DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between March 2005 and July 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
You wrote:
There are automated and programmable tools for uploading stuff. I can help with that if necessary. Oleg Alexandrov 04:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On the mummy talk page you said you had the theory Egyptians preserved their dead in the hope future civilizations could ressurect them. In fact, they did it so their soul (which they needed in the afterlife) still had a body, which to them was essential. I'll be doing a massive update of the mummy article within the next week, and I'm hoping to include something about it.
Sincerely,
Mgm|
(talk) 14:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
MediaWiki needs a major UI overhaul. The problem is not limited to tables, but spans many constructs that relate articles to one another. I had not thought of tables as a similar area needing work, but it is really part of the same problem, similar to navigational templates: how to relate chunks of text to one another in a consistent fashion.
WP (and other MW projects) should be, if not unbreakable, at least usable without special training; a novice editor should not be more likely to break something than not. I believe relational database management tools need to be brought in. MW is based in part on MySQL (because it is open-source); I believe SQL in general is a dinosaur and insufficiently flexible. I don't expect to convert MW to Filemaker, but that is the kind of functional tool I want to see here.
Your concept of a table editor that is more complex than One Big Huge Edit Box is in line with my thoughts, and I'd like to invite you to collaborate on a MW proposal for major UI overhaul. — Xiong ( talk) 13:55, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Let's have the discussion on one user Talk page or the other, not both. Okay? — Xiong ( talk) 01:38, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Hello,
You wrote:
If you really plan to do this, may I suggest you a few things (I already wrote such a text in French, but not on Wikipedia):
Cdang| write me 08:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have not particular idea for the title. I'm used with French naming, and I think in English you have a bit different habits. Anyway, the title you propose is clear and thus conforms to Wikipedia "no surprise" principle. What is more important is to have the links at the right places and good categories.
I'll have a look (tomorrow?).
Concerning my diagrams, some are on commons. As they are all GFDL, you can upload them yourself as you need it.
Cdang| write me 15:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
do you have a page explaining how your spell checking pseudo-bot works? - Omegatron 04:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Omegatron, would appreciate your response to my recent discusssion at electroencephalogram. Psydoc 07:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I wonder whether you have observed my article edit and the response? Can you please advise me on the proper etiquite and a good solution on this article? It appears to me that someone with a grudge is set on slanting the discussion in the negative. Is there a way to invite a discussion without constantly swinging the article itself? Psydoc 03:45, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Now you're erasing my complaint that my complaint was erased?
FWIW, my Talk page is heavily edited and the reference you provide points to discussion. My obliterated (and for the moment, restored) complaint may be found at
User:Xiong/Minitrue. —
Xiong
talk 05:59, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Omegatron, the guy who posted the Harmonics_Theory page sent me an email poimnting out your comments about memory holes and pseudo science. Well said! If you wish to discuss the harmonics theory with me here or by email, you are most welcome. As a result of a 10+ year old list I have been called a crackpot by a number of physicists, and I always invite them to put forward scientific arguments. Two have done that the rest declined. The two that did both ended up agreeing that what I was doing was scientific, just well outside there previous area of knowledge. One was a particle physicist who agreed that I could have and did predict a new particle at 35 Mev which was subsequently found at KARMEN but is ignored by particle physicists. Best wishes User:RayTomes
Hi,
I've just come across the mess that is Filter and was planning to get stuck in, then noticed you'd just started a few edits. Do you have a Grand Plan for this? Shall I hold off?
-- Ianharvey 18:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And what's the problem in improving a Parody? I'm affraid you're the one that didn't got the joke. -- Abu Badali 20:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Do you want to come back to the table and discuss moving the tutorial with the absurdly long name? If so, I'm open. Discuss the move on the tutorial's Talk, please. My only objection was being tagged for the move by someone with no intention of helping to do the work. — Xiong 熊 talk 05:20, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
Would you be willing to co-certify an request for comment regarding Xiong's recent strings of odd behavior? I think he has a distictly different view of Wikipedia than most others, and perhaps an RFC would show that the feedback he gets from individuals is supported by many others. -- Netoholic @ 18:22, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
As one of the people who's tried to encourage this user to act more appropriately, I thought I'd let you know I have opened an
RFC on him at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong. In short, his actions have continued to be disruptive, especially his recent nomination of
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion for deletion (see
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Templates for deletion.
If you'll consider either certifying or supporting the summary, that would be appreciated. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
Please list all your available dates in the table at Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip#Date. Thanks. -- brian0918 ™ 18:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I took a look at their page and I'm glad you are advising them on hardware. Keep digging earnestly before they hook anything to people (or the poor animals either.)
I have had at least one client referred to me after they had treated themselves with neurofeedback, even obtaining much advise from an anonimous (!!!) perported clinician online. Getting them out of trouble was an arduous task.
To put it simply, the brain is emensely complex, and EEG operant conditioning is a very powerful intervention that permanently changes brain function, and thus probably micro-structure. EEG training can produce many undesired effects if applied with ignorance.
The old hackneyed phrase serves here: "I do this full time". I have 30 years of experience in neuropsychology and clinical psychology, study it constantly with other professionals, use numerous sophisticated diagnostics, and I find that often I must enter untested ground to solve a person's problem.
Partly the OpenEEG project entices me to hope for an open source contribution. But more salient is the serious concern I have for those who explore this unaware. I have met several professionals who set about treating themselves and the process went ugley. Sort of like the assessment of the man who represents himself in court: he has a fool for a client. Trouble is, we judge ourselves based on our perceived deviation from baseline, and some processes, like drugs and neurofeedback, move the baseline.
Be well. Psydoc 03:38, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
I see OpenEEG now has a wiki: http://wiki.asiaquake.org/ . The password is periodically posted to the OpenEEG mailing list. Should we start an OpenEEG article ? Several Wikipedia articles already refer to it ... -- DavidCary 04:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I have made you a sysop on en.wikibooks. Tuf-Kat 16:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep after rehabilitation. ;-) -- for that good laugh, I award you WikiThanks. — Xiong 熊 talk 19:28, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
The DC Meetup date has been finalized to May 7/8. Even if you can only come one of the days, that's still fine. Please watch this page for new details, which will be posted in the next couple days: Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip -- brian0918 ™ 16:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! Because the RFC about Xiong seemed to deal mainly on his disagreements with Netoholic, I thought it best to start a new RFC to see if people have comments on Xiong's behavior that do not relate to Netoholic. Please give your thoughts and/or opinion on that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong. R adiant _* 08:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I need a metaphysical inclusionist to help keep Pandeism alive. First they said it lacked sources; then they panned the sources I found for being in blogs and such; then when I found an 1833 book by a noted religious historian discussing a different use of the term, they said, "well that's just one old book." I need a vote or two to keep the font of knowledge open! -- 8^D BD2412 gab 17:29, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
Not sure if you're interested, but I've noted what WDM drivers are on the talk page. Haven't looked at the main article, but if you want to merge, go ahead. However, you'll need to reference the following:
Finnel, Lynn (2000). MCSE Exam 70-215, Microsoft Windows 2000 Server. Chapter 1, Introduction to Microsoft Windows 2000, pg 13-18. Microsoft Press. ISBN 1-57231-903-8.
HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
IMNSHO, naturally: sorry, I hadn't realised there was a link for it. HTH HAND -- Phil | Talk 08:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
just testing. - Omegatron 03:35, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
If we can't use the mentorship page User:Netoholic/Mentoring to discuss your behavior, then where shall we discuss it? - Omegatron 01:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
I hope you don't suspect my any comment on this page a support of a charge of stalking on your part, or anyone's. I hope I kept my comment most general. You and I may have our disagreements, but I bear no ill will. I did notice this user's concern, and as I recently had a similar concern, I thought to demonstrate my sympathy with the principle involved, without daring to judge the case. — Xiong 熊 talk * 06:52, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
they are not... but if people do something wrong or something that's bad or something that I don't like, I'll kick their ass and will reverse it back. I and a couple of other guys are the major editors. So if a newbie come across with doing a shit on good work - we'll fuck him. Consider this as a kind of authority on this otherwise free material. Painbearer 12:49, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
The reversion was totally valid. The wording of the final decision has to reflect the wording that the arbitrators voted on – otherwise it's simply not an accurate record of what we did. Adding in the mentoring page might give the impression that the arbitrators decided this page should be created and used - not the intended impression I'm sure, but it could look that way to someone coming across the page. Regards -- sannse (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
dude just leave me be. I'll do my best for my articles and will do as much as I can for these bands. I'm major uploader for these articles, I've proven myself for this and I think that I deserve more or less respect for my work. If I find something wrong in the articles I'll fix it foremost. So really, my job is to make the life better, instead of doing the shit. Your opinion is one of the few things that really don't matter at all to me. So rest in peace and stop bitchying on me on every point. 'Cause this won't result in making the articles better and will make me nervous, stopping me doing my job, as best as I can. Am I clear? Painbearer 20:35, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Just FILL those EDIT SUMMARIES!!!!!!
Is that what you requested on your main page? :) I am more than happy to yell at you, and will continue yelling till you do as you're told! :)
Now, seriously. Try to do some RC patrol for a while, or have a long watchlist (as I do), and see how annoying it to see edits with no comment. You may say that one would need to look at the diff anyway. And I say, you are right, but having the edit summary at hand makes it easier to understand what the diff is about, or whether it corresponds to the edit summary.
Again, I yelled at you just because you asked for it. :) Oleg Alexandrov 00:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The text removed from the page was archived, there is no need revert it. Joe D (t) 15:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Pong! See my user page for reply. -- maru 00:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
July 16, 2005 —two months from now—will be the 60th anniversary of the " Trinity" test. I'm trying to organize a few people into getting that article to featured quality before then, anticipating a lot of general news coverage and curious minds. I've noticed you doing good work on Manhattan Project-related articles in the past, so I thought I would see if you were interested in helping out. Please see the discussion at Talk:Trinity site for some of my further thoughts on what should be present in the article, and please feel free to share you own. Thanks! -- Fastfission 19:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Omegatron. I'm Peo from Commons (
commons:User:Peo) and the danish Wikipedia (
da:Bruger:Peo). I have posted a number of self-made diagrams at Commons, and on my talk page there, you asked about how I create these.
As I've stated on the info page for most, if not all, of my diagrams, I draw them using the "AutoShape" drawing tools in Microsoft Word 97. Similar features exists in both earlier and later versions of that application, and at
my personal website there is a
tutorial on using AutoShapes.
Word cannot export the drawings as a raster ("bitmap") image, so what I do is to "zoom" to the full 500% in Word, and take a screenshot. Anything beyond trivial tiny circuits takes several screenshots, which are then "stitched together" in a graphincs package.
Sounds cumbersome? Well, it is - but the results seem worth the efford imho. — Peo
I've just noticed that you've changed the vote tally from 59 to 58. A vote seems to have disappeared, but I can't check the history as the page with the history has been deleted. I have put in a request for the history to be undeleted. The vote should be 59, it was before the move, and it needs to be determined why it now isn't. -- Silversmith 18:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
here: [1]
I just suddenly saw that on your userpage, and I just had to know. →Iñgōlemo← talk 05:07, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
So why do you believe that article should be kept? It is an article by User:RayTomes about an unreviewed theory from Ray Tomes with supporting citations to ray.tomes.biz, with controversial claims justified by "I, Ray Tomes, say so." It seems to be about as clear a case of original research as one could ask for. 22:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Do you remember me? I'm from french wiki. I have just creat a log here to be able to fallow some pages here and add some contributions. I have add a getter diagram at getter page. Have a good week end. Oliviosu 20:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you should post Talk:Leyden jar to Wikipedia:Reference desk to get a good discussion going. Julius Sumner Miller lied to me. — Josh Lee 19:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch. It's fixed! ℬastique▼ talk 18:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've just noticed this, and this too. Zeimesu has made things unclear now.
Are you deriving from the original image, intending to use the GFDL or the original BSD license? (I need to ask since effectively uploading with an alternate license dual licenses the work).
Thanks, and sorry for this. Dysprosia 10:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well done on the Quantities templates fixing. I was at loss what to do there. Delicates 03:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why did you revert me? And why does a reversion strike you as a minor change? JDG 15:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You can delete it, or I can WP:TFD it (or I can tag it as a speedy delete it as Patent nonsense since I'm not an admin).
BTW: I'm also using the SpellBound spell-checker, and as long as I don't try to spell-ckeck a large page on my slow computer, it works great (although I wish that they had an option for an All English dictionary that had every version of English spelling for dealing with pages that are a real mess as far as spelling choice, like the Chinatown article). BlankVerse ∅ 15:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ed Poor abruptly deleted the ongoing debate/vote (which I then restored) and moved the article back to Gasoline. He implemented a recreation of his ridiculous template and encouraged users to alternate between "gasoline" and "petrol" on a whim, perhaps based upon whether the day is odd-numbered or even-numbered. ( Elsewhere, he bragged about the fact that "we can switch [back and forth] whenever the mood strikes us.")
Obviously, he's out of control. We were so close to resolving this dispute once and for all, and he's deliberately attempting to stir things up again. Please lock the article's name before the edit war resumes. Thank you! — Lifeisunfair 03:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Go to the page, open the search window (control-F) and type 'guideline'. David Gerard makes the main point that it is a technical issue and that Jamesday (our main developer) endorses it. Most things are set by community but some can be imposed by our technical staff. And remember that guidelines aren't set in stone. R adiant _>|< 13:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I came upon your
Image:Spectrogram of violin.png. In the
spectrogram article, you say that the intensity axis is logarithmic. There isn't an explicit intensity axis, though. I've watchlisted your talk page; you can reply right here. --
Smack (
talk) 22:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Kilobyte. – Smyth\ talk 13:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hallo and thank you for your help - I uploaded it in a hurry - you have cool contributions - take care
Uwe Kils
19:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I have nominated commons:Image:Hilbert_transform.png for Commons "Featured Picture" status LoopZilla 2005-07-02 19:54:31 (UTC)
Response on Talk:Bit rate. – Smyth\ talk 2 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
I have now nominated the Weighting Curves....
See [2]