User talk:Ted nw

This is an answer to your question.

Your question
Hi, and welcome. I answered your question at WP:HD. Let me know on my talk page if you have any more questions or want to discuss anything. delldot | talk 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note. To answer:

the draft I'm working on in User:Ted nw/sandbox would be visible only to me?
 * Well, everyone would be able to see it, but chances are no one would notice it unless they happened upon it by seeing it come up in Special:Recent changes or noticed our discussion of it here. If you really want for nobody to be able to see it, maybe you could write it in a notepad document or something then cut and paste it into an article.

Does such a "userspace sandbox" get purged periodically, so I might log on and find that it's empty?
 * No, usually no one will mess with subpages of your userpage (unless it's something inappropriate and against WP:UP, but that wouldn't apply here, or someone could theoretically vandalize it, but they shouldn't).

is this what you meant by "Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything."
 * Yup, you did exactly right. Peace, delldot | talk 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving
You can change a page's name by using the "move" button that appears at the top of the page near the history button. This will create a redirect from the old name to the new name. You can edit the redirect or ask that it be deleted. But you can't move to any name with a page history (a page that's been edited before other than to create a redirect), without the help of an admin (I'm one and can help, but I've never done it before so it may take me a while to figure it out!). You can read WP:MOVE for further detail or ask me. Let me know how it goes. Peace, delldot | talk 14:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh, weird. The only time I've seen that text appear is when you type in or click on a link to a page that's actually a redirect to the page you end up at (A2 in this case).  Like if you type in or click on Concussion of the brain, it takes you to Concussion and gives you the little redirect message.  Whereas if you click on Concussion directly, it shouldn't.  Here's what I would suggest.  Go to A2 directly by typing in the name in the search box.  If you still see the redirect message, highlight the title and copy it, and paste it into the search bar and hit go (the reason being, if you're even one letter or capitalization off, you could be inadvertently typing in the redirect instead of the actual page's name).  That should take you directly to the page.  If you still get the redirect message, I'm baffled, and you should probably leave a question about it on the help desk. If you don't mind saying which articles they are, I can go to them and see if I get the message too.  Either way, let me know what happens!  Peace, delldot | talk 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah HAH! That's what it is.  If you type anything other than the exact title of the article, with correct captitalization and everything, it will take you through the redirect page and show you the redirect message.  Because Extremedb is actually a separate page from eXtremeDB.  If you type in eXtremeDB exactly, it shouldn't show you the message (and I don't see it).  Click on this link: eXtremeDB and you shouldn't see the redirect message.  I'm right there with you on the software thing: the stupid case-sensitivity causes about a million times more problems than it solves.  I mean, why should Notre Dame get a separate page from Notre dame?  Like someone's really going to write two separate articles for the different capitalizations?  Anyway, I ramble on.  Hopefully this fixed things, if not, let me know. Peace,  delldot | talk 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I think the extremedb page is useful for exactly the reasons you point out. If we were to delete the page, people would end up at the search page when they typed it in with any capitalization other than exactly eXtremeDB (which as you mention, they're likely not to do). For example, try typing extRemeDB into the search box: it takes you to the search page, right? Since there is a redirect at extremedb, typing in the other capitalizations takes the user right to the page they obviously want.  The only way they'd actually go to the redirect page itself would be by clicking the link in the "redirect from" note or using the other trick mentioned at WP:R, so no casual reader would even notice the page exists.  This is why I'm fond of redirects; they take you to the article you want even if you don't type in exactly the right thing.  You can read more explanation of redirects at WP:R.  The "redirect from" link at the top of the article you end up at (the "target article") helps users to know why they ended up at a page with different spelling or capitalization than what they typed in.  And of course, it helps editors to more easily be able to edit a redirect (e.g., point it to a different article, or expand it into its own article if it's a redirect with possibilities.  Peace, delldot | talk 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC) D'oh!  I tried typing in extRemeDB after I saved it and it took me to the right article.  I think that's because when you have a redirect page and the name of the target article on it is capitalized, the software interprets that as "send the user to this page if they type in any variation of this".  So that's another benefit of the redirect page. delldot | talk 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

COI
Hi Ted, good to hear from you again. Tough situation. I think neither of you is in a good position to judge which things belong on the template, since you both lack an objective position. It's a very good thing that you're both being open about your potential conflicts of interest. And I think that most Wikipedians would agree that it's ok for you to edit the articles as long as you're very careful to be objective. When in doubt, you should suggest edits on the talk page rather than adding them yourself.

About the conflict, I'd first recommend discussing it on the template's talk page and/or the talk pages of articles involved. Have you done that and made any progress? S/He may not be aware that you have a problem with his/her actions. If you can't come to an agreement there, you could file a request for comment to get more opinions. Another place to try might be the conflict of interest noticeboard. But of course, really try to work something out with the person first before going to dispute resolution. I'd also suggest rereading WP:COI closely so you can be sure you're doing everything right.

About the unreferenced tag, you should suggest removing it on the talk page. If no one objects (or responds at all) after a few days, I'd say you're safe to take it down yourself.

Hope the conflict works out, let me know if you need more advice or if you want me to actually step in and have a look myself. Peace, delldot   talk  16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OWN
No, as I understand it, one can never own or control an article, it's always a collaboration. If someone acts like they own an article, I think they're violating WP:OWN. The only exception I can think of would be if Jimbo Wales or the Foundation made an executive decision, basically what they say goes. But other than that, all wikipedians are equal; being an admin doesn't grant you extra power, just gives you access to a few extra tools that can't be given out to everyone because they'd be too damaging if they fell into the wrong hands. You can certainly rack up 'street cred' by making a lot of good edits, but that doesn't give you more authority in a dispute. The real authority is the published sources; if someone wants to include something, and it's in line with policy and they can back the statement up with good sources, it can be included. Who gets the final say i guess is determined by the outcome of dispute resolution. That and what's most in line with policy. Peace, delldot   talk  20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Embedded database
I'm not sure which version of the article you are referring to. I have restored to an older version now - hope that will meet with your requirements. The version previous to that - which was much longer - was a copyright infringement, but was not deleted by me in any case. Deb (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm even more confused now. It seems like there were two separate articles in existence - one at Embedded Database and one at Embedded database. I think/hope it's sorted now. Deb (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Programming & Wikipedia
Hello. I noticed from your edits that you're interested in programming. I thought you might want to know that the Wikimedia open source community welcomes you to get developer access so you can contribute code, critique others' commits, and generally get a better sense of how this place works on a technical level.

Also, the Wikimedia Foundation is hiring programmers, in case you know anyone who's looking. Remote work is often feasible.

Best, Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)