Jump to content

User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Jerzy

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CrucifiedChrist (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 14 June 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

Note to Non-Native Speakers of English

Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.

(I also say the above, and a bit more on my User page.)

Log/Index of Archived Material

Arc 00

  • In /Archive 00 (~ 20 KB, 2004 Feb 26 Thu (UTC))
    • 1 Non-Native Speakers and other Topics of Hopefully Continuing Interest
      • 1.1 Note to non-native speakers of English
      • 1.2 Good Advice to Anyone
      • 1.3 "As of"
        • 1.3.1 as of 2003
        • 1.3.2 Reply
        • 1.3.3 Infinite monkey as-of
      • 1.4 Grammar & Usage Quibbles
        • 1.4.1 "Not to mention its being hard... "
          • 1.4.1.1 Wise use of sentence fragments
          • 1.4.1.2 The problem of "its"
          • 1.4.1.3 The gerund problem
          • 1.4.1.4 Articles?
        • 1.4.2 Like vs. As
      • 1.5 Pascal

Arc 01

  • In /Archive 01 (~ 18? KB, 2004 Feb 26 Thu (UTC))
    • 1 Verbose Disamb Page Soviet
      • 1.1 Bolshevik Understanding
        • 1.1.1 Soviets - frame 1
        • 1.1.2 Soviets - Frame 2: A reply about Soviets
        • 1.1.3 Soviets - Frame 3 - Jerzy again
      • 1.2 (Temp) Deletion of Soviet
    • 2 Re: Family-name-first Names
    • 3 Intel 4004
    • 4 IFF
    • 5 Old Miscellany
    • 6 Nation-State
    • 7 List of people - Response from Paul (User Rfc1394)

Arc 02

  • In /Archive 02 (~ 7? KB, 2004 Feb 26 Thu (UTC))
    • 1 Cut and paste move
    • 2 Contributions on New Topics
    • 3 Die Walküre
      • 3.1 New Miscellaneous
      • 3.2 Welcome back
    • 4 In Use msg
    • 5 Brianism
    • 6 Battery disambiguation
    • 7 Polar something
    • 8 Yeti disagreement
    • 9 List of people by name
    • 10 Kylchap
    • 11 Extro
    • 12 Sandy (?)
    • 13 Senate
    • 14 Request for Comment

Arc 03

Arc 04

Whining

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Cleanup#January 31. RickK 02:19, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, don't. I've moved it here... Angela. 03:43, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Moved VfD Material follows, as part of the "Whining" section

Velvet Revolver - reads like an article created by banned User Michael - Info seems correct [1][2] Mrdice 17:24, 2004 Jan 31 (UTC)

  • Not the point. Hard banned users are to have all of their input deleted on sight. RickK 19:58, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Really? Surely the point is content? Flobster
    • No, enforcing a ban and not encouraging them is the point. Most of Michael's edits contain factual inaccuracies anyway. Angela.
    • See User:Michael: This user is under a hard ban - see User Talk:Michael/ban for details. All edits by this user will be reverted. Please do not reinstate any edits made by this user. RickK 00:14, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Normally the point is content, but i for one have no problem trusting the sysops and Jimbo's judgement that this is an abnormal case where the disincentive given a vandal is more important that speeding up the improvement of a few articles, or avoiding frustration for a few editors who get caught in the crunch. --Jerzy 02:04, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • What i have written just above notwithstanding, i am flabbergasted and embarrassed that those who are pointing out the hard-ban can't give a more coherant defense of the policy. If nothing else, start out by pointing out Jimbo's EMail instead of making us wade thru the heated rhetoric to its link. People should stop editing the Michael-IDed stuff, and stop whining about it. But someone better informed than i should do more to relieve the impetus to whine. --Jerzy 02:04, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? I lsited this here because I wasn't sure that the anon creator was Michael. If I had been sure, I would have deleted it on sight. I was giving the article and the author the benefit of the doubt. Pardon me for trying to avoid getting my head snapped off for a quick delete. Instead, I get it snapped off for not doing a quick delete. I just can't win, can I? Whine, indeed. RickK 02:18, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • My first order of business is apologizing to RickK; the following is what would have been at this point on the Cleanup page if Angela hadn't Edit-Conflicted me by moving it first, just as i tried to add it there:
    • For the benefit of anyone who thought i was describing RickK as one of those who have whined, i make public my apology. I was careless in making the above comment here, rather than under one of the several other items in the last week or so that concerned the ban on Michael. I certainly should not have put my comment right after one of his, on any item where his name is so prominently posted. I should have dug up a different one, where there was extensive "whining" by people who wanted to edit an apparent Michael article, or not to have their baby (their already posted edits) thrown out with Michael's bathwater. I think RickK behaved admirably with regard to this article, and that his reasoning for listing it here rather than VfD is fine. --Jerzy 04:03, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)
  • Cleanup is not the place to be asking for a defense of the banning policy. Please read Wikipedia:Bans and blocks and then ask on the talk page if you still need further information. Also, Rick did provide you with a link to Jimbo's email. He linked to User:Michael and User Talk:Michael/ban, both of which contain the link to the email. Angela. 03:43, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Moved VfD Material Ends Here, and the "Whining" section continues:

Ooops. Sorry for the edit conflict. :) Angela. 03:57, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

It's because I had a broken header on my talk page. It said ==Meta===, which is half recognised as a header and messes up all sections after it. Angela. 04:13, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerzy, I appreciate your comments. RickK 04:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio

At the moment, getting an email from the person involved attesting that they own the copyright in question is generally enough to clear things up. In an ideal situation we'd require an official, signed letter stating that fact, but we just have to do with what we have. Go ahead and re-integrate it. It might be worth stating that you received an email from said owner of website on the talk page to preemp any future concerns. - snoyes 04:04, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're probably right re: the revert/edit distinction. I'll keep that in mind. - snoyes 04:21, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VfD move

Moving long discussions to the talk page of an article and retaining a link in page is well established process on VfD. Please don't re-add the discussion again, it increases the likelihood of edit conflicts.—Eloquence 09:58, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

N-CONUS

I don't recall weather I came with non-continental on my own, or if it is an actual term. I wrote that bit when I was doing a internship and Hughes Network Systems (makers of DirecTV), and they used terms like CONUS (continental united states) and other such terms often. So I either pocked it up from them, or deduced it logically on my own. Which I am not sure, but it is cetainly valid in my opinion. { MB | マイカル } 04:01, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Paczki

Hi Jerzy, the talk pages are sorted out now too. Thanks for explaining the move this page feature to GusGus. Unfortunately, there is no automated way of finding these things, so it relies on people spotting it in recent changes and sorting the problem out before the page histories diverge from each other and become unmergeable. Thanks for noticing it so quickly. By the way, your talk page is 56kb, so you should think about archiving it. Angela. 20:31, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for the "move this page" info. You folks are a lot nicer than I expected! &mdash GusGus 21:09, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

Cleanup

Thanks for reminding me about the proper way to list something on cleanup. I had read it but I'm just so used to signing by writing ~~~~ that I forgot to write ~~~ instead. I think I'll keep the name because I've been using it on the internet for years. Saul Taylor 03:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Or should that be Saul Taylor).


Cleanup

I don't know what to say. I'm very sorry. I remember this happening on the 15th, but I assumed it was just an error, and when it didn't repeat itself, I let it go. I'll go to the pump right away--in fact, I might need your help to figure this out. If so, I'll let you know. Again, I apologize. Thanks for assuming good faith--I assure you, this is not something I'm doing. Embarassed, Meelar 06:27, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I'm using IE 6.0, if that helps any. P.P.S. I had no idea this had happened again, or I would have done something. I'm mortified.

I just asked Uncle Ed on his talk page. Hopefully, he'll get back to me.
Meelar 22:19, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Vote Clarification

I have clarified my vote on the new VfD layout per your request. I am for neither layout. Thanks for the heads up. :) --Flockmeal 20:14, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Diode bridge diagram

Hi Jerzy, glad to help. Take a look at Image:Diodebridge1.png and see if you think that's close to what you had in mind. Let me know if you want it modified in any way (size, etc.) I can base the others off it if you like it. -- DrBob 18:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey again. Good eyes on the connection dots; I've updated the Image:Diodebridge4.png with a new version. -- DrBob 16:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VfD

Hi, thanks for your work on VfD, but please could you put it in a separate page. VfD was 110kb today so there really isn't room for all that additional text. It's been moved to the talk page for now, but maybe a separate Wikipedia:VfD instructions page would be better. Angela. 14:19, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sigs

Yes, it is documented at m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Setting preferences. I think it was Dori's idea originally. Angela. 15:47, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Mislead

What is wrong with it? It seems a sensible redirect to me. If you feel it's not, please list it on WP:RfD. Thanks. Angela. 23:32, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy of deleting verbs. Perhaps you should ask Patrick as he is the person who created it. I have no strong opinion on keeping or deleting it. Angela. 00:14, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

(Headings Added with Others' Contributions are Always Welcome)

List of people by name

Awesome table of people. I was going to try and think of names for the "red" links but I realized I didn't know where they would go. Would "*Kmetko, Steve, (born 1953), entertainment reporter" go on a new "Km" page, or get stuck at the top of the "Kn" page? -- Nunh-huh 01:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm pleased by your interest, even tho IMO the list is far from what it should be & yr praise is thus excessive! The short answer to your question is "a new page should be created for it", and if Kmetko is not a hypothetical, i'll do it w/in 24 hours, or help you understand what's involved in doing it, if your interest is that strong.
Here are a few longer answers:
  • In perhaps a month there should be no red links.
  • There are already plenty of ready-for-names pages w/o names, and having names for them is of no consequence in itself. (You may not have noticed that there are pages with titles like List of people by name: Bar (and while you're at it, glance at List of people by name: Bam), and even if i weren't pretty sure there aren't any Zz... names out there waiting to get on the list, i can assure you the list will never have every page and link populated with at least one name, unless the implementation is radically changed.)
  • There's a place to stash them briefly at Talk:List of people by name#People Waiting for a Page to be Listed on; the only reason i've never put anything listed there onto the list is that i put the example and the three real entries there myself, so it wasn't clear anyone thot they were priorities. (Nhat Hanh does have an entry on List of people by name: Th#Thf - Thi.)
  • One possibililty, in this case as you note, is putting it at the top but if you're interested i could explain a number of implications that make that a bad solution. (Which is why i'm committed to getting rid of the red links soon, now that i've experimented with ideas & thot some things thru in the last months.)
  • You could follow the red link & just put the name on that blank page, but at present there's not a good mechanism for anyone to note that it's been done and that they should follow up.
  • You could follow the red link and set up a new page that looks like the existing ones, but making sure that it was properly linked in both directions with almost everything else is a much bigger deal that most people who try it realize.
  • Most people on the list should also be on several other lists at Lists of people (NTBCW List of people by name), in any case. So far, "i don't do windows", in the sense that i see my plate as full with the one big list (only one other user is currently as active on it as i), and for now i don't want the distraction of getting familiar with the other lists and what problems they might have, beyond incompleteness.
  • IMO, not everyone on the list has to be eligible for an article on WP, but on the other hand not everyone belongs on the list. (Probably you know this, but forgive me for asserting what is not entirely obvious.) I don't pretend to know about Kmetko; yes and no are both very plausible answers to the question. (IMO being an example of the possibility of names with a given letter combination doesn't make someone significant enough for a List of people by name entry, tho i admit an argument could be made for that view.)
Let me know what your preference is; most people don't want to become experts on this facility, but you'd be welcome if you do!
--Jerzy(t) 03:05, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • I've given it a shot: Kmetko is a real person, not hypothetical (I was so proud to think of a "KM"!) so I've made a KM page. Let me know if I've done it wrong :). Probably it would be good to see if this system catches on or if the much-bandied-about categorization scheme comes to fruition: there's sadly probably little chance of me become expert in either, though :( - Nunh-huh 03:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I look forward to categories enhancing this tree; they are not what i had in mind when i spoke of a radical departure, partly bcz i think there still needs to be a manual mode of editing this list, even if people get added immediately here when whatever associates them with the people category gets saved. As i've discussed on its talk page, i also think there should be a list that has only people who have bio articles, in addition to a list that should include some people we are sure should not have more mention in WP than an entry within the tree.

I applaud yr spirit in tackling the page, and a guess you know i'll check your work! If you screwed it up, i'll applaud you for editing boldly; if you didn't, i'll "stand in awre of you" (as Baccala told Junior). [smile] --Jerzy(t) 05:02, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Good, thorough work, editing boldly and coming out very well. I hope i'm not being overbearing by expanding on the summary comments:

1 new practice i'm introducing
the commented-out NoToc operator at the top of page where it's hard to miss, is there for two reasons, 1, so when a page gets big enough to have a long ToC, no one has to struggle to remember the syntax to shut off the auto-ToC in favor of a hand built tree of indexes, & 2, so it's easy to find when an editor wants to turn the ToC back on temporarily as an aid to checking and organizing those indexes. (Not applicable to this page, since it will never get that big.)
1 quibble abt technique
replacing the self-link with text is unnecessary, since the server now does that for you; it's now undesirable (tho formerly nearly mandatory) bcz it's an opportunity to screw up the "lateral index" instead of copying it unchanged from a sister page.
1 almost certainly inconsequential error
== Km == is redundant and clutter, since that's how everything on this page will start. == Kme == isn't mandatory with a first entry, but it suggests, to those who add to the page, that they add their own headings, and makes it less likely that the page will already have mis-alphabetizing errors by the time someone says "this page could use some headings"
but the pipe would be a gotcha (if you hadn't got it right earlier!)
and for the benefit of someone else who reads this, we alphabetize names based on surname-given-name order, but the link goes to the title and the titles are in normal order; that is GN-SN in English, even if his name were a Hungarian one
watch my talk for more, in case
i said that, assuming you were unlikely to have consulted What links here to verify that all the entries (other than the incidental link from one of my pages) were there; and assuming you were unlucky enough to have chosen a troubled row of the "master table" on List of people by name, where there could be relics of previous edits that would interfere if had someone else had previously tried to do something ill-considered, or made a slip of the keyboard on another page of the row.

Bottom line, i think on reflection that i owe you an apology for trying to discourage you (most of the problems i've caused or seen probably had to do with subdividing existing pages), and my congratulations for not letting yourself be bullied. --Jerzy(t) 07:07, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Hmmm. If that's bullying, you need bullying practice! The link thing is a bit embarassing (a bad cut/paste <A TITLE="Click for more information about job" STYLE="text-decoration: none; border-bottom: medium solid green;" HREF="http://search.targetwords.com/u.search?x=5977%7C1%7C%7C%7C%7Cjob%7CAA1VDw">job</A> from rendered rather than source text)<g>. Listings maintained by people are almost inevitably going to be better than those done automatically, but we'll knw when we see it! - Nunh-huh 07:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yup, on reflection it occurred to me exactly how you achieved the match in wording without duplicating the link proprerly. I've done it too.

There's some kind of expression about "quantity being a kind of quality", and on the basis of no facts other than once adding "West Wing" cast members' names to the list, i have the impression that we people have been anything but thorough at transfering names from article (and i suspect also bio-article titles) to the various lists of people. On the other hand, entry for entry, there's nothing like human attention, and especially lots of eyeballs looking over what the algorithms have blindly dumped.
BTW, when i said above

As i've discussed on its talk page, i also think there should be a list that has only people who have bio articles, in addition to a list that should include some people we are sure should not have more mention in WP than an entry within the tree.

i think i was recalling someing i said on a user talk page, so no one should wade thru Talk:List of people by name looking for it. (Hmm. As if my having said that made such a search likely. [blush]) I'll hunt it down for the article talk, just in case i said something brilliant. --Jerzy(t) 08:48, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Hey, I moved the article without any difficulty. Don't know what was up with that. john 05:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nice to see TRAC article getting filled out...

...I couldn't write any more myself since I have no reference material other than thirty-year-old, wait, make that forty-year-old recollections of playing with the language for a few days.

IF possible, what I would most like to see added to this article would be just a couple of examples of what the language looked like (an example of a simple macro expansion), and perhaps a brief explanation of the difference between \ expansion and \\ expansion. (Or was it / and // ?).

Hope you're watchlisting me now, and that i don't need to look at the history to know how to reply to you in the absense of a sig, but i'll try to remember to do so if you don't reply soon.
Wow, i have no idea what you mean by
the difference between \ expansion and \\ expansion. (Or was it / and // ?).
and i wonder if one of us was using a non-standard implementation. Could the slashes reflect a difference between dialects; hmm, wait a minit, nothing to take back, but i was about to say
/ vs. (
but now i want to say
/ vs. #
Does than ring any bells? One and two were, i think, expansions that get rescanned immediately and the other not; i don't find the terminology i'm about to use familiar, but think its a sound one reflecting necessary implementation: # or ## controlling whether the expansion is inserted in the working string to the left or right of the "expansion cursor". (I'm a little uneasy about that, bcz i think this cursor jumps around as the interpreter pops nested functions off the stack, and i can't picture that process at the moment.)
I bet i have some serious TRAC code around somewhere, in a box of tab-paper (including the TRAC pretty-print program that i built on top of someone's (hmm, Leonidas Jones's) paren-nesting-display program).
Hmm.
#(DS,howdy,Hello(,) World!)##(howdy)
How's that look? -- not the most trivial implementation, but IIRC the minimal interesting one.
OK, i looked at the comma that's now parenthesized, and i want to say
Active function
#(DS....
Inactive function
##(howdy)
Protected function
(,)
Any bells?

--Jerzy(t) 20:41, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

[What "historyless redirect" really means

The reason you couldn't move it was because List of people by name: Ste needed to be deleted first. Unless a page redirects to the same page that are you are trying to replace it with (and always has done - you can't just edit it to make it a redirect there), then you need to delete a redirect before you can move something into its place. Anyway, it should be ok now. Angela. 09:01, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)~

MediaWiki:Sandbox

Like many pages in the mediawiki namespace, Template:Sandbox is protected as it is likely to attract a lot of vandalism. It isn't a message that needs to be changed often, so I thought the protection would not cause as much disruption as the vandalism of it might. If you want any changes made to it, you can suggest them at MediaWiki talk:Sandbox. Angela. 00:53, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

List of people by name: Nf-Nh etc deleted as per your request. Angela. 18:53, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Blowing Rock (sex)

Regarding the article Blowing rock (sex), I wonder if your memory of Airplane! might be somewhat rusty (or perhaps based on a translation of the film into another language)? In the film, the autopilot (which is not "legless", as its legs can be seen when it's out of its seat) is named "Otto", not "Rock", and even has a joke listing in the credits. The instruction to reinflate Otto doesn't come from Ted Striker, but rather from McCrosky, played by Lloyd Bridges. And there isn't any line about "blowing rock". From the transcript, the specific exchange mentioned in Blowing rock (sex) actually goes like this: 

Elaine  : 35,000 feet.  NO wait, 34,000 feet . . . NO WAIT,
	  its dropping.  Its dropping fast, why's it doing 
	  that?  Oh my god, the automatic pilot, its 
	  deflating.
MCrosky : Don't panic, on the belt line of the automatic pilot
	  there's a tube, now that is the manual inflation 
	  nozzle.  Take it out and blow on it.
Passngr : What the hell's going on up there?

--Arteitle 05:29, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Sysop help available

(response to note on User talk:Paul A)

Here I am. What's up? --Paul A 03:56, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. (I have to admit, though, that I've tried to avoid having anything to do with the user-login side of sysop-ing.) What is it you're actually trying to achieve? --Paul A 04:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for leaving you hanging like that. My 'net connection cut out, then I got called away to do something else. I can't think of anything to add to Tim Starling's contribution, anyway. (On my talk page, if you haven't spotted it yet.) --Paul A 12:11, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: Were

I see, now. I guess I didn't follow the grammar of your sentence. You comments were apt. I deleted my comments, but left the quotation.

Thanks for noticing that I replied.

Best wishes, --Wighson
05:12, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Urolagnia

I've restored some of the text. See my comments in Talk:Urolagnia. I think your edits were reasonable for safety given a lack of information, but I can vouch for the correctness of the text. - UtherSRG 14:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: Cleanup

I think that the merging of headings is still essential and valuable work, if just to keep the TOC short enough to be useful. - SimonP 21:07, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

I couldn't figure out what was wrong with that page. Thanks for the fix. - Tεxτurε 02:51, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi back

Thanks for the greeting! Guido 07:31, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Steadicam

Re Steadicam

I reverted your revert where you removed the link which you described as an add. The page describes to build a steadicam which is obviously relevant. It was featured on Slashdot. Just because the guy also sells them doesn't make the page worthless and only an add. The $14 refered to the cost of materials when you do it yourself, btw, and not the price of a video that gives instruction of how to build a steadicam, which is sort of what it looked like.

CGS 18:48, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A reversion regarding time zones

Hey. Sorry to hinder anything, but I was just doing the RC watch seeing all the anonymous contributions, saw this one, and it looked like a random anon trying to reformat the page and not doing a particularly good job. (There are dozens of those daily... most of them have no clue what the Manual of Style is... :) Additionally, I thought it looked slightly better the old way. If, in fact, the edits were useful, I'm sorry... Apart from that, I don't take particular interest in the matter. - Fennec 01:30, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Angela & Angela

I wouldn't worry about it too much. There are various bugs with {{msg}}s at the moment, and sometimes they show old content that shouldn't be there. They are expected to be fixed in the new release of MediaWiki though. Angela. 01:27, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. I think Wikipedia:Peer review's a good place for it, though WP:RFC or Wikipedia:Cleanup might have done as well. Angela. 15:52, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Consolidation of Dialogue with AC

The remainder of this section is the refactoring and reformating by Jerzy(t) of a series of User-talk communications between Jerzy(t) and User:Adam Carr AKA Adam, in 2004 April, in which each participated entirely by editing the other's talk page until the point where Jerzy(t) 21:37, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC) did this reworking.

I haven't finished counting my reasons for objecting to this edit by you, but let's start with the the lack of sig. I welcome info on why you did it, and anything else that might moderate my opinion of you. But i also see the need to be blunt:

Don't do that.

BTW, you might consider tuning the wording of your no-headings request in light of the label "Subject/headline:" (rather than "heading") that appears when someone selects "Post a comment" from this page: some users will not realize that putting down a subject (and BTW, adding an informative summary into the history) creates an unwanted heading.
--Jerzy(t) 17:45, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

Re this: I haven't finished counting my reasons for objecting to this edit by you, but let's start with the the lack of sig. I welcome info on why you did it, and anything else that might moderate my opinion of you. But i also see the need to be blunt:
Don't do that.
[ Jerzy(t) notes, at time of refactoring, that the broken ital markup is from AC's original.]
I have no idea what you are talking about. I made no such edit, and even if I did, so what?

Adam 23:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you followed the link i gave you, namely

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito&diff=3266738&oldid=3105015

then you saw the server's assertion that your acct (or one that was used between 22:23, 2004 Apr 7 and 02:05, 2004 Apr 8 in editing Talk:Josip Broz Tito) was used to link the existing string "Joseph Tito" and to add the link "Tito" to Talk:Josip Broz Tito. One click from that page, at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito&action=history

you will see

  • (cur) (last) . . 02:05, 2004 Apr 8 . . Adam Carr
  • (cur) (last) . . m 22:23, 2004 Apr 7 . . Shallot (=Grenades vs. shells= just a confirmation)

which is the server's assertion that there were no edits by other accts between those times.
I chose not to add my previous msg to your talk page in the heat of the moment. Perhaps my caution gave your memory time to become less clear than you initially assumed.
--Jerzy(t) 07:04, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

I made this edit: Who made the silly decision to call this article Josip Broz rather than Josip Tito or Josip Broz Tito? He is universally known as Tito, regardless of what his legal name might have been. We don't call Lenin Vladimir Ulyanov or Stalin Iosif Djugashvili. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I am going to redirect it. Adam 10:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have no memory of making the other edit, and I don't know what it means or what it is about it that offends you. Maybe someone attached my name to it.

Adam 07:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, i recall the entry you referred to on my talk page, which also shows up in the history here, where it also indicates it was you who preceded it with the heading "His name"; we're talking about some 3 hours later.

I've just checked further, exploiting knowledge of that time-frame, and see an explanation that would convince me of what i had unintentionally done, if it were i in your position. You may want to consider it, and learn from it if you judge it as i would.

At a (hand-edited) URL among your possible "User contributions" pages, you'll see what you were doing around that time, notably

  • 02:06, 2004 Apr 8 (hist) Greek Civil War
  • 02:06, 2004 Apr 8 (hist) Joseph Tito (New)
  • 02:05, 2004 Apr 8 (hist) Talk:Josip Broz Tito
  • 02:03, 2004 Apr 8 (hist) Josip Tito (New)
  • 02:01, 2004 Apr 8 (hist) Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) (top)

I trust you will recall the 4 of these edits other than the Talk one that we are discussing. If these were my contributions instead of yours, i'd say to myself, "Oh, of course i needed links to the Josip Tito and Joseph Tito pages, in order to create those redirects, and Talk:Josip Broz Tito could have been a good place to find at least something close. I could start an edit of the section where the "Joseph Tito" version is mentioned, and build the links i need but never save them. OK, copy Josip Broz Tito over here, take Broz out leaving Josip Tito, hit Show preview, click on the link, paste, and bingo, the Josip Tito link is done. Take "Josip" out, that's Tito, Show preview, follow the link, oh, good, someone already got that one right. What's left? OK, put brackets around "Joseph Tito" for Joseph Tito, hit Show preview..." and i'd figure that at that point i clicked on Save page instead, or even just hit Return while the cursor was in a vulnerable place (like, IIRC, the Edit summary pane!), i could have accidentally saved it.

If that still doesn't sound plausible to you, i recommend you

  • change your password,
  • be sure you never click on "remember my password" when you go to WP from a machine you don't own, and
  • rethink the physical security of your primary computer (can people walk in and take over your WP session that you left logged on?)

-- because a compromised password is what it's supposed to take, for someone else to be able to put your user-name on the Page history and User contributions of an edit, as they are in this case.

If you are really sure that both of those are wrong, IMO you should go to Source Forge or get a developer to listen to you, bcz then you're a victim of a real bad bug, that probably no one is looking for at this point in the software life cycle of the data base.

Bottom line, i'm no longer interested in this matter, as i have a malice-free explanation that satisfies me. But in hopes of cleaning it up:

As to my role in it,

  • i'm glad i was persistent, and as cautious as i was;
  • i was blunt before it was entirely necessary (on the reasonable tacit assumption that accidental edits are much less common than cowboy editors, and that drawing out what could probably be more quickly settled (WRONG! [sigh]) was an inefficiency to be avoided.
    • I'm stopping short of apologizing for that judgement, but
    • i certainly regret that it turned out plausibly to have exacerbated the issue, and
    • i may turn out to call this an error and gauge similar situations differently in the future.
  • (And i babbled about the day or so between discovering the problem and editing your page, without remembering that it was weeks after the edit in question before i noticed its existence.)

Things that have more to do with you than me:

  1. I expect you'll be glad to know of a new feature aimed at this "where do i get a link for the page i want to creat" situation.
    1. Paste or type the new title in the upper-right corner pane next to Go and Search.
    2. Click Go.
    3. Toward the lower right corner of the page that results is a link to the page; it's blue, even though the page doesn't exist yet.
    4. (You can also
      1. edit a URL, or
      2. use a link on a preview page as i assume you did, or
      3. edit it in, in WP:Sandbox or a private sandbox
      4. -- but this is much nicer.)
  2. Consider whether it's worth your while to learn more about the WP tools. The contribs and history and diffs don't really take much study, and are occasionally great labor saving devices -- usually for things you just would do without if you didn't use the tools.
  3. If you choose to forgo knowing the tools better, you are IMO in error if you don't dial down your confidence about what you do and don't understand. "Someone put my name on the edit" can be plausible in the absence of evidence from Page history and User contributions when used carefully with Diff. In contrast, the evidence i had put before you pushed into conspiracy-theory ranges the plausibility of explanations involving what might be called "forgery" (except when done by password theft).
  4. I'm sympathetic with your not thinking thru the implications of irregularities while you felt confident they didn't happen on your watch. But (especially since i'd be sympathetic with your being tired of this whole thing!) please now indulge my determination to ensure you grasp the issue. The problem with the edit was that it muddied the record in a way that's hard to trace (and requires an inefficient search for its cause, using the history and diffs tools, which are always more effort than orderly sigs, and whose combined use is not well understood by everyone). In particular, it misattributes text. (You appear to be someone who would understand the importance of that in scholarship, which is pretty much what we do here.) In this specific case, it made me look like a fool to latecomers.

Thanks for your patience in a tricky situation.
--Jerzy(t) 10:50, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

[Takes deep breath] Thanks for placing large amounts of stuff I don't understand on my Talk page. My dim recollection is that, yes, I created links from Josip Tito and Joseph Tito to the article Josip Broz Tito. I have no recollection of how I did it, but I suppose I must have done it in the way you suggest. My reference to someone else adding my name was a throwaway line because I neither knew nor cared how the edit in question came about. I still don't understand what you are getting so worked up about. Who cares whether Tito's name in a Talk page has brackets around it or not? And what is "sig"?

Adam 14:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[ Jerzy(t) is making the following response only on User talk:Jerzy:]

Presumably My Last Word

I appreciate your deep breath, which i consider good for both of us.
You ask

And what is "sig"?

Your sig is the expansion of ~~~~, i.e., the remainder of that 'graph, following the question i am answering. The term could also apply to the expansion of ~~~, i.e., to that link to your user page, with the date omitted.

(FOLDOC provides some context in the "<messaging>" sense (the first of the two senses labelled "2", sorry about that), and WP's user interface to our ".signature" analogue is a pane in, IIRC, the lower right quadrant of one's Preferences page. You appear to have entered "Adam" in that pane, while User:Angela, i, and too many others to enumerate, have something like "]][[" in the middle of ours.)


As i said, i'm no longer interested in this matter (though i'm glad to offer the courtesy of responding to what i take to be a sincere request for information). Besides that, i think direct response to the portions i've neglected in your last 'graph would, in one way or another, demean us both.
Be well.
--Jerzy(t) 21:37, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

Copy of Closure Message

[ Jerzy(t) is posting the following three 'graphs on User talk:Adam Carr, to replace the entirety of Jerzy(t)'s recent contributions there:]

This 'graph replaces approximately 1300 words edited in by Jerzy(t). The matter previously discussed partly here and partly on User talk:Jerzy now appears, refactored into chronological order and reformatted for clarity, at User talk:Jerzy#Consolidation of Dialogue with AC. It should eventually be moved into an archive, with the move documented at User talk:Jerzy#Log/Index of Archived Material

Adam, it sounded like you'd be happier to have yr talk page decluttered of the material i have replaced with these three 'graphs. If i'm wrong, read User talk:Jerzy#Other Approaches I'd Applaud for suggestions.

If you are interested in my 186-word response (118 if you ignore the parenthentic portion) to your last msg, link to User talk:Jerzy#Presumably My Last Word
--Jerzy(t) 21:37, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

Other Approaches I'd Applaud

According to you tastes, i'd applaud your

  • putting back all of what i've deleted, and/or
  • adding my refactored & reformatted version at User talk:Jerzy#Consolidation of Dialogue with AC, or
  • deleting any or all of the three 'graphs, or
  • keeping at least the first 'graph (beginning "This 'graph replaces..."), and
    • adding a note of your choosing indicating you're modifying what follows, and
    • putting a version of either what was there or of my refactoring, modified and/or abridged as you like.

I'd also be glad to provide technical help, if you have problems reverting, or otherwise retrieving deleted material.
--Jerzy(t) 21:37, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

West Papua Maps, tar

I just wanted to say THANKS for the pointer for some Indonesian maps with their silly province borders show. When I have time I'll produce something I can put on Wikipedia from them :)Daeron 19:27, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While i did some editing that related to that place (or the location, somewhere adjacent, of the highest mtn described as in Oceania), and i remember trying to interpret some maps in that context,
  • it must have been months ago,
  • i know what .tar is , but have never had access to means of manipulating .tar files that i can recall,
  • i don't recall whether the maps were in the article i edited; if not, i simply found either them elsewhere on WP or via Google, and deserve no credit, and
  • if you are suggesting i expressed some opinion about political boundaries, i'm pretty sure you're mistaken.
Are you sure you meant to leave that paragraph here?
--Jerzy(t) 03:27, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Sorry for the language difficulty ;-)
It was months ago Dec9, on Talk:West_Papua
"tar" is an Australian term meaning "Thank You" or "Thanks"
You pointed to a URL (web page), since removed. But I've still been able to access the map in question, so Thank you for pointing to where it was, I would not have known of it without the message posted on the West Papua page.
I said "silly province borders" only because I've been unable to find such a map for so long (first looked for them years ago).
The right "Jerzy"? I don't know, the person used that name and you looked settled in so I thought there was a good chance that it was yourself that had both the good luck of finding the map, and the courtesy to mention it on the West Papua page.
P.S. Tar files are a Unix thing, yes anything ending in .tar .tar.gz .tgz .tar.gz .tar.bz2 should be a tar or compressed tar file. If you have problems with one I can convert it to a Dos/Windows zip file or the like if you like. No problems.
Daeron 05:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good morning. I've moved List of people by name: Bo-Bq to List of people by name: Bo as you requested. I'll leave you to sort out redirects. Angela. 06:43, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Nice work listing Wikipedia:Cleanup on itself. Made me chuckle, and sadly it has a lot of truth to it. The thing has grown out of control. --Ed Cormany 05:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I nominated you for adminship. Please go to WP:RFA and accept. I think you would make a great admin. Cheers, Jiang 06:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Interstates

Hello,

I noticed that you are a contributor to US road pages. I noticed that pages about interstates have a heading called 'Number of miles'. I want these pages to have metric equivalents and that heading does not make sense with km. It should be something like 'Distance' or 'Length'. I notice that there are a *lot* of road pages and they are very non-metric. Is there a place to discuss the issue of standard headings etc?
Bobblewik 18:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for writing on your 'user' page rather than your 'talk' page. I took your advice about looking at projects and the closest that I could find was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways

So I posted my question there. Does that seem to you to be the best place?

Thanks.
Bobblewik 19:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Hi. I liked your acceptance on the adminship page. Just wanted to respond to a couple things you said. First off, your evaluation of the admin standard as "do no harm" is pretty accurate. Admins aren't really required to do anything. There are a few tasks that only admins can do, so we do them, but no individual is ever required to do any of them. We're only required not to use admin abilities in violation of established policy and the wiki spirit. Secondly, being pseudonymous is no big deal. Some people prefer real names, but others don't. There are a very few jobs within Wikipedia where you're expected to reveal your RL identity (I think the Arbitration Committee does this but I'm not sure, and I know that candidate for new Wikimedia Board need to) but generally there's no restriction. Anyway, good luck and happy editing, Isomorphic 02:01, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Dice

I knew there was a direction specified, and the dice I checked at the time had 1-2-3 in clockwise direction. Now I checked my backgammon dice (of 3 makes) and they all have 1-2-3 in counter-clockwise direction, so I think we can safely assume that counter-clockwise is correct. Zocky 11:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Sysop

I am very pleased to tell you that you are now an administrator after getting 100% support on RfA. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Congratulations and good luck! Angela. 00:24, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Looks like a simple case of vandalism. Just revert it and keep an eye on it. RickK 03:35, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark

Looks like a simple case of vandalism. Just revert it and keep an eye on it. RickK 03:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Doogan

Someone made a mess by moving the Sandbox, I tried to fix it. If you had the sandbox in your watchlist, you got the page where it got moved as well. No bug there. Dori | Talk 17:05, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

IASO

Hi Jerzy, someone recently used IASO as an abbreviation for "is a sockpuppet of". I wouldn't be surprised if it means something else too. 8^) Hope that helps, Wile E. Heresiarch 19:08, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii

Hi Jerzy, got your message re reversion. =)

Definitely, I don't mind the (re)change and I am not one to "write for the enemy." I like the "just the facts" attitude and feel like I have tried to do that here (although it is very tempting to assert one's opinions in Wiki, that wouldn't be conducive to a good encyclopedia).

Just as a background and given only in the spirit of information-sharing, the two changes I made are both in regards to the Hawaiian pidgin language (also Hawaiian Creole English), I believe. The majority of Filipinos who migrated to Hawaii from the early 20th century up to now are Ilocanos for primarily economic reasons (early Dole pineapple plantation politics), constituting up to 80% of the current Filipino population in Hawaii and according to the current census, making Ilocano the top ESL needing teachers in Hawaii. In linguistic terms, I made the changes because the term "Filipino" actually is a recent phenomenon. It is a "new" language invented based on Tagalog, the language of the Philippine capital. This is layered with politics, but in the context of Hawaiian Creole as an article on a distinct language in Wikipedia, "Filipino" would not have much of an impact historically and linguistically to the development of the language, one that spread across the Hawaiian population in the early 20th century.

The following site actually mentions Ilocano as a substrate to pidgin, as well as, Tagalog:

http://www.hku.hk/linguist/program/contact6.html

That was my main reason for changing the words. I'm a scientist and a writer by profession and hobby, and so I offer factual articles in Wiki with as clean (English), as unbiased and as scientific as I can get them. Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. =) I just knew I shouldn't have ventured to Hawaii! --Oavcacananta 08:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem your change my "discovered" to "interaction" on the Hawai'i page. I never did like that "discovered" concept, which is why I stated it as a mutual thing; but your wording is even better - Marshman 02:14, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Michael Johns

Always happy to discuss; not sure what you want to discuss here, though. The edit I made restored an edit which had been reverted on suspicion of being made by hard-banned user Michael (which, in my view, it almost certainly was not). It moved a link to Soviet Union to the right place, it clarified a link to federal government of the United States (don't see much need to shorten it to "federal", though it's a minor point, admittedly, and I wouldn't mind if you changed that back) and removed a notice that it was listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup (because it isn't listed there at all). Have I missed something? --Camembert

Hi Jerzy - absolutely no need for you to apologise--you've been perfectly polite and I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the situation. I apologise myself if I came across as a little brusque - I was editing rather late last night and may not have been at my best.

The only reason I (re-)reverted Guanaco's edit was because he was chasing down edits by Michael (whose edits, as you may know, are generally reverted on sight) but was also reverting some other people's edits by mistake, including some rather useful ones--this one appeared to be one of those. The problem is that Michael uses AOL, but lots of other people also use AOL, so just because such-and-such an IP address is being used by Michael now doesn't mean that all other edits from that address in the past were also by Michael--they could have been by thousands of different people.

In this particular case, I noticed the Soviet Union link had been moved further up the article (which I knew was good) and that the Cleanup notice had been removed (which appeared to be good, though I realise now there was more to it than there seemed)--the "federal" edit seemed about 50/50, so I reverted back on the assumption that the edit did more good than harm. If I'd had a bit more time, I would have looked into the Cleanup situation a little more deeply, but I was in a bit of a rush.

As for what to do now: your plan seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I'm going to make the edits you suggest (do take a look to make sure I've done what you intended). Thanks again for explaining, and good luck in keeping the article in good shape. All the best--Camembert

Hi, Jerzy: Regarding Michael Johns, I have done some work on this (and many other wikepedia articles) over the past few months, and--based on your comments, I made some further revisions to it. I think it is in reasonable, even good shape. Maybe you have a wikipedia colleague who could look it over one final time in the event I've missed anything, but the Bush issue is now clearly addressed and the article is pretty much void of POV. Would appreciate if you would accept my decision to thus remove it from cleanup status. Thanks. --Rob.

Noun

Nice point on noun, but I get suspicious of words which end with "-ize". Let me know what you think of the change (I've had Canada on my mind lately). Mackerm 05:56, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-- I apologize if you thought I was "censoring" your previous edits on my talk page. Your comments didn't appear to be anything that was asking for a direct response from me. I made it clearer that discussion of my name was at a specific place, and I restored the one and only non-name comment that I had previously deleted. I thought this was what you were asking me to do, but I must have been wrong. --CrucifiedChrist

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerzy/Phase_00&oldid=4298339"