antigen and Anti-ballistic missile are two pages using templates which use Navigation, and for me have "hide" text although hidden. (I'm using firefox 1.5). I tried "?action=purge" on these pages with no effect.  Is there some other type of cache clearing I should try? -R. S. Shaw 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of those look fine to me with Firefox 2, with all the boxes hidden and [show] links. Try exiting your browser and restarting it?  I can't imagine what's doing that. &larr;BenB4 22:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Decalcomania links
Apologies, I just restored a link in the Decalcomania article, but didn't leave a proper comment. I wanted to suggest that the museum article link is more appropriately about the decalcomania/industrial transfers early design movement, as opposed to decals in general. Fingal 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange, to me it seemed a much more appropriate link for Decal than Decalcomania. The latter article is pretty much about the technique to produce a one-of-a-kind result, especially in fine art.  This is pretty much the opposite of the industrial printing technique of producing many copies of a graphic, i.e. producing 'decals' or 'transfers'.  The museum link is pretty much about the history of that industrial technique in Canada, and thus seems more appropriate for Decal. I think I'll copy this discussion to the Decalcomania talk page. -R. S. Shaw 03:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Quadratic Equation
Hey, I just saw the change of mine that you reverted and I'd like to say I did it by accident and I wasn't trying to vandalise the page - I think fatigue may have overcome my senses at that point. Thank you for reverting me. asyndeton 11:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Byte-order mark
The original text was correct as it stood: adding "(BOM)" wasn't necessary to make the point that U+FEFF is a character that serves also - depending on context - as a byte-order mark. Adding more words doesn't improve clarity. To make the point that 88.114.151.210 was trying to make might be better be done by splitting the compound sentence up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedickey (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject boxes go on Talk pages
Please don't put wikiproject templates on articles as you did with Template:Cell Signaling Project on Juxtacrine signalling. They do not belong there. Put them on the talk (discussion) page associated with the article. -R. S. Shaw 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I've checked "What links here" on that template page, and moved the template to the Talk page of all the articles I found where the template was transcluded into the main page. - Biochemza, 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What about when placing the Project Banner (with class=Category) on Category pages? I mean, really, who looks at Cat:Talk pages? Biochemza, 11:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see this question addressed directly in any of the Wikipedia guidance pages; you may be the first to want to persue it. (I know I haven't seen WikiProject boxes on category pages or on category talk pages.)  I would advise against using the category page, as a WikiProject reference is what is called a "self-reference" - that is, a reference to the Wikipedia project mechanisms (rather than encyclopedic content).  Categories are considered part of content, like articles, and unlike talk pages and "Wikipedia:" pages.  See Avoid self-references.  Another piece of related guidance is Categorization FAQ. I think someone interested in participating in a WikiProject's activities will find out via article talk pages; categories aren't really useful for advertising the project.  If you are trying to "claim" the category (which one can't) or inform maintainers, the category talk page is a good place. -R. S. Shaw 19:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup sorting
Hi. I keep seeing your name in the edit history regarding Cleanup sorting and Pages needing attention, so I figured that you must be the contact person. First of all, what is the status of cleanup sorting? If this "project" is active, which bots are running the tasks? I would like to run a job for Pages_needing_attention/Hawaii but I can't tell if this is an active project or not. Thanks. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, it looks like the bot was User:Pearle, last run by User:Beland on 29 May 2007. Is this true?  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside trom the date, that's right. I don't know the date that Beland last caused Pearle to update the Pages needing attention pages.  I was thinking it was more like a year ago.  Only Beland's computer has the setup, and it depends on a WP database dump, I think, which may be difficult to come by.  So the PNA pages unfortunately seem to have been left high and dry. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If the project is inactive, do you know if Beland or anyone else is willing to help decentralize the project, and begin the process of helping WikiProjects deal with cleanup sorting instead?  I need a bot to sort through all articles within Category:Hawaii and its subcats, identify maintenance tags, and flag the project template as needed for category sorting.  I think if we put the onus on the projects rather than a centralized task force, we'll see some progress.  The problem is, we need bots to help us sort the articles. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much Beland can do for this; contact him to find out. It's true that some wikiprojects have made use of the PNA pages, and might help with maintenance.  But a bot or bots are needed, and I don't know where they would come from.  -R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. May I ask if you have an opinion about cleanup sorting? Am I crazy to think that each project should be responsible for cleaning up their own articles? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cleanup sorting seems useful to me (which is why I got involved to the extent I did). There are over 30,000 articles marked as needing cleanup; being able to access them by topic seems extremely desirable.  People have areas of interest (as well as sometimes enjoying random browsing), so may want to work in those areas.  This goes for people participating in projects as well as those not so formally involved.  Topic-centered projects naturally tend to assemble lists of pages in their topical area, especially those they think should be improved.  They may do this through use of the PNA pages or entirely separately (more the latter since PNA/sorting has been so inactive).  It's not crazy to view project as responsible for cleanup of the relevant areas.  -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you comment here? Thanks. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Dmoz
Hello. I see your vote at the Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15. I agree with you.

Best regards, nejron (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Epinephrine
Hi. Recent editor of the Epinephrine article; have just registered after correcting what I saw as a typo. I see that you've reverted my correction of "Ampulle" to "ampoule" back to the original. In North American English at least, I've only seen "ampoule" used; the word "Ampulle"(especially when capitalized as is in the caption) is only used in other Germanic languages. For the sake of clarity, I argue that my correction should stand, at least as far as the English version of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrotjuliettthreeoneone (talk • contribs) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I see I missed the double-l misspelling. I've changed it to 'ampule'. I was unfamiliar with the ampoule spelling. I see the image name is ampulle, which is wrong from my ref.  The 'ampule' spelling is given as the main entry on dict.com and is the one I am most familiar with (U.S.). -R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Open Directory Project (DMOZ) Links
The DMOZ search template (Dmoz2) is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. I'm sending you this notice because of your previous participation in the TfD discussion for the DMOZ category template. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. Qazin (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello R. S. Shaw, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's tagline
Hi. I noticed that you participated in a 2005/2006 discussion and straw poll on whether or not the tagline at the top of all Wikipedia articles should be changed from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know if you're still interested in this issue or not, but this exact change has been proposed once again, this time at the Village pump, and there is currently an RFC (Request for Comment) on the subject where it is being discussed. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

List of universities with industrial engineering faculty
An article you contributed to, List of universities with industrial engineering faculty is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.--Paleorthid (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of New Jersey
Not that I care, but... When Danielle makes a remark about Teresa's nephew, Teresa bolts from her couch and yells at Danielle not to *break* up her family. &mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 05:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it (but not anon's); undone. R. S. Shaw (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Cocoa Bean: revamp Harvesting section, adding refs
Thank you for cleaning that up and providing references. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

fukishima reactor
hi. could you please take a view on whether there should be a separate section on evacuations or whether info about evacuations should be dispersed through the text. Sorry, but it is quite urgent to settle this as lots of edits are running by while we argue about it. thanks. Sandpiper (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't see your msg for some hours after you posted it. Issue seems moot at this point. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Bootstrapping
You changed the Oxford Dictionary reference to an earlier reference: "The System Design of the IBM Type 701 Computer" by author Buchholz, Werner. The 701 used the bootstrap concept, but does the Buchholz document use the word "bootstrap" on the cited page? If not, then the Oxford reference should be restored, because the next paragraph covers the earlier use of the bootstrap concept. Greensburger (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware the next para covers the 701's involvement with the concept. I believe the Buchholz paper does use the term, because Google Books consistently returns that referenced page when searching for the word, and the content of the snippet shown for that is very much on topic.  Unfortunately, the facsimile snippet Google shows doesn't include showing the word bootstrap when you search in the correct volume for that word.  It comes very close, I think, judging by the language that is shown.  I attribute this to a bug in Google's algorithm.  In another context, Google does show the word in this snippet quote: The rest is accomplished by a technique sometimes called the "bootstrap technique".  This is in a general Books search for bootstrap computer with that quote appearing in the results page textual snippet.  Following the link gets to the facsimile snippet previously described, on the right page, but not having the portion of text chosen to be displayed on the results page.  Someone with IEEE journal access through a university or whatever, or $30 to burn, could see the whole article. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Two-phase_method listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Two-phase method. Since you had some involvement with the Two-phase_method redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 178.37.175.28 (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)