User talk:Rwwww

How to categorize Category:IBM System/360 mainframe line ?
Hello, I noticed you changed some recent categories I made about S/370 into Category:IBM Mainframe computer operating systems. I don't like this category that much, because topics like VSAM and XEDIT are not really operating systems, and because each operating system would perhaps deserve its own category. I would like to discuss with you how to classify the stuff around S/360 mainframes. The problem is, operating systems and related software are very tied to hardware (that was the reason why I created categories like Category:ESA/390 mainframe technology; but I am open open to suggestion about another schemes. Thanks Samohyl Jan 09:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to be blunt -- I made a mess of it. Worked for IBM from about 1958 to the early 1990s and while my wife was in the hospital (there are details in other responses here) thought I'd clean up the IBM article titles & categorizations.  By the time I realized I was in trouble with the 360/370/... stuff it was too late & I just abandoned the attempt. Did a lot of good work elsewhere (I think) but can't escape my mess that you're asking about.


 * I did find an article, IBM eServers (if that names is not right, see the IBM hardware category -- it's now one of the 1st "*" section articles) that lists the rebranding that IBM did. That rebranding, and my being 15 years behind, explains some of the mess.


 * We are now travelling, visting family. It will be July/August before I can really look at this topic again and see if I have any constructive suggestions.


 * With apologies, tooold 18:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

IBM omnibus
Category:IBM omnibus? Is that a ten dollar term for "somehow related"? -Will Beback 09:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been away, sorry (you can find details in a response to a query below). While my wife was in the hospital I engaged in an obsessive/compulsive search for IBM articles that were not linked/categorized with other IBM articles.  Many that I found belonged in existing categories or needed only links from existing articles.  Fixed those.  The others I placed in "IBM omnibus" only to keep track of them, knowing the category wouldn't last but, for a while, they could be found and people could do whatever they wanted with them (I also kept a paper list -- somewhere!). tooold 18:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Needed
I left the 'Image Needed' phrase in because, technically, the 5081 card image that I added was not an IBM5081 but rather, in this case, a "Globe No. 1 Standard Form 5081", a card not manufactured by IBM. I'm a newcomer and was just trying to be as accurate as possible. Dick Kutz 08:06 (UTC), 12 Nove 2006

renaming actual proper package names
why have you changed a proper name ? its original name was correct and was not written by IBMken 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While my wife was in the hospital (there are details in another response) I attempted to clean up the rather random naming of IBM (and some other companies) computer products. A few (I hope not many) I got wrong.  As noted in another response, "STRETCH" became "IBM 7030 Stretch" for example.  Can't respond to your question in detail as I don't know which name you are asking about.tooold 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

AIX (operating system) article rename
Could you please explain why did you rename the "AIX (operating system)" article to "IBM AIX (operating system)" on 18 November 2006. "IBM" is not part of the operating system name in contrast to Microsoft Windows for example. See also Talk:IBM AIX (operating system). --pabouk 15:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is not the question worth of reply?--pabouk 09:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Likely it is worth a reply, I've been away for a while (my wife's jaundice turned into a blocked bile duct turned into a tumor turned into a cancerous tumor turned into pancreatic cancer, resulting in a Whipple surgical procedure followed by chemotherapy -- descriptions of the Whipple procedure can be found on the internet).

During the early part of the above I distracted myself with cleaning up the apparent random naming of IBM products. Some of which I got wrong, as may be the case with AIX. Looking at the category "IBM hardware", for example, the older machines almost all now are named "IBM model [name]" -- it didn't use to be that way. STRETCH, for example, is now IBM 7030 Stretch. I also branched out, changing other vendors machines. LARC is now UNIVAC LARC. Yes, I'm diagnosed with obsessive/compulsive behavior. About the only things left for hardware renaming are the Zuse machines. Someday I'll get up the nerve to do those!

So I tend towards formal names, they are better for searches and you know what you find. Users of IBM products often leave off the IBM prefix, talking about the 1401 or the 7090 or OS/360 while each should be prefixed with IBM. What I found for AIX indicated to me (and I could be wrong) that the full name is IBM AIX. The base reference, for me, is

http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/aix/

which is "IBM AIX". Yes, IBM does not repeat "IBM|" in the text of the article, but that is only normal editorial practice, not an argument that AIX is the correct full name.

And if you do a wiki search for AIX, what you find is

AIX is a three-letter abbreviation with multiple meanings, as described below:

* .aix audio file, composed of several different audio files, used in some video games. * Athens Internet Exchange, a European Internet Exchange Point * IBM AIX (operating system), the brand name of IBM's proprietary UNIX operating system, where "AIX" stands for "Advanced Interactive eXecutive" * AIX, the brand namce of AIX Media Group for it's line of HD Surround Music titles.

It's an IBM product, a brand name. When someone not familiar with AIX finds the name "IBM AIX" they know a lot more about it than from just the truncated AIX.

A last argument: its been months, no one has reverted the edit and you seem to be the only one questioning it.

I remain convinced IBM AIX is the correct name.

But if you want to revert it, thats fine -- I won't change it back. That's how Wiki works, for better or worse. In renaming IBM hardware, the IBM PC is not named IBM 5550 PC (or whatever the model number was) because one person objected. He wouldn't even let me use a "Category:IBM hardware" on the redirect page so that both name were categorized (the way I had handled his objections to similar names for the XT and AT, as I recall).

Appreciate your patience in waiting for a reply. With apologies, tooold 18:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rwwww, thank you for the detailed reply. Maybe my last question was a little bit rude. I am sorry for what happened to your wife.
 * In fact I do not know much about IBM products. If I find some time I will try to find more information about the AIX name and possibly to discuss it on the article's talk page. --pabouk 12:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that as long as AIX operating system redirects to the main page IBM AIX (operating system) then we are ok. A person would still arrive at the end page without knowing that IBM is part of the name. Here are all the current redirect pages:
 * IBM370/AIX
 * IBM-RT/AIX
 * AIX Operating System
 * Advanced IBM UNIX
 * Advanced Interactive eXecutive
 * AIX operating system
 * AIX (operating system)
 * IBM AIX
 * --Unixguy 17:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of IBM Tivoli Directory Integrator
An article that you have been involved in editing, IBM Tivoli Directory Integrator, has been listed by me for Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Tivoli Directory Integrator. Thank you. Mr Stephen 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

no problem
No problem. Thanks, it was an oversight in leaving out the initial colon on some of the categories. Bubba73 (talk), 01:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why move "Trusted Solaris" to "Sun Trusted Solaris" ?
Hi, I'm curious why you made this move. The product name is "Trusted Solaris", per http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/trustedsolaris/, http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/475.2 , and many other canonical locations. There is no other product with "Trusted Solaris" in its name that I can find that would require disambiguating it, such as say, "Nabisco Trusted Solaris." There are no links to "Sun Trusted Solaris" anywhere in wikipedia. In short, I think the page should remain "Trusted Solaris". Can you move it back, or would you object if I moved it back? Thanks.--NapoliRoma 09:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I went through the "operating systems" category - which is flagged as having too many entries that should be in sub-categories - to remove redundant "operating systems" entries (redundant because articles also had a category that was a sub-category of "operating systems").  While doing that I did the move you've noticed.  My preference is that products of a single vendor begin with the vendors name.  Not for disambiguation, but for information.  For example: not everyone knows what WebSphere is, but IBM WebSphere gives a big hint.  Same for Sun.  See the category Sun Microsystems software where many Sun products already begin with "Sun".  Anyway, it's moved back.tooold 11:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sun Spring (operating system)
I was going to ask why you moved Spring (operating system) to Sun Spring (operating system) back in June, but I see you've already answered the question in the preceding section. Since Spring was a research project, not a commercial product, would you mind if it was moved back? See Talk:Sun Spring (operating system) for details. Cheers, CWC 10:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

removed links above tooold 23:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for moving it back. Cheers, CWC 01:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To this day
As long as there are people who vote, there will be voting machines, and they will be using punch cards somewhere. A punch card is a form of token. Perhaps they will exist only as tickets, which is how Hollerith got his idea anyway. BTW, I plan to move your message to my talk page instead of keeping it on the user page. --Ancheta Wis 16:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 3705 from Mainframe Computer category
Hey !

I noticed you removed the 3705 from the Mainframe Computer category.

I understand that the rationale behind that is that the 3705 is, in itself, NOT a mainframe.. However, it is undeniable that the 3705 can and will only operate with the cooperation of a mainframe computer (i.e. it cannot operate (or more accurately, it cannot have a purpose) standalone - either when NCP, EP or both are loaded) - thus making the 3705 an I/O controller that is so intimately related to mainframe computers that, IMHO, it makes little sense to remove it from that category - because, despite not being a mainframe computer, it is *part* of a mainframe computer (as much as a 3x74 Display CU, a 3880 Dasd CU, etc, etc..).

In retrospect, it would probably be necessary to have a 'mainframe' category with 'mainframe computers', 'mainframe devices', 'mainframe operating systems', etc.. being subcategories of that

--Ivan

PS : I noted another small fix that needs to be done to that article.. It states that the 3705 is necessarily and always channel attached.. This is not true. the 3705 (only with NCP) also existed as a remote communication controller - acting as a remote PU Type 4 - with no channel adapter.

Ivan Scott Warren 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you want me to say. I was cleaning up the category, removed the 1620, 1401, 1410, 1440 all based on the article IBM mainframe. Removed the IBM 3705 because, as you noted, it's not a computer. Removed IBM 37xx for the same reason.

You might want to update the 3705 article for the small fix you've noted; I have no direct knowledge of it (or of most other things,it seems).

My only thought when looking at these classifications, articles, etc., is that it would be nice if the listings for computers in List of IBM products included their classification so that there was one source. tooold 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Computer software
Can I just point out that there is not actually any such category as Category:Computer software; it exists only as a redirect to Category:Software. --Paul A 07:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I know that.  Hmmm, see that I did it more than once.  Computer lists, computer hardware, ... The lack of symmetry can lead to mistakes (especially when making lots of edits).  Thanks for the fixes, would have been happy to make them myself. btw, why not delete the redirect?  When I key a bad category and the preview shows it, I fix it. tooold 13:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Mysterious are the ways of those who formulated the category redirects system, of whom I am not one. --Paul A

I'd like your opinion on Green IT vs. Green computing
Hi, I noticed that you originally proposed to merge the Green IT article into Green computing. Some editors dispute this, saying that Green IT is a separate topic and worthy of its own article. Please add your opinion to the discussion on Talk:Green IT. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the discussion there exceeds my abilities and willingness to expend time on the topic. I'm engaged in a different effort (which folks might not approve of, so I haven't asked anyone!).  I've been eliminating all categorizations of individual software items to the categories "Software" (where they never belonged), "Application software", and "Software by domain".  It was a random collection of articles that were so categorized, useless, and the idea that every software application would be so categorized and the result of that being useful -- absurd.  The replacement will be a list of categories, you can see the beginnings in Category:Application software.  Thus, for example, instead of a few business applications being categorized "application software", that list takes you too Category:Business software where there are hundreds of applications.  It was in course of doing that work (still in progress) that I ran across the Green articles.  I was willing to note the obvious (well, it turns out not obvious to everyone) merge - but my time will continue to go into my own project. tooold 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See my late answer to your Help desk question
Just in case you might miss my late answer to your question:

You may find Google custom to be handier for your Google searches on Wikipedia than the URL style you are using. --Teratornis 23:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:HD - the link that will break soon.
 * Help_desk/Archives/2007 November 9 - the link that should work after the page archives.


 * added comments to Help desk article. THanks tooold 05:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Application software
You've apparently turned Category:Application software into a list/outline of the related categories. I want to point out that this is far from standard category practice. Among other things, category trees (i.e. ) do not work with a category set up in this way. Typically, a very general category will include categories representing sub-fields, but the category page text itself will not contain a link.


 * I read through your comments, wrote my long response below, then came back to write some inserts. You might want to read in the same sequence; thus having a better idea as to what I was thinking (or not thinking!)


 * Intent was to create a list of categories, specifically a list of every category for application software. I know it's not what a category page is; I wanted to create it first and solve the Wikipedia problem later.  Used the Application software category page because it was, in my opinion, useless as it stood and anyone referencing it would find the list of more help than the prior page contents.

Also, a system of links would need to be maintained from both ends. For example, Category:Graphics software does not contain a link to Category:Application software (or any other software categories).


 * Intent was NOT to have links from both ends. The list I've constructed is the index, it points to everything, nothing points to an index.

Therefore, please revert the edits in which you undid the Category:Application software tree. Alternatively, perhaps that category would in fact be better off as a list. In that case, it should be listed at WP:CFD, but not unilaterally emptied.


 * As noted below, reverting is possible. And the way Wiki works is that any one person can force that. Please be sure that is what you want.

On another note, I also see that you've been doing a lot of positive work in sorting out the software articles. I want to thank you for putting the time in to straighten things up.


 * I consider the list my most positive contribution and, yes, I knew that more had to be done, that it couldn't go on as a category page (if for no other reason than I didn't want people categorizing articles there).

--Eliyak T · C 09:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)



Glad to have someone to talk to about all this. I don't know if other users can access my "contributions" list, but if you can, you'll be amused. A clear case of obsessive/compulsive behavior.

When you say "a lot of positive work" I'm not sure just how much you've noticed. The categories "computing" and "software" each had 80 or entries, most of them removed. Hundreds (I think of redundant category entries have been removed (where an article was categorized at multiple levels in the same tree). Several categories have been deleted (I forget which, haven't kept track).  There have been extensive additions using Google search ("Computing lists" had more than 100 entries added after a simple Google search). And there is more to do than has been done.

As to "application software" - and software by domain (which I have pretty much wipped out), I'm quite aware of that I've turned it into a list and that will eventually need to be recognized/changed from a category. When I looked at those categories, they had about 70 entries each. Assuming they were intended to have all "application software" articles listed I judged (without asking anyone) that
 * as found, they were failures - including only a small number of the existing articles.
 * indeed, the articles categorized there were categorized incorrectly - they had been dumped into a global classification instead of a more applicable category (there were very few article with both a detail category and the application software category).
 * if fully populated they would still be failures - reading through a huge list on the chance of finding something, even of recognizing that the name applied to your interests, was remote
 * that even if I, obsessive/compulsive that I am, were to make the investment in time to fully populate, the categories would deteriorate over time for the same reasons that the existing categories are failures.

On the assumption that the purpose of "Category:application software" was so someone could locate software of interest, I've replaced it by a list. Not a list of software articles, but a list of software categories. Thus:
 * it is almost complete with all application software (especially as compared to the former(!) category). It is missing only the applicable software categories not yet located and software that is not separately categorized in a software category (although some might be included, see Religion, most is not and never will be).
 * as you noted, categories update "automatically" when new articles are categorized. So all new software categorized to existing categories (which is most new software) updates (that is, can be found beginning from this list).
 * for new categories, I've included instructions for updating in a in the category page.
 * you can find things by subject - then see the detail with a simple click.
 * When you've written an article and are wondering which categories to use, besides looking at related articles, this reasonably short list identifies all the application software categories.

So, interesting items now are
 * the category needs to become a list. Assuming the list is useful, as I think it is, what is it's name, how do people who will benefit from it find it (that's why I've left it in the category page thus far - you found it!)
 * the whole effort may be useless. The category page has been changing to the list for several weeks and you're the 1st to notice (at least to comment).  At 1 person every two weeks that 26 uses a year. A simpler solution is to delete the category; as noted above it would never work. Ah, I had the category "Commercial software" deleted for that same reason - if populated it would be useless.

Wikipedia being what it is, I or you or ... can revert. Well, more or less. What I would do is delete the list and find about 70 software pages to categorize. That gets you back to useless, in my opinion, but it can be done.

I've written my response thus far after only 1 straight-through reading of your text; I'm going to go back through your text and insert some comments. Please remember that none of this is set in concrete, I'm looking to make things useful and know that I make mistakes. tooold (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Application_software Category:Application software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



More.

Your comment about a link back address one of my problems(although I'm sure that's not what you were thinking about), how do people find my wonderful index? How about the following:
 * move the index to the Application software article
 * In text at top of every application software category (i.e. all those in my index) add something like "See Application software for a subject index of application software categories, useful for locating categories of interest, recommended when categorizing new articles."
 * delete the Application software category page (for the same reasons as the commericial software page was deleted) 69.106.226.205 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

--

The main problem is that now many software categories are not in the category tree at all- although they are listed in the outline you made. The category tree should be consistent throughout- your page is simply inconsistent with the rest of the system.


 * Right - what I've prepared is not part of the category tree. As you've noted it must be moved out (to an article page). That it could not live as a category page was always understood - I left it there only because the existing "applications software" category page was a failure and, at that time, I hadn't been able to see the final solution.

Another problem is this: The category tree is meant to be navigable both from the "top down" and from the "bottom up." This functionality is lacking in a list-type summary. Granted, links could be added to all the relevant pages, but they would still not be in the expected location (the category footer).


 * Right again. The list-type summary provides organization not readily available in category pages, it can be referenced from category pages only by a "See also".


 * It's clear to me that we are in intense agreement. It will take me a few days for the pages to catch up (ill wife, sons visiting - they depart Fri night).

By the way, the reason why noone has found the category page since you made it into a list is that by removing the category from its child pages, you have removed the vast majority of links to it. (See its "what links here" page.)


 * A comment I don't understand. As I remember, the application software category had no subcategories, about 60 articles that had been dumped there (given a category "application software" and no detail category), about 10 articles that were done correctly with both a detail category and the application software category.  I'll find out for sure as I go back through my edits this weekend.

I do think your list is useful. However, I am very opposed to removing the software categories from the category tree. I think that the categorization scheme detailed in the list is good, and should in fact be used as the category structure.


 * I think we agree again - with the detail that, after I've done some restoration, I'll propose deleting the application software category - for the same reason that "commercial software was deleted, if fully populated it would be useless.

The list itself, though, should be moved to an alternate page (it's just too big). Perhaps the best place for it would be at WikiProject Software/Categories.


 * why not in Application software? That article needs a lot of work; the list is easy to move about and could be tried there without risk.

It should be linked from Category:Application software, and a link would also not be out of place on any or all of the categories it lists.


 * It's the second part that solves the problem I had - how to make the list accessable to those who could benefit from it. Again, would be "see also".

The bad situation you found the software categories in creeps up form time to time in various areas, but there's nothing for it except to go through the articles one-by-one and categorize them where they belong, as you have (commendably) done. In such cases, the super-parent category typically becomes home to only its sub-categories, with perhaps a few very general articles in it directly.


 * We really are in violent agreement. I considered doing that, but rejected it.  In cleaning up the "computing" and "software" categories, where many articles had been dumped (my word for categorizing at the top of the tree instead of the correct detail category) the problem was finding the correct detail category.  It's not easy to walk the trees to locate detail categories, especially when an article might, or might not, need several categories.  That work is what led me to the subject list.  Initially I did it as a a tree, indented to show structure.  But that was too long, most space was blank, so I collapsed it. The tree is still there, but after subject, such as "Business" it is linear without any indication ob branches.  "Science" is the best example as major branches, "Mathematics" for one, are easy to spot.


 * With the list, categorizing an article is much easier, scanning the list for likely categories is a snap.

To reiterate, my main desire is that the software categories should be set up in the same way other categories are. --Eliyak T · C 08:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and my main desire is usability, maintainability. I think you caught my work at an intermediate stage, and your comments have forced me to think it though to the end (I knew I was building something, just hadn't thought through the final steps). Thanks tooold (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Everyone can access your contributions list. Mine, for example, is at Special:Contributions/Eliyak. A problem with edits to categories, though, is that when mass changes are made, it's hard to visualize what the system looked like beforehand.
 * P.P.S. You may be interested in Classification.


 * The problem you've noted with categories also requires me to back though hunderds of detail edits, I can't just revert to 3 weeks ago. If I'd thought this through, or taken a less risky approach, I'd have less work to do! Another lesson learned. tooold (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

More.

Really appreciate the time you've spent with this. Instead of restoring Application software to the useless item list, I added category:application software to the top categories Business, Legal, etc. Should have known to do that myself but I was focused on my list. So I won't submit application software for deletion (commercial software was differenet).

So far as whats categorized there, think I'm done. No need to restore the individual items that I recategorized to detail levels.

So far as the list is concerned, does it have a good home there? I think it is an appropriate place; some looking for the right category can see all subcategories without have to walk trees. And it is a page that is generally not read - its read only when looking for something and the list is a significant help (I think).

btw - neither of the two pages recently categorized as application software belong there!

thanks again, tooold (talk)

Thanks for doing the recategorization. I've added a template to Category:Application software that should notify people that articles generally do not belong there. I'm not sure exactly how effective those things are, but it's certainly better with than without. (It also adds Category:Application software to a maintenance category.) I imagine the problem of wrong categorization to general categories is not going away anytime soon. --Eliyak T · C 03:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the thanks, but we're not done yet!. Software packages are split between: Application software, programming tools, and system software.  With Application software converted to the subcategory organization, as the other two already were -- what is the purpose of "Software by domain"?  Are their domains other than the existing subcategories that software should be organized by   (note also the lead-in for software by domain, identifying Application software as the main article)? tooold (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

category / software
Hi - You deleted Category:Software from Category:software engineering, stating that software engineering is not a subcategory of software. The category structure at wikipedia is not solely or even largely a semantic structure in which subcategories are subparts of their parent categories. See WP:CAT, especially the part about categories not forming a tree. People browsing the Category:Software category should have ready access to Category:Software engineering. You can see, for example, that Category:Software companies are also not part of Category:Software in a tree fashion, but Category:Software is operating more as a topic in this instance. I'm returning that category, but happy to have further conversation with you. --Lquilter (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll converse, but without much hope. Category:Configuration files was categorized as "files" and I deleted that. "programing tools" was categorized as "tools" and I deleted that. And, yes, "software" was categorized as software engineering and I deleted that.  Each case was identical - in each pair, one word matched.  But I think more is required, that the casual insertion of links based only on word correspondence make Wikipedia much more difficult to use.  Links should reflect the subject organization. And, yes, I've read WP:CAT, especially these parts


 * Nevertheless, parts of the category graph will be tree-like, and it may be convenient to think of parts of the category graph as being like multiple overlapping trees. When applying the guidelines above, consider each tree to be independent of the overlapping trees. A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy. This can lead to a good deal of debate as to what the hierarchies actually are. To clarify the structure of the hierarchy and help people browse through it, you can add a classification to each category. For more about this, see Wikipedia:Classification.


 * [edit] Cycles should usually be avoided


 * Although the MediaWiki software does not prevent cycles (loops), these usually should be avoided


 * Overlapping trees is a good model; Computing is a tree, parts of computing may overlap with other categories, and within computing we should avoid loops. And people browsing should a hierarchy should find every article, but they won't with your change. Someone browsing for software (lets characterize software as specific things that come in boxes, little or big) who walks the hierarchy as you've modified it, is led off into a large branch which will most likely exhaust them - once down 3 or 4 levels in software engineering looking for software, thinking they are in the software hierarchy - they'll simply give up.


 * "People browsing the Category:Software category should have ready access to Category:Software engineering." Why? I think they should have ready access to "computing terminology", should I add that category? I think they should have access to a bunch of others, too.  Neither software engineering nor computer terminology are included in the description at the top of the category:software page, why is yours more important than mine? - and the case that terminology is always needed is an easy case to make.


 * Have you added the category software to the category:software engineering page? The ready access need there must be the same.


 * As I said at the beginning, not much hope - and I won't revert your edit. tooold (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * btw, re Open source games. My mind does not support continued debates, I'm looking for another editor to provide assistance. tooold (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is that Category:Software is not used currently just to hold kinds of software; it is used to gather all software-related articles. In that context, why do you delete Category:Software engineers? ... Your example, Category:Computing terminology, doesn't need to be there because it's broader than software and would be in Category:Computing, which is a parent cat for Category:Software. ... If this doesn't make sense to you, then let me ask you what would you do with Category:Software engineering? Removing it from Category:Software leaves it with no direct tie to that category; instead, it is found through the less direct subject categories Category:Computer science and Category:Computing (and the much less direct Category:Project management. --Lquilter (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey - Went back to check the history of mods to category software engineering and discovered that after I had moved it from computer science to computing and was then asked to put it back in computer science, you came along and restored the computing category! Neat that you did that.
 * YOu might think this strange, but I'd be happy if Software engineering was a subcategory of software, and not a subcategory of computing at all. Seems I'm more concerned about structure than anything else.  i.e. my model was that Software engineering was a broad topic, a subcat of computing  and that it couldn't  also be a subcat of software - the software cat was only a catalog of software.  Yours model is that software is everything, and that works if software engineering is not a subcat of computing.    Think we can do that? The computer science people won't care, but the software engineers might feel demoted. (then we can move on to some of my larger disasters) tooold (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I revised the above, if you read it earlier, it' simpler now. Going with your model, the lead-in text on the cat:software page needs updating.  The 1st sentence describes your model, but the 3 topics listed describe my model (Catalog).  Deleting those three items would be sufficient.  Modifying "all aspects" might also be appropriate; a universal claim is always suspect.  Aspects such as Good/Bad are not included, for example. tooold (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine for Category:Software engineering to not be in Category:Computing. Software engineers shouldn't feel demoted; they should feel more precisely categorized.  Glad we're in accord -- it's rare to find folks with a good sense of how category structures work. --Lquilter (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Operating System category
Would you be so kind as to revert all of your category edits? ALL MAJOR VERSIONS OF OPERATING SYSTEMS ARE OPERATING SYSTEMS IN THEIR OWN RIGHTS AND MUST HAVE THAT CATEGORY LISTED. The purpose is not so much to see from the article what it is, but from a category listing you should be able to see all operating systems (EG Windows Vista and Mac OS X Cheeta). I will not bother reverting your numerous category removals, but you should. Althepal 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets look at one such removal: From Windows 1.0 I removed the category operating systems. Amongst the remaining categories for that page is Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows. That category page is categorized Category:Microsoft Windows.  And, in turn, that page is categorized Category:Microsoft operating systems.  Continuing, that page is categorized Category:Operating systems. So all Microsoft operating systems are accessible from the operating ssytem page.


 * If you'll look again at Category:Operating systems, you'll see Category:Microsoft operating systems as a subcategory. Looking at Category:Operating systems some more, notice that Unix operating systems are not listed, nor are Linux, Apple, IBM and many other systems.  Each is a subcategory, where individual systems are listed in exactly the same way as Microsoft operating systems. It is intended that subcategories be used so that the main page does not become too large (see the green flag at top of that category page).


 * Thus, removing the operating system category is NOT saying that Windows 1.0 is not an operating system, but rather simply using the category/subcategory organization as intended. If you still have questions, please let me know.  Thanks. tooold 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

People by occupation / Occupations
Rwwww, you removed Category:Mathematicians from Category:Mathematical science occupations stating that people are not occupations. I'm reverting that; see Category talk:Mathematicians. --Lquilter (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me reconstruct my path more or less, will take a while, please don't respond until I note "Finished", thanks tooold (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets see, there is
 * category computing, categorized as "Main topic classifications"
 * category People in information technology, its history includes "merged from Category:Computer professionals per Nov 24 CfD)"
 * category Computer and mathematical occupations
 * category business people in software
 * category Businesspeople in computing
 * category BUsinesspeople in information technology

OK, so I'm going through the software categories and take a look Business people in software. As found, its categorizations were:Software, Category:Software, Software, Category:Businesspeople in information technology.

Delete businesspeople, business people in information technology - business people in computing will carry it up the tree.

On to Businesspeople in computing. As found: Category:People in information technology, Category:Businesspeople, Category:Businesspeople in information technology

Add category computing. Delete categories People in information technology, Businesspeople - Business people in information technology will carry it up the tree.

Take note there is no "People in Computing" category. This is an error - if my naive understanding of "Main topic classifications" is correct (a curious detail, I think a note about "Computing" being a "Main topic ..." only recently appeared (computing is in my watch list), but I don't see a related entry in history). Will create this category later.

Now on to Business people in information technology.


 * There was just recently a CFD on "Category:Computer professionals" which merged & moved the category to Category:People in information technology. I don't think you want to create Category:People in computing, because I believe it would be largely redundant of Category:People in information technology. --Lquilter (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't wait for me to say finished. Oh, well, to address this topic. "Computing" is flagged Category:Main topic classifications. Looking at that category, it states "This is a list of Wikipedia's major topic classifications. These are used throughout Wikipedia to organize the presentation of links to articles on its various reference systems, including Wikipedia's lists, portals, and categories."  How can a major topic have some of it's details, people in this case, hung off a higher branch (information technology) in the tree? A major topic should, if nothing else, be complete. So "Computing" should have "People in computing" and that should be categorized both "Computing" and "People in information technology", the same as business people categories are handled - subcategories carrying detail up the tree.  No redundancy - people belong in one or the other, not both.   Think of it this way: as it stands now, anyone who know Wiki structure and who comes to computing, a major topic, and doesn't find "People in ..." knows that it doesn't exist - they know where it belongs and if it's not there then it doesn't exist - they have no reason to search for it.

Back to the main thread, Business people in information technology, was fine. Categorized as Category:Businesspeople and Category:People in information technology.

But that gets us to Category:People in information technology which, it turns out contains 4 different things:
 * computing occupations
 * information technology occupations
 * computing people
 * information technology people (I assume, didn't actually look for one but the Cfd was a merge)

Computing occupations is the easiest to take care of, I know where they go, Category:Computer and mathematical occupations right? Well, take a look. As I found it, there were no detail pages, only subcategories. The detail pages there now were recategorized by me shortly before your note to me. As found, then, it contained subcategories for:
 * computer people
 * mathematical people
 * mathematical occupations
 * people in information technology - yes, categorized here - creating a cycle (likely an attempt to repair the damage done by Cfd)

So currently, it's all mixed up (and I didn't do it!). There should be 4 categories, people and occupations, for both computing and information technology (computing and mathematical together is ok, but the reason for commingling isn't obvious). All with the usual content and categories.

That effort, above, is how I got interested in separating people and occupation categories. Why shouldn't occupations and people be subcats in the same category? They could, just that Wiki doesn't seem to be organized that way. Wiki does provide an alternative: if you want to point to "people" from an "occupation" category or vice versa, just use ==See also==.

Good news is that this long reply has consumed my interest in the topic; I plan no additional edits to the people or occupation categories. Finished tooold (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, okay. I don't really understand all of the foregoing but I trust in your good will. ... I think that people should be parallel to occupations in the larger subject category; but I do believe that when readers are looking at the occupations themselves they will want to have easy access to "people in that occupation" category trees. See also would work just fine and if you get interested in the topic again feel free to drop by Category talk:People by occupation to propose some new & improved way of handling it. --Lquilter (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hui 7
Thanks for the input on Hui 7. You removed a category, which is fine, but I've added other categories, but can't for the life of me figure out how to get rid of "Uncategorized" at the bottom. If you can tell me how, I'm all ears. Eyes. Whatever.

You also asked why it isn't an article about MedSphere. Actually, I work with Sequence Managers Software, MedSphere's competitor, also mentioned in the article; this article was merely to clarify and document who ALL of the Hui 7 were, since the name and some of the members come up in articles and on the web. Our first WP article on the Hui 7 was deleted, and no one would ever tell me why. I thought that perhaps MedSphere had asked for it to be deleted, so I re-wrote the article, giving them lots of strokes and props. But it is definitely not about them.

--BooksXYZ (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla Digital Memory Bank
Dear Rwwww,

I am a graduate research assistant at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. In recent years we have produced a number of online archives such as The September 11 Digital Archive (http://911digitalarchive.org/) and the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank (http://www.hurricanearchive.org/). Our team is currently gathering digital documents related to Mozilla products for the Mozilla Digital Memory Bank (http://mozillamemory.org), and we are in the process of interviewing some of the lead members, former and present, of the Mozilla community.

I recently found your Mozilla/Firefox-related contributions located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Firefox. Given your involvement with Mozilla, we think your voice would be an excellent addition to the archive. If you are interested in having your perspectives added to the record, we can conduct the interview via Skype, instant messenger, or email—whichever method might fit your schedule and preferences best.

I have included below the first three questions of the interview in order to give you a sense of the process. For examples of completed interviews, please feel free to examine the interviews section (http://mozillamemory.org/browse.php?cat=interview) of our archive.

If you are interested in contributing your perspectives on the Mozilla community and its products, you can reach me by e-mail at gcheong@gmu.edu. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding the interview process or the Mozilla Digital Memory Bank.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best regards,

Giny Cheong

Gcheong (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Graduate Research Assistant

Center for History and New Media (http://chnm.gmu.edu)

Department of History and Art History

George Mason University

4400 University Drive, MSN 1E7

Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

Interview Questions

When did you begin using computers? How did you get interested in computers?

What is your education background? Have you had formal computer training?

What’s the first programming project you remember working on?

Order of the German Eagle
From the history of said article, I see you've added some award recipients. Can you please add valid references for your edits as per WP:CITE? Thank you. (talk)raghuvansh(contribs) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Checked the article history; the only edit of mine that I found was added text to the existing entry for Watson -- and that text is consistent with Watson's page. Please leave an edit that you've seen this entry and if you disagree, please indicate the problem. THanks tooold (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After sending out that message to you, I found a source that I hadn't found earlier, so I updated a few things myself. As I'd sent this same message out to a lot of editors of that article, I wasn't able to notify everyone individually again. Thanks anyway and sorry for the trouble.(talk)raghuvansh(contribs) 11:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Recategorization
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia.

While I appreciate the intent of what you've been doing, I am concerned at some of the edits that you have made. Here are some examples:
 * As you can see from its infobox, Media Temple is in the business of web hosting, so rather than replacing Category:Internet hosting outright, you should have changed it to Category:Web hosting. The same for Moonfruit.


 * You've noted that Internet hosting was wrong. When correcting a wrong category I try to replace it with a correct category.  I'm not concerned about "equivalent correct", just correct.  So replacing an incorrect "internet hosting" with a correct "copmpanies" category: 1)is an improvement 2) does no damage.  There is often more than one correct category that can be added - in this case "web hosting".  But I'm only trying to remove errors, I don't want to spend time as a recatagolger for people who dump articles without much thought.


 * And, since I don't have the whole web catalog in my head (but I hope you find some of my changes to be good surprises) I sometimes replace an incorrect entry with one "high up" in a tree known to be correct.


 * And I sometimes make mistakes - as did the people making the initial entry. Hope is that improvements far outnumber mistakes.


 * Question: Do you really object to my one for one replacement?
 * You should not have removed Category:Internet hosting from Telehouse Docklands. It is a colocation centre and thus a subset of internet hosting service.


 * I read the beginning of the colocation article. It states "Colocation is becoming popular because of the time and cost savings a company can realize as result of using shared data centre infrastructure."  So I interpreted that as data (Web hosting) not ISP (internet hosting).


 * There is no separate article for Qype.com as opposed to Qype. For that your category removal was over-strict and I have undone it. And why did you not feel it necessary to leave a comment, despite deleting four categories?


 * Looking at categories like "internet culture" there are almost no company entries. That seemed right to me and I assumed that company  entries belong only in categories specific to companies (such as web hosting).  So I changed internet culture and then the other 4.  There is an edit comment on both, don't know what your question references.


 * The Semantic Web is very much a part of the World Wide Web, and you should not have removed Category:World Wide Web from Category:Semantic Web.


 * I didn't remove it. Semantic Web is a project of W3C and a subcat of that. Many, many people believe that in addition to categorizing their wonderful article at a tree leaf they should also categorize it at the top of the tree.  I disagree - and deleted many "World Wide Web" categorizations where a correct subcat was used.  Semantic Web is one such case.


 * A Turing Number is not a web browser, so Category:Web browsers is inappropriate; it should be in Category:Authentication methods.


 * I find this comment to be very interesting. Found this article with category "internet" - a vague, general, dump it here category and I moved it a lot closer to where it belonged, where someone knowing the subject could find it and get it exactly right.  My category, Web browser, was a lot less inappropriate than internet!


 * The change was an improvement - right?


 * You don't need to add comments into articles saying that you have removed certain categories. Edit summaries are sufficient documentation in most cases; and if you really need to go into more detail, that is what article talk pages are for. Cluttering up article source code with comments is a bad idea.


 * Edit summaries vanish, if someone thinks a category is missing do you really think they will read back though the edit histories ("do you think they will" is a different question from "do you think they should"). When deleting a category that seems obvious I've preferred to leave text where I know it will be found by someone considering adding that category back.


 * More generally, I've added a lot of comment text - mosly to category pages hoping that I won't have so many to correct in the future. (I didn't know what an "exploit" was - and you need to know when sorting out exploits!)


 * You should also not have simply removed Category:Early computers from the CER model articles. Each of those models is an early computer, and should have been grouped in a new Category:CER computers as a subcategory of Category:Early computers. I have rectified this.


 * Did you see that"CER computer" is a list of all of them? So they weren't deleted.


 * Anyway, we agree the entries were redundant; you've chosen a different fix and done the work. I don't believe you've added any value.  That's Wikipedia, the last person willing to do the work determines the result.  I've probably made a hundred changes to Early computers over the last several years - consistent naming, deleting computers that weren't so early, ... recently linking mechanical and some others.  Lots of room in the Wiki pool!

I am currently examining your editing history and will make other changes as necessary.


 * Will be interested in your comments. Appreciate the time you taken, hope you understand more as to what I was about.  You haven't explicitly mentioned the split between internet and world wide web.  I've tried to make them independent - the internet, per its main article, is the communications network, the web an application.  Some things are so mixed that I categorized them both as intenet and web.  That split does not reflect common usage - as noted in the variousb texts but either we split correctly or someday the categories will have to be merged merged.

69.106.253.165 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank for listening (reading).

My requests to you are as follows: please slow down a little and be more cautious about removing categories; follow links from infoboxes to determine appropriate categories if necessary; and use article talk pages to discuss your changes.

Thank you. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, family trip - I'll be slowed down for the next tree weeks. 69.106.253.165 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that we are friends ...(posted to User_talk:Hex)
If you're an admin, here are some things I'd like changed. For those you agree with, please pass them on - do whatever admins do to effect change. Thanks, 69.106.253.165 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

1.-- There are more and more articles with more than 100 references. The algorithm to display those n references runs in something like (n/4)**2 time since, in the 2 column case, for every 2nd addition to the references displayed all preceeding references are reformatted to balance the two columns. This may be no big deal given the latest & best computer, but on a slower machine n squared algorithms take a long time as n approaches 100 or more.

Options. a) Most of the time I don't care about the refrences, would be happy if the were displayed only if I clicked on that section or if I clicked on a reference number. b) change the algorithm to balance the columns only after all references are displayed. c) change the display; instead of balanced use alternating columns: for a 2 column display the odd numbered would be in the left column, even in the right, both columns in ascending order. And so on for more than 2 columns.

2.-- "What links here" used to be useful in understanding the tree, locating related articles, in maintaining the intelligence represented by the category tree. No more; the flood of templates has buried the interesting links - with every article that uses a template listed as linking to everything in that template there are now hundreds of links - useless.

Please change "What links here" to list templates once and to NOT list any uses of a template. If I want to know who uses the template, I should be able to go to the template's page and click "What links here".

3.--- Even after several years of editing, I have a difficult time using the Wikipedia editing reference material to answer my own questions, to locate templates, etc. I need a map, a short summary in one article of all those editing documents, that I can go to as a starting point and click to move to the article I need. My difficulties may relate to my age, 71 or so I'm told, never-the-less the difficulties are real. This user page, User:R. S. Shaw, has been the most help, but I really want a summary (brief table of contents?) of the various editing articles in one document. And that Shaw had to create his own quide should be a "proof by example" that the Wikipedia Help/Edit documents are missing something.

4.--- Not every article needs a template, let alone two or three, and no article needs the "Internet memes" template. How do we slow down the template stuffers?

5.--- Users updating an article often copy it to their user page or sandbox. Sometimes they never complete their edits, just leaving the article in the user page. Possibly they complete the edit but don't delete it from their user page. The result is that category pages list those user pages since, of course, the pages contain the catalog entries. For those categories I'm cleaning up I can either edit the user page, inserting the ":" or correspond with the user, both being a nuisance for me and the user.

Please change the category pages, at least in the "general public" area of Wikipedia, to not include user pages.

end-- Thanks again, 69.106.253.165 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hex"

Trusted Extensions & Trusted Solaris
I see you had linked Trusted Extensions to Trusted Solaris.

Trusted Extension is totally different from Trusted Solaris.

Working with Trusted Extensions since it's early stages, and having a Trusted Solaris background, I would like to undo that link and edit the Solaris Trusted Extensions page to describe it accordingly to wikipedia objectives (no intent to make commercial stuff - just justified facts). Would you see any issue with that ?

Also, I am a new wikipedian so discovering rules and best practices. Would you accept to help by giving feedback while I will progress ?

Bruno. Bjgiza (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not Guilty! You must have looked at the edit history, but not in enough detail.  On an edit history page there are two columns of "o"'s.  To see one of my edits, click the left "o" on the preceding (lower) edit and the right "o" on my edit.  Now click "compare selected versions" and a comparison will be presented showing exactly what changes I made.  If you click the left "o" on the preceding edit and the right "o" on my second edit, then what is displayed will be the net of the two edits.  In this particular case I had renamed "Tusted Solaris"  to be "Sun Trusted Solaris" (I have a strong belief that most of the world, including the computing world, does not know the names of all the vendors products and that search results such as "AIX" or "Trusted Solaris" carry a lot more information when vendor names are used: "IBM AIX", "Sun Trusted Solaris".  But Wikipedia is a world where any one person can object, someone objected to "Sun ..." (I think the comments are on my page, above) so I moved it back to "Trusted Solaris".  Both those changes required updates to the redirect, the first adding "Sun", the second removing it.  Those are the edits you should be seeing and the net, of course, is null.  You'll need to look again to see who linked Trusted Extensions - twasn't me.  I appreciate being asked for feedback, but I'm a bit unreliable with some health problems - thus I tend to cycle between periods of intense activity and long absences.  tooold (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold-and-Modify
Hi. You moved this to Amiga Hold-and-Modify. Could you be convinced to move it back? The word 'Amiga' seems superfluous, since there is nothing else that could be at this name. Compare Mode 13h. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, the change is superfluous for those familiar with Amiga. The problem is with search results (Wikipedia and Google) for all people NOT familiar with Amiga. Finding an article named "Hold-and-Modify" does not convey nearly as much information as "Amiga Hold-and-Modify".  Indeed "Hold-and-Modify" conveys almost no information, you have to look at the article to see what it is about.  But Amiga ... and you immediately know a lot about the article and would usually know whether or not the article is of interest to you.


 * However, you may disagree. I'm not needed for doing the reverting; you can move the article, undo my edits and I won't complain or redo them.  That's how I understand Wikipedia working. But please consider all Wikipedia users when deciding what you want to do. Thanks


 * re Mode 13h: I didn't come to Hold-and-Modify via that path so wasn't aware of it. tooold (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. I don't feel strongly enough to move it back, but if I wanted to I'd have to gain consensus and take it to WP:RM. Only an admin can move it back over the redirect. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Only an admin"? Wasn't my experience with a similar request re Sun (above). My suggesting that you do it was on the belief that it was as quick to do it as it was to ask me to do it.  Should you later decide you want it undone, let me know and I'll try to do it. Thanks, tooold (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very sure that it needs to be an admin who moves it back. I've started a discussion on WP:RM and the article's talk page, if you want to have a look. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't realize, until tonight, that you were looking at a 2007 edit. I found it, clicked undo and Wikipedia indicated that the edit could be undone.  I clicked save and it was undone.  But it didn't do the right thing - problem is that there was another intervening edit, changing "and" to "And". So undoing my edit did not have the desired result.  Now it will take an admin to clean it up. Given that Wiki would allow it, you don't generally need an admin to undo a move, but given the intervening edit in this case you will.


 * And, still learning myself, if I had first undone the "and" "And" move, then undone my move, it all would have worked. tooold (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

EXodus
Many thanks for your note on my talk page. I am not sure I agree with your reasoning on this. I found the article uncategorised, by "poking" the article into a subset (however weak) it is more likely to to picked up by somebody who would know exactly what categories the article should fall in. As I know little about software/computing I felt my actions were the correct course to take. Surely better than leaving in the uncat section - which has over 1000 2,500+ articles in it as I write, rather than the 61 in "software". On the other hand, if you really think my edit should be undone, please do so - you won't offend me. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote on my talk page, "I try not be a free resource for people who won't make the effort to correctly categorise their articles." That seems to be totally contradictory to the spirit Wikipedia. I also feel slighted because I have spent the last few months categorising many 100s of articles which other people have failed to categorise. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Point truly taken. I spent a few minutes looking over music software. I take the view if an article I am unfamiliar can be poked a little in the right direction I am helping - the alternative would be to take a single article, research, edit, categorise, tag if necessary, and that would take much, much longer. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a similar problem today, moved a couple out of a category with a diffusion notice on it, only to see them moved back by different people. I was thinking there could be a logical solution if there was a suitable warning at the bottom of articles (after all, who actually checks beyond seeing its a bluelink?) that one or more of the categories is in need of diffusion. Any ideas?--Richhoncho (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: category of Transformer Read Only Storage
Many thanks for this hint - I have placed this in the category Computer storage technologies, which does seem more appropriate to me now you come to mention it. Please do let me know if I am wrong again - this is not one of my strongest areas. Gilo1969 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

About categorization failures
Hello. Just letting you know I replied to your concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized. Let me know if you ever need a hand with these problems. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

the free terminal emulators category

 * I've removed the yakuake article from the free terminal emulators category due to the fact that the terminal emulators category doesn't have enough articles to justify a sub-category. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nowiki'd cats in mainspace
Please keep a closer eye on where you are when nowiki'ing userpages... i.e. neither nor  are userpages. best regards, –xeno talk 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've got to look and see just what happened. It's finding a "User:...." in a category page that prompts me to nowiki its categories. tooold (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, "User Datagram Protocol" flat out mistake, my going too fast. But Proxy server? Haven't yet understand how that happened. When nowiki'ing I usually check the page history & will leave page alone if there have been edits in the last few days so there is opportunity for a wrong click somewhere. Will keep looking. Thanks again for the repairs. tooold (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't explain my "Proxy Server" error. Looking at a few recent edits, it stands right out. And no, I don't spend all my time nowiking such stuff, just when I encounter a lot of it.


 * 06:57, 15 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User Datagram Protocol ‎ (→External links: Nowiki'd categories - User pages should not be categorized)
 * 06:55, 15 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Proxy server ‎ (→External links: Nowiki'd categories - User pages should not be categorized)
 * 06:51, 15 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User:Dking987 ‎ (→See Also: nowiki'd categories - user pages should not be categorized in main pagespace) (top)
 * 06:50, 15 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User:Amit.salkar ‎ (nowiki'd categories - user pages should not be categorized in main page space) (top)
 * 19:37, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User:SF007/testing6 ‎ (→External links: Nowiki'd categories - User pages should not be categorized)  (top)   tooold (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you were led there by a redirect... Anyhow, it's no big deal, just keep an eye out for this. –xeno talk 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * FOUND IT! User:Promethean/Sandbox contains only some sort of template for Proxy server.  When clicking on a sections "edit" it appears that you are taken to an edit for the article - a redirect of sorts that I had never experienced before.  Left a comment in that user's talk page - so it may change before you see it. Thanks again tooold (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * heh. good eye. –xeno talk 07:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK you fixed it. I know the difference betweeen these:  but what are these supposed to mean, x ? tooold (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not edit other people's talk page comments without good reason
First off, it's not as certain as you seem to believe it is that "punch card" is incorrect. Second, do not edit other people's talk page comments except for minor technical fixes (formatting or thread indentation) or to remove violations of Wikipedia policies -- and none of these reasons applies to your edits to Talk:Lace_card... AnonMoos (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I took it as "minor technical fixes", but accept that some might see it differently. Thanks for pointing it out. tooold (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Childhood software
Hi, I'm puzzling over what prompted you to create this category. How are the articles in Category:Childhood software fundamentally different from the articles in Category:Software for children? Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Microsoft history
Category:Microsoft history, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Free data recovery software
Category:Free data recovery software, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your userpage
Hi Rwwww. I've just declined a speedy deletion request on your userpage, since it came from an IP address rather than from your account. If you would like the page deleted, please tag it with whilst logged in to this account. If that wasn't you, and someone's messing about with your userpages, the most recent version that you edited is here, should you wish to revert to it (and if you want the page protecting from IP edits, let me know). Cheers, Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)