User talk:K.lee/archive/2002-2016
Hi. Plase be carefull and lean more, before you edit Computer program, Computer software. Kenny sh 09:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Hello there K.lee, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149
A note on page names: we have a loose policy of avoiding subpages (things like Manhattan/Harlem) when possible. Where there's no ambiguity, please don't change the shorter names. (Also, if you move things, it's a good idea to make sure you catch all the links to the original name.) Vicki Rosenzweig
- Thanks for following my suggestion. Vicki Rosenzweig
Again, unless there's ambiguity, don't change the shorter names of places to longer ones. Thanks. --The Cunctator
- Ok, I've read more of the style guide and believe I've sort-of wrapped my head around the disambiguation convention now. I find it confusing, however, that city names should be e.g. Seattle, Washington instead of Seattle, whereas neighborhoods within a city should be referred to by an unqualified name. Anyway, I'll abide by the convention for now. --k.lee
K.lee, thanks for your work on the Microsoft article. Your edits and additions are very helpful. I keep meaning to get back to it myself, but trying to undo all of the bias and free software cheering is a little overwhelming. :) --Stephen Gilbert
nicenworken on the internet time article! ---サチベチゴ
Programming language
Hi, K.lee. I was wondering about the status of User:K.lee/Programming language rewrite. I do also want to revise the article entirely, but I must admit that I am not knowledable enough and need help. Are you going to replace the current article with your alternative version or is there any long-term plan to your knowledge? -- Taku 05:43, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Programming Languages? —Noldoaran (Talk) 22:42, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
I think this is the right place to put this...
Anyway I have re-written dynamic programming language, please check it out for accuracy. I do disagree with your note about it being non-standard language however, I've certainly used this terminology in the past.
Maury 16:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
re: List of historical developments in Type Theory
Thank you very much. I will check out the book you mentioned,
and perhaps contribute what I learn.
-- Jrn 15:55, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. When will you put your programming Language rewrite in the normal namespace? —Noldoaran (Talk) 04:54, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
regarding rant
"Over time, a maddening entropy has grown to inflict nearly all theories regarding subatomic electromechanics... for whatever reason, theoretical physics is not served well by the gradual accumulation of random facts, at which the scientific community excels. This may be because too many people overestimate their own knowledge of theoretical physics, or because too many people confuse familiarity with a few physical laws with a systematic understanding of theoretical physics as a field. Unfortunately, I do not have the time right now to rewrite the physics jounal papers into better form, but if I ever get around to it, you can expect major changes." (There are people who do, and after doing, think of a way of making it better next time. There are those who talk about doing, and after talking about doing, think that there is no one that could do it better than them if they did it.) — danakil 04:11, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough. However, you will notice that I put the rant on my user page; it serves as a disclaimer that, although I edit PL-related articles, I have many problems with their current contents. I work in this field professionally (or, anyway, as professionally as a grad student does) and I don't want anyone who sees my user page to get the idea that I'd endorse even a majority of the content on the articles I edit. (And not everyone is as familiar, yet, with the social organization of Wikipedia as we are.)
- BTW I have, in fact, been "doing", although I've been principally using an offline text editor, because composing lots of text on a web form is a pain. Not everyone has the time to contribute as much to Wikipedia as you do. And, frankly, Wikipedia would be stronger if a few people who contribute many low-quality edits were to contribute less. (I am not referring to you or to anyone else in particular with this last sentence.) Furthermore, I find absurd your implication that people with low edit volumes ought not to comment on the quality of any Wikipedia articles.
- Lastly, the analogy between scientific journal papers and Wikipedia articles is pretty imprecise, as you know perfectly well. k.lee 04:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nolan chart
Not sure what you were up to with your recent edit at Nolan chart, but you clearly didn't look at the result after you edited. All you did was break a link. Want to take another shot? -- Jmabel 21:35, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, sorry. Now I realize the reason that that link was a makeashorterlink.com link before. Anyway, I think it's bad in principle to depend on an external URL mangler, so I did some URL escaping and fixed it. k.lee 21:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)