User talk:William Allen Simpson/Abbreviation

List of X-letter combination subcategories in Category:Linguistics
Might I ask why various "List of X-letter combination" subcategories have been included in Category:Linguistics? These have essentially nothing to do with linguistics, save that they are composed of letters/digits (as is virtually anything else that may be expressed). It is no more related to Linguistics than it is to, say, Category:Combinatorics. In fact, it is probably more related to Combinatorics, though I would not suggest adding it to that category either. --Tabor 16:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because that's where Category:Abbreviations is currently located. If Abbreviations and other such items don't belong here, then where?  Do you want yet another subcategory subcategory subcategory?
 * --William Allen Simpson 16:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

MOS:DP dispute
I am here to discuss this. I guess that you have taken objection to my statement:
 * the new seperation of disambiguation and abbreviation pages is violating consensus and has been implemented by one rogue editor William Allen Simpson

but let me know if there is more, or if it's something else.

I guess that the dispute is about you thinking that I violated Civility, specifically the "petty" example: "ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another".

I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, I was summing up the events to help anyother editor understand what was going on (I can elaborate on my reasoning if you like).

Since I consider the statement to be correct I am not going to withdraw it.

I would like to know what you want to achieve out of arbitration?

My guesses is that you want me punished for insulting you (eg removal of admin powers, banned from wikipedia etc). Let's discuss what you want you think the outcome of arbitration would be, and I'll see if I can accomodate.--Commander Keane 19:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I'm not (yet) familiar with the various official labels for your behaviour, as an admin you should know them well, and for purposes of discussion here I'll accept your own initial assessment of the proper policy citation. As you have not only refused the opportunity to withdraw your statement, but added a "j'accuse" section to the debate, it is clear that you are recalcitrant.


 * I accept your offer of voluntary relinquishment of admin powers and voluntary banishment from wikipedia, although I am willing to stipulate that you may return whenever you complete the graduation requirements for your university degree.
 * --William Allen Simpson 12:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously feel very strongly about my behaviour. As far as I'm concerned I haven't done anything wrong. Could you outline the problem?--Commander Keane 14:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists
You seem to have left in article space instead of Wikipedia space, when you cleaned up List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations - 132.205.44.134 00:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * List of all two-letter combinations
 * List of all single-digit-single-letter combinations


 * Hey, I'm not a miracle worker. Per your WP:RM, I've done the List of all two-letter combinations, and all 17 double redirects the move created.
 * --William Allen Simpson

On Eep
I noticed that you tried to move Eep to EEP. You might want to weigh in at Talk:Eep. Thanks, &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, a bit more complicated set of moves and content revision.
 * Thank you for replicating the AfD history.
 * Some of the move and redirect history was lost when moved  to  and the latter was speedy deleted.
 * I also asked at WP:DRV for the history at both and Eep to be restored (it was done just after the Eep1 move).
 * Could you restore the relevant parts of Eep1 history to Eep?
 * --William Allen Simpson 13:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

EAP/EEP
I read the comments, thanks. Does "heap" rhyme with "keep"? An acronym is a pronounceable initialism, and the acronym EEP is pronounced identically to the acronym EAP. Just zis Guy you know? 11:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What standards meetings have you attended where E.A.P. has ever been "pronounced" eep? I've never met anybody confused between these abbreviations.  But then, as I mentioned in the comments, I helped write the documents.
 * --William Allen Simpson 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Reinstatement of non-subject links in MP
Hi, Was the re-inclusion of non-subject links in MP intentional? I'd removed them in line with (I believe) the Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Not that the MoS prohibits non-subject links if they're useful in finding what's been searched for.

However, (e.g.) Alternative Rock doesn't contain information on School of Fish, which was why I removed it.

BTW, I had no problems w/ the tag replacement, so I've left that in; but why didn't you mark both actions in the edit summary (or was it a mistake)?

Fourohfour 14:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit summary reflects the change in tag, which in turn reflects the content of the page. This is not a disambiguation page, so the MOS:DP does not apply.
 * --William Allen Simpson 14:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay; can you please explain what the difference is (it was marked as a disambiguation page previously)? It looks and smells like a disambiguation page to me.


 * If there's a good reason for this change in status from disambig to non-disambig, fair enough, but I really can't see it just now.
 * Fourohfour 15:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's a bit hard to summarize. You merely missed 5 years of recurring discussion, a straw poll a few months back, several TfD, and a recent CfD (actually a rename from "two-letter" to "two-character", thus {2LC} to {2CC}).  But it's not a "change in status", since AFAICT the abbreviation pages have always replaced disambiguation pages.  It says so on Disambiguation!  It never ceases to amaze me that folks cite MOS:DP without reading  WP:D first and foremost.
 * --William Allen Simpson 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * At Disambiguation_and_abbreviations, it says that "Abbreviations, initialisms, and acronyms are likely to be ambiguous needing disambiguation."


 * So, abbrev pages technically aren't disambig pages, but de facto they serve the same purpose. I'm still unclear why you added back the non-subject links beyond emphasising your point that abbrev pages weren't disambig pages.


 * Fourohfour 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed to see that you're making edits/reversions to MP for reasons that (as far as I can tell) have nothing to do with the utility of the article, and everything to do with proving or emphasising a point in some political in-fighting.


 * If you genuinely think that these links improve the article, please let me know why. As far as I can see, it's a de facto disambig page, and is best served without them.


 * Regardless of whether the article is technically a disambig page or not, my main concern is whether the edits actually improve the functionality. Just because non-disambig pages *can* include links for most terms doesn't mean they should. If you have a point to make, please make it more clearly, and in another manner. If you genuinely think that these edits benefit the utility of the page, please accept my apologies, but I'd like to hear your justification for them. Fourohfour 19:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

4LA / 4CC
Hi, can you do me a favour and tell me where the policy on acronym templates is written down? I've been trudging through some relevant talk pages; but these aren't policy, and are such a mess of different ideas that I can't tell what the hell the final outcome is. The actual policy pages don't talk about it as far as I can see, and I have no idea what to do if I create a new 3/4 letter acronym. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The "final" outcome was detailed at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 20 (actually a rename) and that result documented at Abbreviation expansion. Hopefully, the latter is detailed enough on how to create a new abbreviation page.
 * --William Allen Simpson 10:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that does seem to explain it. I note that it's currently a proposal, not a policy; but if there's no prior policy in this area, I guess it's OK to start implementing it now.  Also, I assume that when it's accepted, it will be linked to from places like Disambiguation and abbreviations so folks can find it.  Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 11:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:NO
I moved you oppose from the WP:RM page to Talk:NO. Votes take place on the talk page not WP:RM. SchmuckyTheCat should have formatted the request as I have done for him/her on the Talk page (This is not the first time this person has not completed the talk page section). If that is not done then the administrator should discount the request after 5 days. Perhapse in future just put a comment under the request on the WP:RM page complaining that the talk page is not formatted properly so you can not express an opinion. I hope this information is of some use to you. Regards --Philip Baird Shearer 09:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)