User talk:Robert K S/Archive01

DYK

On 8 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Honeywell v. Sperry Rand, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Metropolis disambiguation links

Right, the idea is that too many links besides the ones called "Metropolis" would be too confusing for people. The exception is if it is a redlink, so that if, for example, someone wanted to write that Metropolis (utopia) article they would have a place to start (in this case King C. Gillette). It's all explained here. Recury 16:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First generation computer

I saw your prod on First generation computer [1], where you recommended that the article be deleted, then have the same article redirect to History of computing hardware. The redirect is a very good idea. However, you don't need to prod the article to make the article redirect to another. I'm fairly certain that making the page redirect to an existing article is not controversial in any way, shape, or form, so I went ahead and redirected the page, skipping the prod step. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientist Box

Check this out [2]

Also please add your comments you wrote at Von Neumann talk here: [3]

Talk at top

No problem, and sorry for the overreaction (the problem with edit summaries is you can't edit them if you decide you need to). Thanks for the message. MrBook 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited tag in Jennings article

I put the "uncited" tag because if the source is Ken Jennings' website/messageboard/etc., someone needs to cite that as being the source of that assertion. Andy Saunders 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Succession Box

I don't think there is a guideline, but per se, although there is a project here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. It isn't really recomended that entertainment figures get their own boxes anyway, it's mainly for monarchys and political sucessions, to have a show that only had 2 hosts, there isn't much of a sucession. I think it just clutters things quite a bit, in the pro wrestling wikiproject, we have deleted any succession boxes for titles on sight. Tony fanta 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [4]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? 129.127.28.3 12:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed message

The removed message was part of general spamming from that user of the same message to many pages in violation of WP:SPAM. JoshuaZ 05:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Von Neumann

Hello Robert. It may be that the publications in the Von Neumann references section mention his preemptive strike opinion, as well as others. Even so, the article decription of each opinion/statement (or at least some of them) needs to be explicitly tied to the publication(s) with a citation... You seem active on this article, so I'll just leave it to you and other active editors to bring it in line with current standards. I understand most of it was taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, but our standards have evolved and the article needs to evolve with them. JDG 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert: John von Neumann was born to a non-practicing Jewish family. This is a fact. Your removal of this fact belies a POV problem. Are you embarassed because von Neumann has Jewish ancestry? Why are you so determined to remove such references? Your actions are at odds with the facts, to please, do say why you take this approach. William R. Buckley 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert: No my post is not an assumption of bad faith. It is simply a question, put in light of the actions of you and at least one other editor, who as a group have been adding and removing references to von Neumann's Jewish heritage. That battle makes all involved appear to have POV problems. I asked you why you chose a certain approach. To this question, you responded, and for the response I am appreciative. Now I understand *your* reasoning; your reasoning seems sound, and I find no reason to seek change in the article. With your answer, it becomes appropriate to seek the opinion of those others (one or more) who have been engaged with you in the repeated alteration of this small part of the article. Cheers. William R. Buckley 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert: Thanks for the correction, remarking upon the proper use of a hyphen for the adjective form of a two word phrase. William R. Buckley 18:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Fields

Thank you for casting your vote on the Einstein infobox. Please now go to [5] to give your opinion on how you want the individual fields modified. SuperGirl 08:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Belt picture

It looks like it was a cache issue. It's been fixed. Andy Saunders 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Positive Airway Pressure

You tagged this article as limited geographic scope, but provided no explanation of the defects you allege. I strongly believe that the editor placing this type of tag should explain on the talk page, so I removed the tag. I admit that I am mystified: The medical facts and principles of machine design are not likely to be different in Bangalore than in Bangor, and prescribing and insurance information is peripheral and unlikely ever to be exhaustive. If you wish to replace the tag, please explain on the talk page in some detail. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Martinez winner.jpg

Done. Apologies for the error. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 04:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

DirectShow

Hi, I'm working on an improved structure for categorization of Windows components. As it stands, "Windows multimedia" was being used for a wide range of nearly unrelated things, including third-party software, file formats, video card drivers, audio APIs, themes, fonts, etc. For the time being, it's in Category:DirectX which is part of Category:Windows components. Thanks. -/- Warren 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reliable source schmeliable source

I trust your psychic abilities, but can't we just wait until each show airs on TV? Winners are not intended to be known to the general TV audience before airing. Let's keep it that way. Unless you have a compelling feeling to surprise and spoil readers, in which you should provide sources (other prerecorded reality programs are vigilant in requiring external references for future shows), let the series continue on its course. Tinlinkin 06:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Portholes" in Jeopardy! set

Hey Robert, it's Faith Love. The portholes I mentioned were a bunch of little round windows, all lined up in a grid pattern, with white plexi or something instead of glass. My episodes are on a Tivo that isn't working right now, so I can't double check them, but my recollection is that they were to the left of the cameras, over behind Johnny Gilbert. I don't remember noticing that they'd gone away until I went to the Tournament of Champions, so they were most likely only visible in the studio and therefore a moot point for the purposes of this article.  :)

Lusciousmango 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting entire J! Archive question subjects

I talked to Andy about this and he directed me to you. I'd like to get a copy of the entire J! Archive of responses, as part of our Missing Encyclopedia Articles project. We would use this list to determine what content is still missing from the encyclopedia. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Here is our Missing Article project page.

If you have the entire list of correct responses saved together, I can work on converting it into a list usable in Wikipedia; I have a lot of experience doing this with several lists from other sources. If you have immediate access to this list, in whatever form it may be (even if it contains "What is..." in front of every response), please save it at User:Brian0918/J! Archive list so that I can work on it. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-26 02:49Z

All the Young Dudes

Hi Robert. I see you've capitialised all occurrences of 'the' in All the Young Dudes (song) and even moved the page to All The Young Dudes (song). If you check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Album titles and band names) you'll see that the definite article is not capitalised in the middle of a song title. Just letting you know why I'll be reverting those two changes shortly (or you might like to). That said, thanks for disambiguating Ian Hunter (singer)...! Cheers, Ian Rose 09:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No prob, mate. I did the same thing myself when I first got here - I've always tended to capitalise all words in song/album titles and a lot of media does the same. However, these are the Wikipedia conventions and since there is method to it I go with it and try to ensure standardisation wherever I can. BTW, that doesn't mean you can't suggest changes to the guidelines - but I never had a big issue with this one. Anyway, I'll bet Hunter was good live. Happy editing and don't be a stranger...! Cheers, Ian Rose 10:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

B&H

Can you verify that? - crz crztalk 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's better than I expected - but clearly not good enough for the article or certainly for DYK... But it is a curious fact, I agree. Judaism owes Hasidim a debt of gratitude for ferociously clinging to Orthodoxy, and thereby preserving it for future generations, even as everyone else around them was modernizing, equivocating, reforming, and capitulating to the "inevitability" of "modern times". Now, so many decades later, they're still clinging. They won't even hire some gentiles to run it on Shabbos - probably what I would have done. That's commitment! - crz crztalk 12:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes for DYK purposes, but I would love it in the article! - crz crztalk 12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you run into sysop Ian Manka? He lost on Jeopardy as well... - crz crztalk 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL... by as well I was jokingly referring to your recent edit to I Lost On Jeopardy :) - crz crztalk 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation

Yep, you got it... someone changed the image in the last diff to the article and then someone added an inappropriate image to a template, so I mixed up one for the other and reverted the wrong one... sigh! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On December 9, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henri Wallon (psychologist), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello Robert and thanks for the article. Keep up the good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambig MoS

I kinda like more links, actually, so I don't follow that guideline strictly. There's no harm in them, none that I have ever seen. - crz crztalk 03:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to poke my nose in here ... there is a down-side to many extra links on a dab page. There is a popup feature that makes fixing links to dab pages much easier than fixing them by hand and the extra links confound the popup, making it much more difficult to use the feature. A second aspect to this matter is that there has been a looong standing tension between 'navigators' and 'explorers' when it comes to dab pages; at the present time guidelines and prevailing sentiment favor the 'navigators' (I am a 'navigator' myself, by way of disclosure) who in turn favor clean paths through dab pages (usually one major topical link per line - sometimes two, rarely two blue links, more commonly one red and one blue - but both topical). I can fully understand the 'explorer' who would want to use the dab page as a tool for branching exploration of topic-space ... but that is not the direction the prevailing sentiment is blowing. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Article

Hello, You recently reverted my edit of Holocaust. Did you consider it to be vandalism? Repentance 20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken Links

Thanks for fixing it. It's actually a dire issue with the template; most instances, it does not required the square brackets & works just fine. Could you please bring it up? Maybe on the template's talk page?100110100 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. It is discordant with the other templates: the other templates DO NOT require square brackets: instantly blue link with the template. In any case, there is seriously a problem, a bug in Mediawiki? that would cause discordances in it's effect.100110100 06:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The template's not working. I'm not going to be on Wikipedia much; couldn't you be so kind to do it for me?100110100 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Electral circuit

Robert, your comment on this article's talk page is not likely to be seen by many, and will soon get lost when I succeed in deleting that accidentally created article. You might want to take it up on electrical network or electronic circuit instead. Dicklyon 08:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did that, but if you notice, Talk:Electronic circuit is Talk:Electral circuit. Robert K S 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Boy, I made a bigger mess than I thought. I think maybe I've fixed it now, copying that talk to talk:electronic circuit and blanking the electral circuit talk page. Thanks for alerting me. Dicklyon 18:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebek effect

I can comment/!vote, it's just that I'm not allowed to close the AfD once discussion has ended. I'll chip in my delete, though in this case. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Analog computers, Mark I

It's a lot of interesting detail and I commend you for adding it, but if I might offer, you've put it in the wrong place. That article is a general survey of computing devices and should not include too much detail on any one device. Can you perhaps transplant the Mark I detail to its own article? Robert K S 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) PS A warm welcome to Wikipedia!

That's a fair observation, but a problem is that I don't have that much more to add relative to the Mark I. Would you recommend starting a new article with only a couple of sentences and hope others hang more detail on it? While a little wordy, my objective was to work up to the point of saying that the Mark I, like many mechanical analog computers, became ineffective because its components couldn't move fast enough to solve the problem in real time (which was kind of the bad thing when the other guy is shooting at you!).

Electronic analog computers were often faster than their digital counterparts, and produced 'continuous' or 'smooth' solutions that are very appropriate in situations like fire-control systems. The difference between 1/3 and .333 can be significant when it means hitting the enemy plane or not. The problem with analog computers were that they were a pain to program, as the article describes. Boomer 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bushism

Look in the references to the article. its right there. See the oldest book mentioned. It is called "Bushisms". It is from 1992. You can find it on Amazon. I own a copy. The father was just as funny or even funnier than the son. --Blue Tie 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the book reference

• Bushisms/President George Herbert Walker Bush in His Own Words New Republic. Workman Pub Co., May1992, ISBN 1-56305-318-7

Blue Tie 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Teen Tournament 2007

As you may or may not be aware, there will be two teen tournaments this year. I'm in the first which will be aired Feb 5th-16th. I'm Hank Robinson. The next tournament airs in July I think.

THey're having two tournaments this year because of the large turnout due to online testing. Hank el-Bashir 07:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Teen Jeopardy! website is wrong. Semis get 10k and Quarters 5k. Hank el-Bashir 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lukoff ISBN

Re: your edit to J. Presper Eckert. The ISBN as printed in the Lukoff book is 89661-002-0. (I have this book.) I can understand adding a leading zero to make it 0-89661-002-0, but what is your reason/source for moving the 1 to the other side of the hyphen to get 0-8966-1002-0? Robert K S 11:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, didn't mean to move the hyphen. I'll fix that. Also, out of curiosity, is the number printed labeled as "ISBN" or "SBN"? -- Jonel | Speak 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Callas article "As They Saw Her"

This section and the other quotes in the article are extremely important since Callas is such a controvertial figure. Having quotations from highly respected artists and musical experts allows the reader to look past the simple explanations and get a better understanding of what Callas was and why she was and remains such a significant figure nearly thirty years after her death and over forty hears after her last operatic performance.

Furthermore, quotations regarding voice, artistry, or vocal decline, etc. will allow the reader to get an idea of the variety of opinions surrouding so many aspects of Callas' life. They are neither "original thought," nor "soapbox," nor "repository of links," nor an "indiscriminate collection of information." Especially in sections such as "Vocal decline," it's exactly these quotes that allow the reader to see the diversity and, more importantly, the evolution of thought regarding the probable causes of Callas' vocal deterioration.

"Just the facts, ma'am" might suffice in the case of Sutherland or Milanov or Tebaldi or many other artists about whom there is a general consensus of opinion. "Just the facts" would do nothing to educate the reader as to why Callas was and remains of such historical and artistic significance.

Shahrdad 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia entry removed from "Silent Night."

I don't know what is possibly nn about the trivia entry I made, but I do know the phrase I wrote was not "singing" in complete silence -- that would be idiotic -- but SIGNING in complete silence. And this is amply attested to in many published sources, especially newspaper reviews and broadcast televised specials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamierawson (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Sign versus Sign

For all I know, someone may have "corrected" *signing* into singing; a like is a wise suggestion in this case for that and other reasons. Thanks.

ENIAC image

Robert, Image:Two women operating ENIAC.jpg was deleted under WP:CSD I8 (you can see that here). I8 means the image was copied to Wikimedia Commons. Apparently it's been converted to a .gif, so now it's available as Image:Two women operating ENIAC.gif. I've changed the ENIAC article accordingly. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, ENIAC and the articles on the two ladies in the picture, are all that link to the picture. I don't see anything linking to the deleted one. I suppose it should be ok now, unless you know better! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Between Two Worlds

Re. Nazi air raid - I thought it would be obvious who was responsible; I also had a minor quibble with using Nazi rather than German. As for taking out "the Examiner believes", I have a hard time believing that he wouldn't know the circumstances. How would he be able to pass judgment otherwise? Finally, it's been a long time since I last saw the film, but I thought Henry talked Ann into joining him.

BTW, I see you're interested in Jeopardy. I was a contestant, though I didn't win anything. I was in 2nd going into Final Jeopardy, with just over half what the leader had (something like 5500 vs. 10000). I rarely drink, so naturally the category was Food and Drink. The answer was (can't recall exact wording) "This monk has a statue dedicated to him in Epernay, France." I knew I knew the answer, but couldn't dredge it up in 30 seconds. Nobody got it, but since I had to bet everything, I dropped to 3rd. Instead of a trip to an exotic Caribbean island, I got one to Miami Beach, which I had to decline (didn't want to pay the taxes for that destination). Clarityfiend 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Luftwaffe wasn't a Nazi organization, as opposed to say the Waffen SS, and the bombing wasn't some Nazi atrocity. As for the remaining points, my memory of the movie isn't certain enough to contest them.

I did tape the show, but would prefer not to have it disseminated on the Net how "Dom" I was. LOL. Ouch. Clarityfiend 18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to rant against the "injustice" one time. Clarityfiend 07:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Callas Article

Robert, I agree about that POV on the recording section. I didn't write that section, but just added the footnote. I might work on the section later, more just to organize it according to which recordings are generally considered her most invaluable. But I think just listing the recordings and refering the reader to several excellent books and articles is really sufficient. My friend Robert Seletsky has written several truly amazing articles about Callas's recordings, which are easily accessible on Divina records website (EMI has often asked for his assistance in restoring Callas's recordings), and there the indispensable "The Callas Legacy: The Biography of a Career" by Ardoin, as well as Michael Scott's book, Maria Meneghini Callas. I think maybe adding something sending the reader to these sources serves the article AND Callas better than a one-line blurb on wikipedia. What do you think?Shahrdad 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Scott Article

Robert, please check the Michael Scott (artistic director) article. Why aren't the footnotes for sources showing up?? I'm trying to find more actually biographical information on him, such as birth date and place, etc, but it's proving VERY difficult. I do have a lot of things that have been said about him and the scope of his knowledge, which I will add soon.Shahrdad 16:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it!Shahrdad 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mauchly-related research [moved from my user page]

Robert,

Sorry to vandalize your page - I used the 'edit' button because I wasn't able to find another way to contact you - I'm doing some Mauchly-related research and was referred to you by another party. Please email me at evan (at) snarc.net .... thanks! --Ekoblentz 2007-02-01T16:04:17

Orphaned fair use image (Image:2002-06-18Jeopardy!Set1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2002-06-18Jeopardy!Set1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

EEG 10-20 system

OK I've finished the creation of the page and added the diagrams you suggested... what do you think about it ? XApple 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006

Your vote was not considered because you didn't insert a valid "diff" link. Please check the instructions Alvesgaspar 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

If you really feel that my decision was innaproproiate or in error. You are welcome to take it to Deletion REview. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Matthew effect

Hello Robert,

I object to your using John von Neumann as a example of the Matthew effect. The article currently says "his influential publications were sometimes restatements of the ideas of his collaborators." You seem to be making a blanket statement that, in all of the dozen or so areas in which von Neumann made major contributions, he was only rehasing the ideas of other people. This simply is not true.

For example, the basic axioms of set theory are called the "von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel" axioms; the work of the first two people came much after von Neumann wrote his one paper (the article on this in Wikpaedia is correct). In fact, with a few exceptions, von Neumann only had time to write one or two papers in each of the many areas that he studied. Consequently, it is more often von Neumann's work that is attributed to others than the other way around.

As regards the two specific examples in the article:

On game theory, I believe it is unchallenged that the explanation of economic behevior in terms of games was original to von Neumann and Morganstern in 1944. On this point you may wish to read the banquet speech by the Nobel prize winners in economics [1] who was speaking for all three of the 1994 winners. Von Neumann's first paper on games was actually written long before the book, in 1926. There had been some efforts by a French mathematician to formulate a theory of games before that, but the poor fellow conjectured it would not be possible to devise a theory of optimal strategies, which of course was von Neumann's other contribution besides the connection to economics.

On the first draft report, the brilliance of it was that von Neumann supplied a high-level description of the logical design, independent of any particular hardware implementation. In fact, he specifically took pains to avoid mentioning anyone's hardware. At the time von Neumann was in contact with everyone working in the general area of computing: besides Mauchly and Eckert this included Norbert Wiener (who was working on cybernetics) and Howard Aiken (who was building the Havard machines). All of these people could have written something, but none of them did. As Konrad Zuse [2] pointed out, "The genius of von Neumann is that he selected out of a lot of possibilities what was really important."

Best, -- Joe

References:

[1] http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1994/harsanyi-speech.html

[2] Zuse, K. S., Computerarchitektur aus damaliger und heutiger Sicht, ETH report, 1992. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joseph Grcar (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

First Draft Report

Hello Robert,

I could not follow some of the logic in your paragraph.  :-) Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the only publicly distributed description of a modern computer though about 1950 is the First Draft Report. As you say, it came out in May/June of 1945.

The excuse about security is a red herring. After March 1946 when Mauchly and Eckert technically resigned (actually were fired) from the University Pennsylvania they were free to write anything they pleased, but they wrote nothing. For example, the Journal of the Franklin Institute published Vannevar Bush's article about differential analyzers before WWII. As the builders of ENIAC Mauchly and Eckert would have had no difficulty publishing a paper about the design of computers. It would have been the first real publication less than a year after the First Draft Report, and perhaps we would now be talking about the Mauchly-Eckert-von Neumann machine. But Mauchly and Eckert did nothing.

The same is true for all the other early people who worked on computers. Once they read von Newmann's report it was easy to say "Oh yes I know that already, it is what I have been talking about all along" but it was never demonstrated that any of the other folks could have written the report.

Part of the genius of the report was the abstract description of a machine. Norbert Wiener deserves some credit for this because in the 1940s he was working on cybernetics (by which I mean the use of natural biological systems as a guide for engineered systems). Wiener organized a series of gatherings on the topic that included people like Mead and Shannon and he invited von Neumann to attend. It is from these meetings that von Neumann got the idea to use biological terminology in the First Draft Report: memory, etc.

Joseph Grcar 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC title

Hi, could you please revisit Talk:1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · and/or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·? Melchoir 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your wikifu is clearly superior to mine.

Just saying hey, roomie.

Thomas B 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Berkeley's role in ACM

I just corrected the article. According to the Babbage Institute source, he was a co-founder of the ACM. Thanks for pointing it out. I was just making some additions to the rather slim article on Berkeley, using the two sources I added to the external links. --Blainster 20:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing energy intro

Hello Robert, I notice that you have developed an interest in editing the intro of energy that's indeed welcome. But, shouldn't you respect the opinions of other editors too who have contributed before you? In other word isn't a brief discussion called for; with minor edits? --Hallenrm 06:35:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have noted yor comment on my user talk page. Thanks. But, I must say, I believe that on a site like wikipesdia there are no solemn guidelines, except one, that is to produce a quality article that is a product of cooperation of many. I do not hold, or believe that I own the energy article, it is you have made it an ego problem, which is a bad reflection on your image. You have now taken it as your task to revert my edits ( u did not revert your edits totally< i just edited them. If someone believes that I am going beyond the manifesto of wikipedia, let him/her communicate it to me or bar me from posting/editing.Charlie 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Maria Callas rating

I did assess the article and reaffirmed the rating as Class B using the criteria for such articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece.

The criteria are:

• It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
• It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
• It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
• It is free from major grammatical errors.
• It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

As you see, this is not a bad rating. The entire rating system can be found here. If you disagree with this rating, and feel that it falls short, you can discuss it on the rating page. The reason I didn't add comments there is because I checked all the boxes on the WP:G banner (click on "show") and am rating as many Wikiproject Greece articles as I can (we are severely backlogged).

The next step for this article would be to nominate it for GA status, which you can do here, if you believe the article meets the criteria. I hope this helps! Argos'Dad 16:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Em dashes

You asked me why I prefer the HTML em dash over the Wiki-provided one. Well, I actually have no preference: I didn't even realize there was an em dash in the insert menu, with those teeny-tiny hard-to-read characters shown.

What I do prefer is any proper em dash over the "typewriter" equivalent ("--") that I see all over the place here.

Your question is actually a good technical one that I don't have a good answer for. It seems to me—and I could be wrong—that my way of encoding it (using —) may be more universal, so far as browser rendering goes, than hard-coding (i.e., embedding) the actual character. But I don't actually know enough about this stuff to say for sure. What's your take on this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken on clutter in text. I thought of another reason I prefer the — method, which is that it makes it obvious when editing text which dash (em or en) is being inserted. It can be pretty hard to tell one dash from another in a mess of text. (Compare en dash–en dash to em dash—em dash.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Edification

Sorry, what AI meant is that
is outdated, &
should be used instead.100110100 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

O, I don't know.100110100

Schloss Esterhazy

Ok, I'll try to do these links soon. Opus33 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Energy edits

What's your problem now, just ego? Why can't you leave the energy idea from your mess making for sometime. It is not your specialization, by that I mean only the subject energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallenrm (talk • contribs) 2007-05-01T09:20:32

Flag

Hello!

I am a hungarian, so I know the history of my country. That flag exists from 1848. Please dont revert my edits. Thank you.

I replaced the Hungarian flag with the official flag (Kingdom of Hungary), which was used between 1867-1918. Do you agree with it?86.101.112.193 17:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. As I saw, you changed the flag to Austria-Hungary flag. Thank you. You should know, that I just saw that there is an austrian flag at the birth place, so I decided to change it, because it was not correct, and am not against the articles neutrality. Hosszú és eredményes életet! ("live long and prosper") :)

Gloriette

On 6 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gloriette, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to I Lost On Jeopardy?

If you know the whens, whys, hows, and whos of this article's deletion, please leave me a message here. Also, if you know of a surefire way to search for the AfD discussion for an article, please inform me. Whenever I search on an article that I know used to exist but has since gone redlinked, I never know exactly how to figure out what happened to it. Thanks. Robert K S 13:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert, there's nothing in the Deletion Log for that page. Andy Saunders 13:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, apparently, there is. It seems to have been deleted by one User:Mel Etitis without an AfD. Robert K S 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Password difficulty

Your version looks fine. Answered on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 11:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image use at M. C. Gainey

Hi, regarding your question about the image removal, the use of this image is applicable only to discussion and commentary about his character on Lost. The first point of our fair use policy is that images can be fair use if no free equivalent is available. Because the article is about M.C. Gainey, not Tom it would be resonable to say that a free image of him is obtainable. For example, the change I made at Rodrigo Santoro's article here replaced an image of Rodrigo as Paulo with a image of Rodrigo himself.

In summary, having an actor's character appear in their infobox basically boils down to having an image for the sake of having an image. Technically, it isn't really identifying the actor, but their character instead. Hope this helps, UnfriendlyFire 14:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message

"It is obvious to anyone who has heard it" doesn't count as a source, nor as an explanation — especially when it isn't mentioned. If someone doesn't give an edit summary (which is strongly requested as a courtesy to other editors) or a source (which is required by policy), what is the basis for assuming good faith? If no source is given but an edit summary is, then I assume good faith; if a source is given and no edit summary, then I assume good faith; when neither is given, good faith is irrelevant. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I should add that Wikipedia:Edit summary is an important documant, and includes answers to a number of your points, especially the one about summaries for minor edits. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that probably I can only say that, if you'd walked in my shoes (or those of any editor spending significant time vandal-fighting, especially in problem areas) you'd perhaps understand better. Popular-music articles are plagued by people making changes that, to a non-fan, seem completely innocuous, but are in fact both incorrect and deeply PoV. Distinguishing the genuine from the (majority) non-genuine is only really possible if the editor explains and gives a source; the choice is between allowing a hundred bad edits and disallowing one good one. When an explanation or source (preferably both) is given, I tend to assume good faith (which probably leads to a fair few bad edits getting through, to be honest); when neither is given, I don't see that I have a choice if I'm to take editing seriously. In more stable, less fanatic-ridden and adolescent-haunted parts of the encyclopædia it's possible to assume good faith far more often. But note that no-one, not even the sainted Jimbo, assumes good faith beyond a certain point.

Note, incidentally, that I do leave unexplained and unsourced edits when they're clearly correct and good faith, as in your hypothetical example; you only see the ones that I revert, not the ones that I don't (they don't show up in my contributions...).

The comments at the top of my Talk page are recent additions, placed reluctantly after I'd spent years having to deal with the same, monotonous abuse/pointless queries, and to go into the history, copy the poster's details, add {{unsigned}}, then respond. If you'd been in a position that forced you into adding such notices (and having one's User page permanently protected), as many editors, especially admins, have been, you'd be more sympathetic.

You say that you realise that it's only one or two good edits that I mistakenly revert (I'd say that it's not a mistake, exactly, but that's a minor point); I hope (I believe) that you're right — which is why I continue to edit in the way that I do. The number of bad edits that would otherwise survive is enormous. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

restore new edit in Mass-energy equivalence

Robert: I don't want my edit to clash with your reversals iin Mass-energy equivalence. That old version is really not adequate. Please kindly restore my new edit. I am at your disposal for comments.Edgerck 15:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

John von Neumann

Hello. You reverted my edits, but I dont know why. I just added his second name (middle name) and his title of nobility, that were part of his name. Could you explain me your reasons please. Thanks. --Koppany 15:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I am not sure whether he used his nobility title, but his middle name (Louis) is mentioned in several US-sources, university publications. According to the University of Miskolc's webiste www.uni-miskolc.hu/~matpi/doc/neumann.doc he published under the name John Louis Neumann. Professor Lee also mentions him as John Louis Neumann http://www.dgatx.com/computing/people/JAN-Lee/hs.html. See also the followings: http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/VonNeumann.html http://etsiit.ugr.es/alumnos/mlii/VonNeumann.htm http://www.bnv-gz.de/gz_stadt/schule/dzr/Homepage/johann/NEUMANN.HTM Also referred as John L. von Neumann. http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/96summary/ Of cousre these are not original sources, like US-passport, but are enough base to assume he was naturalized under this name. --Koppany 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

truth in WP:NOT

Robert: First, I liked your thoughtful comments. I was reading the WP link you provided for your phrase "Wikipedia makes a point of asserting that it does not intend promote truth.", which you linked to WP:NOT. I could not find the word "truth" in that page. Am I at the right page or did I miss something? Thanks. --Edgerck 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I realized too late that I linked to the wrong page. The actual link is WP:V. "Wikipedia is not truth" may have been at WP:NOT at one point, but it is not any more. Actually, a few months back, there was a raging movement to remove the "not truth" language from policy pages, or modify it, on epistemological grounds. I don't know what the status of that movement is, but in any case, the "not truth" language is still there as of today. Robert K S 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Edgerck 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I read the page WP:V and I wouldn't use it to support the affirmation "Wikipedia makes a point of asserting that it does not intend [to] promote truth." In fact, I think it says otherwise. What I read in WP:V is that WP supports verifiability (as objectively verified truth) versus truth (as subjective or intersubjective truth), meaning a stronger (because neutral) form of truth than what people usually say as "that is the truth" -- meaning their truth. In particular, it is well-known that two different people living the same moment will have different, albeit still truthful, recollections. I wonder what you think about this. I also think that that policy should be changed to avoid the confusion. But I want to hear you before I suggest that. Thanks.--Edgerck 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, but I don't know how much clearer the page can be than "...Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Robert K S 23:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert: Thank you again for your comments in my talk page. If I understood your last comment, I showed that I understand WP verifiability. Perhaps you could clarify the issue in the WP:V talk page as you may be able, with your WP experience, to address the issues in terms that are better intersubjectively for that collective than mine. Edgerck 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking over those pages again, I believe I have spoken my peace, and can contribute little else to the discussion. Robert K S 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

mass-energy equivalence

Robert: You asked about this equivalence. My reply has three points, supported by WP:RS sources. HINT: If you don't have ref. 2, search in books.google.com, for "relativistic mass photon lev", click on first item (okun's book); open in the book page 117 and look for "third argument" at the end of the page.

• Mass can be converted to massless energy according to E=mc². Every mass corresponds to energy.
• Energy can be converted to mass according to m=E/c². Not every energy corresponds to mass.

As you see, the two statements above are already not symmetrical in the roles played by mass and energy. Now, comes the third point.

• Conservation of mass and energy: the concept of mass-energy equivalence complements but does not unite the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy. While an energy does indeed correspond to any mass, the opposite is not true as mass does not correspond to every energy. Mass is not completely equivalent to energy. In special relativity, in spite of popular philosophical discussions otherwise, mass and energy are not two forms of the same thing.

Hope this is useful. BTW, the name mass-energy equivalence is fine because an energy does indeed correspond to any mass. Edgerck 07:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the "As you see" part that gets me. I don't see. And why is it that you need to cite an obscure physicist's obscure paper from 1991 to reference such? Shouldn't any undergraduate-level physics textbook suffice? Robert K S 12:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you stopped there, rather than venturing to #3 without going through #1-2. It's actually quite simple to do: You sub "mass" for "energy" and vice-versa in both statements and see how both look compared to the original statements. Do you see an asymmetry? Edgerck 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, use ref.1 for #2. Edgerck 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's going to take more than repeating yourself to convince me. I'm convinceable, but I'd like to see some explanations. No, I don't see the asymmetry inherent in E = mc². Robert K S 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert: I'm not trying to convince you. I am just presenting the information and asking a question. I don't believe in proselitism.

Just to clearer, here are the statements, numbered:

1. Mass can be converted to massless energy according to E=mc². Every mass corresponds to energy.
2. Energy can be converted to mass according to m=E/c². Not every energy corresponds to mass.

Perhaps if you could write down both forms below, for 1 and 1', 2 and 2', making those subs (sub "mass" for "energy" and vice-versa) for the ' version. You could then highlight in HTML what you might see. Edgerck 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm understanding what you're saying, you want me to fallaciously rewrite E = mc² as m = Ec². I don't see what that would prove or disprove. I take issue when you say "Not every energy corresponds to mass." If you are able, I would like you to explain how m = E/c² implies this. PS, you should be trying to convince me because I'm asking to be convinced, so that I can be in harmony with you re: your edits to mass-energy equivalence. Robert K S 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert: no, that would too simple (even though useful as you intuitively see). Why do you read "m" when I wrote "mass" and "E" when I wrote "energy"? Leave the formula alone! Work on the two phrases. BTW, I think Socrates was right in not trying to convince anyone. Each person's mind is their own castle. Edgerck 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll play along.

1. Energy can be converted to energyless mass according to m=E/c². Every energy corresponds to mass.
2. Mass can be converted to energy according to E=mc2. Not every mass corresponds to energy.

I suppose the asymmetry you want to me to be identifying is "energyless mass", a supposed contradiction in terms? Robert K S 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the first but fundamental one. You can see that the other sentences are also in contradiction? Within the same sub'ed group and also with the original group?

So, there is massless energy but there is no energyless mass. If mass and energy would be two aspects of the same thing (more precisely, completely equivalent), this would not happen. Please tell me if this is clear, otherwise it is better not to move to equations yet. I say that physics is about abstractions, and equations are just a more or less convenient tool to express the abstractions. Edgerck 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I may take a while to reply. So, let me leave "advance reading" for the next two steps in understanding the great question of why mass and energy are not two forms of the same thing.

Number 1: Invariance and conservation are not the same. It is clearer to reserve the term "change" when discussing conservation, and use the term "difference" when discussing invariance. If a quantity is invariant, then it will have the same measured value in any inertial reference frame. For example, momentum of an isolated (free) system is not an invariant quantity, since two observers in relative motion, each applying the same operational definition of momentum, may obtain different values for the momentum of the system. If a quantity is conserved, then its value, as measured in a particular inertial reference frame, does not change over time. The momentum of an isolated (free) system is a conserved quantity, and will maintain a constant value throughout some process.

Number 2: In classical physics, the 3-momentum vector (px, py, pz) of an isolated system is a conserved quantity. In special relativity (in units in which c=1), the energy momentum 4-vector (E,px,py,pz) replaces 3-momentum as the conserved quantity; the magnitude of the 4-vector is computed as (E² - px² - py² - pz²)^1/2. The mass of the system is defined to be the magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector and is thus an invariant. The energy-momentum relation (mc²)² = E² - (pc)² follows from this.

References

---

Robert: You left a message in my main talk-page. I moved it to the RoI experiment's talk page and answered. The reply is at RoI talk Edgerck 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You missed my answer on the 'subparticle' -- it was already there, below where you posted.Edgerck 00:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode IV

Sorry I reverted your recent change whilst trynig to quickly revert the vandalism by 81.244.122.79. You were editing a version that had been trashed.

reflist

{{reflist|2}} aads a 2-column list of references. I don't think Internet Explorer (which is probably what you're using) supports that, but it's helpful for users on other browsers. CloudNine 17:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The poor energy article

As noted, Hallen, after totally screwing up the energy article, is now going to actively prevent anybody from writing a summary of science-based energy. I really see no alternative but to get him banned from editing the thing. Otherwise we're never going to be left alone to write it. I'm open to suggestions.SBHarris 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC) SBHarris 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

John von Neumann

The source (or one source) for all that material you removed is the Macrae biography cited at the bottom of the article. Robert K S 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any online links we can direct readers to or would we need to go to the library, eeekk :). It just seems that the info about his exploites as a prodigy had grown rather large. As an "ignorant" person on the subject (as pointed out by William Buckley) I was wondering if all that material was true or maybe some of it was made up. Anyways, I am big into making sure that readers can see sources for themsleves and that articles are well sourced. No biggie and thanks for your note. Cheers! --Tom 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and yes it goes make sense and help. Cheers! --Tom 13:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Univac-model.jpg

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

God

Are you saying that Gothic is not the same as Old English? (Removal of: "The capitalized form "God" was first used in Ulfilas' Gothic translation of the New Testament, to represent the Greek Theos.") I'm kidding of course, but I've already started enough trouble on that page and I didn't want to point out that little factoid. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, but it was a silly line too. Your edits looked good -- I'm so used to POV warring on that page that I am pleasantly surprised when someone makes perfectly rational, needed edits. Thanks! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

{{further}}

Hey, I've renominated the template for deletion. Let's push this template thru to deletion, and get as many of your like minded friends to vote.[6]199.126.28.20 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Eleusinian Mysteries

Thanks for your work cleaning up the Eleusinian Mysteries article. Good job! Just one question--how come you chose to remove the informative parenthetical about the seasonal variation in Greece? (I.e., that the unproductive season comes in summer, but the Demeter myth is usually interpreted as referring to winter?) Robert K S 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I found the sentence confusing since later there is a discussion about the fallow season being the summer and the Eleusinian Mysteries occuring in September with Persephone in the world from then until spring. If we can source and make it internally consistent, I would like to add the concept back.

Thanks for your kind words on my edits. Argos'Dad 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert, that is an interesting perspective and I agree that it is worth mentioning, as it does in that article, as an alternative theory. Why don't you go ahead and add it? Argos'Dad 01:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy

Is there a reason you notified me of this 3rd nom? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

On user:enormousdude

I just want to encourage you to stand firm against this editor. If you have read over his talk page, then you are aware the this editor has been in one content dispute after another. His modus operandi seems to be to key on one texbook definition that he likes, and to treat it (or sometimes his own interpretation of it) as gospel. On the special relativity article, it took a while before this editor finally gave up. --EMS | Talk 04:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP on Al Gore III

I've already commented on this at WP:AN and you've already read what I had to say. Your edits are inconsistent with our policy on the biogs of living people and if you don't stop reverting back to a version of the page which I have previously informed people to be inappropriate, you will be blocked from editing. We do not need and will not tolerate any article being edited to focus prominently on legal trouble. Nick 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. An article primarily dedicated to someone's run-ins with the law (especially when these run-ins are only notable because the person is related to a celebrity) is not compatible with Wikipedia's NPOV or BLP policies. And before you start assuming this is a whitewash campaign by Gore-loving Wikipedia admins, you should review some of my edits to the Jenna Bush and Barbara Pierce Bush articles: [7] [8] [9] (for example). We take these policies very seriously and they are not negotiable. Please drop me a line on my talk page if you have further concerns. Kaldari 15:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as I would love for this issue to finally be settled by ArbCom, I'm afraid there is no chance they would accept it since the other steps in the mediation process have not been used yet. You may want to investigate those first. Kaldari 16:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you add at least as many positive facts about Al Gore III's life as negative facts I think that will assure that the article stays NPOV. Obviously that's going to be somewhat difficult since the only reason anyone ever publishes something about Al Gore III is because he does something potentially embarrassing to his father. Arguably, it's impossible to keep such an article truly NPOV, but unfortunately I have to try anyway. Kaldari 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert K S: Please keep attempting to work on the Al Gore III article. However, please be warned that there are admins who believe that the final shape of an article must conform to what they believe is fair and only what they believe to fair. And they are not above attempts to have you blocked or worse. Al Gore III is notable because his father is NOT just a celebrity, but he is also a prominent former VP and he has NOT ruled out running for President again. Also, his father constantly refers to Al Gore III in books, movies and speeches, making Al Gore III a public person himself. Also, his father is a prominent advocate for "green" policies but even though Al Gore III was driving a Prius he was still driving the Prius way, way over the speed limit completely wiping out any positive environmental effect that the Prius might have had. At 100 miles an hour, the electric aspect of the engine kick out and it is just gas guzzelling at that point. There will articles to that effect coming out in the next few days and those articles will be relevant for the article. Let's just hope that Kaldari, et. al. will allow in that important information. But currently they believe that Al Gore III drug abuse (both illegal and legal), alcohol abuse, reckless driving and speeding are not areas that Wikipedia should touch upon--even though Al Gore III is the topic of numerous newspaper articles, movies, speeches, and books. The double standard is amazing.--Getaway 20:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

About my BLP post:

I mean: verifiability isn't the only criteria, a BLP needs to pass NPOV as well (as it says in the policy's lead). Will ^(talk) 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III

While I don't concur with everything in your message to me, Getaway, I think we both agree that there is something very strange going on with this article. Thanks for the note. Robert K S 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm sure you know this, but Noelle Bush isn't a twin. Robert K S 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I know. I was merely making the point that for many, many months I have been attempting to make the point that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Wikipedia is going to treat Al Gore III with kid gloves, concerning his arrest record, then we need to treat ALL other Living Persons with kid gloves, concerning arrest records. The twins' articles were just long, long overly detailed outlines of Chuy's and drinking incidents over and over again--down to the detail of which particular Chuy's in Austin it was, what time of day, etc. I believe that there articles have been cleaned up and I also believe that Noelle Bush is a closer comparison to Al Gore III. Once again, my point about applying the rules equally and fairly was stomped on over and over again by partisans who believed that it was just wrong to internally compare articles in Wikipedia. By definition, that is unreasonable. We need to attempt to have a fair and consistent application of the Living Person rules. That's all.--Getaway 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your 'Agenda'

Aigh. Ok, so I made that comment about your agenda, then went to a hotel for days where the internet was broken (curse you, marriott!) and somehow managed to miss that you had replied to me.

Agenda was possibly the wrong word, but you *did* have an agenda as regards the article; you wanted the information on the arrests and everything else included. When I was talking to Guy, I was trying to reason with him based on the meta issues surrounding his actions; my arguments, though occasionally reflected in the timing of when things were deleted from the article, were based on things that had little to do with the article itself, and more to do with behaviours involving more meta-wiki things. I was appealing to different things; an agenda is something to be done, if you check most dictionary defs, and you and the other person who was posting had something to get done with the article. I was asking him to revert, essentially to undo, and so I saw it as the inverse of an agenda. I'm rereading it and seeing that if read colloquially, it comes across differently than what I as getting at. --Thespian 09:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My admin actions

If you have any genuine concerns with my editing or administrative actions, I would prefer if you raised them directly with me, or filed an RfC as appropriate. Thanks in advance. Nick 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did raise them with you. I don't plan on filing an RfC, which would be needlessly contentious. If you were to recuse yourself of your adminship as readily as you wipe your own user page and talk page history, I wouldn't complain, though. You're awful. Robert K S 02:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I must be doing my job here well before you think I'm awful. Nick 11:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You think of adminship as a "job" whose duties include doling out ban threats. I look at adminship as 90% "customer service", implying tempered responses, impartiality, willingness to examine all sides of an issue, and, as called for by policy, ever-present assumption of good faith. Your view implies heated reactivity; my view demands cool passivity, which is not in practice achievable by all users, which is why not all users should be admins. Robert K S 08:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

About the Portuguese Henri Wallon article

Hi, Robert! I'm sorry for this long delay to reply your question. I will try to compesate it.

My interest on Henri Wallon resulted from a course I did last semester. One of the "exams" (the term is not exact, but give de idea...) on this course was to present in group a seminar about some psychologist with great influence on Pedagogy. Incidentally, my group was selected to introduce Wallon and I wrote the Wallon article as a method of study. In fact, Wallon has a enormous influence on the Brazilian educational system (specally the public portion), side by side with Piaget, Vygotsky and the Brazilian pedagogue Paulo Freire.

However, I have to confess the Portuguese Wallon article is not so good. I have written the most of it on a stressful moment, so it has some silly errors and more POV than I would like. On the other hand, it is Spring break here and I am not having any class on the university, so I'm working in the article now, although other ones are taking too much from my time (as the one about Behaviorism). The Wallon article is a lot harder to improve because there is almost no information about him on the Internet and my university employees are on strike (it is very commom here :( ) and the library is closed.

Finally, I would like to ask you if you know some reference or source about the Langevin-Wallon Project in English. It seems there is no text about it in English or Portuguese, but just in French, language that I unfortunately do not understand. If you know about some document in English on this topic on the Web, I'd be glad to see it!

I hope these lines answer your questions. Sorry for my bad English. Any question, just ask me! --Brandizzi 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I added my comment to another section

First of all, this article is full of scandal, and it really needs to be edited fully. I reinserted my comments, which read:

The basic requirement of bel canto technique is mask placement or breath control via the nasalis muscle and soft palate, therfore if any singer loses chest tones because of the bel canto position, one might rightfully assume those tones are not a natural part of that singer's musical vocal range. This would validate Renata Tebaldi's statement that "[Callas]...did not possess low notes naturally." Bel Canto placement eliminates registers, yet Callas was universally known for having three distinct registers; even three voices. Maria Callas sang the bel canto operas with great dramatic success, but she did not possess the true bel canto method as did Joan Sutherland, Montserrat Caballe, or Virginia Zeani, whose bel canto techniques derive from the Ancient Vocal Method

If this is grounds for removal, then most of the article should be removed. And, we can converse in French if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacocks5671 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-14T17:15:05

Robert....

Robert,

Since the statement has been relisted. Could you explain why the statement is irrelevant, and then compare it to some of the truly biased and uninformed statements that are there? In fact, the person that initially removed the statement only stated that it was not appropriate for that section. I actually agree with that person after I put it in context, but the article is really disorganized so its hard to choose where to put things.

I would really like to know because I think this is very unfair and really hurts the readers of wikipedia who want to know the truth about Maria Callas technical identification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacocks5671 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-14T18:22:40

Dear Robert: Another editor has assited in handling this problem, and I think it is resolved well. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacocks5671 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-15T13:03:48

Did you know...

On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 11:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

MoS

Oh, I have no idea. I don't generally put those in, I just noticed in this particular instance that it needed it. I'm not at all familiar with MoS guidelines on this matter. Dylan 16:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jason Bourne

Since your aware of this book/subject maybe you should add this information to the article instead of taking the lazy way out and just reverting my changes which from the context of the article are correct . Lazy editing ... (Gnevin 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

You knew enough to know there was 5 books which is more than i knew . i spelt out that their was only 4 books list in the article and you still just reverted (Gnevin 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Did you know...

On 10 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Desoille, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

jeopardy archive

I saw you were a founding member. Do you know who the contact is for j-archive.com now? Thanks. --Rajah 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

HD tuner

Fusion HDTV5 USB $150 from Digital Connection. Ntropolis 00:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

John Atanasov

He is half American Half Bulgarian, you should not rush and avoid that and write ..american scientist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimreaperbg (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Multi-row tables

I think there has to be a compromise here that works better: I agree with you that having the "tall" boxes makes it easier to see when changes were made, but I disagree that it is easier to read: it is much easier to read text in a row than to try and move up and down, as the current table requires.

Would a shaded version of the chart with the numbers in each row work better (e.g., alternating white-gray-white-gray with each change)? Samer 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Jerome's lead" comment in Jeopardy! set evolution

My mistake. It just didn't seem right. Again, sorry. --Jnelson09 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 18 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arion (mythology), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 22:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy! sources tag

My bad, I thought I did. Oh well, I'll make a message on the talk page right now. FamicomJL 02:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination

Hi Robert, I have commented on your nomination at T:TDYK. The entry is unlikely to be used on the main page unless the issue I have raised is adressed. Please note that this page asks nominators to: "Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed."--Carabinieri 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 22 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Juan Eduardo Cirlot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

von Neumann

Hello. I now think that your view that the v in von Neumann algebras is always capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or in a title is not supported by evidence. The top contributors to the subject have not adhered to your rule. These include both Fields medallists in the subject, Alain Connes and Vaughan Jones, whose plenary addresses at the ICM have titles which contravene your rule. If you think all these people are doing something wrong, might it not be a good idea to leave the von Neumann algebra page alone, unless of course you have some kind of mathematical contribution to make? In the response on my talk page, you can see a rather long list of titles of scientific papers, including two books, which do not conform to your rule. Cheers, Mathsci 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to the matter at hand on your talk page. We can and should have legitimate arguments over style preferences, but as for telling Wikipedians they shouldn't be editing articles, I'll just say that it's discourteous and bad form. Robert K S 17:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But the article on von Neumann algebras is an article on mathematics. You are not adding any content at all - that is in fact quite difficult and time consuming - but instead are pushing a point of view which is contrary to standard usage in the subject. After carefully prepared verifiable evidence has been presented to you, why not accept this graciously? As you can see, I'm not particularly concerned about the capital v. But I am a little upset that you choose to be rude to mathematicians. They are only the people who could have created this article. You seem to be interested in von Neumann but not von Neumann algebras. Mathsci 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that my "point of view" (it is in fact, not a point of view, a term that refers to opinions on subjects, but a point of convention, which is in practice resolvable) is "contrary to standard usage". A quick Google query of "von neumann algrabras" shows that the capital V usage is just as prevalent, if not moreso, even among mathematical papers found on Google Scholar. Mathematicians have also employed various other strange mutations, such as hyphenating von-Neumann. Do you contend that a Fields medal makes one an authority on capitalization conventions? I am sorry this matter has upset you so. You seem to be offended that a non-mathematician would be so insolent as to take interest in a mathematical subject. I recognize your contributions to the encyclopedia, and you needn't take a disagreement as a personal offense. Robert K S 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

'Scuse me

For the revert in the graffiti article. I thought you added the 'more usually' instead of removed it. I read the edit too fast. Key to the city 17:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pushing Daisies

Do TV show articles on Wikipedia include goofs? Pendragon39 18:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

ACM

Robert, ACM is an abbreviation for many articles, thus it is suppose to point to ACM (disambiguation) article and NOT Assoc of Computing Machinery. There are over 20 articles with the same abbreviation and Assoc of Comp Mach is no more important than any other. SO , please change back your revert of my change so it is for for all concerned. I took tedious time to insert the disambig link in all of the articles with "ACM". Thank you, LanceBarber 07:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe ACM is not commonly known for Assoc of Comp Mach... and I was a member of ACM back in the early 70s, too. I know persons in the music industry that have used ACM with me, and I kiddingly refer to it as Adv. Cruise Missiles, (as I am a curator at an aviation museum)(and former engr and computer programmer <Algol, Fortran, etc.>), getting confusing looks, and then laughter with my friends. As for Wiki, being neutral to all subjects, and all users/readers, it is logical to direct ACM to the disambig article FIRST, not Assoc Comp Mach. I will let you change it back. I am quite sure I can get a Wiki Admstr to concur with me. Please take a neutral point of view here, like I have. Thank you, Lance.....LanceBarber 07:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous templates to choose from, which template do you prefer I use, and I will make all the changes. By having all the articles having the capability of refering back to the disambig page, broadens the user/reader understanding and learning. thx. LanceBarber 08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading the guideline for hatnotes, I understand what u were getting at. I went to all the articles to remove the template, and you had already done it. Thank you. I personally like the hatnotes, but do understand the Wiki guidelines, and will do a better job in its use. Thank you, again. Lance ....LanceBarber 09:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ACM Multimedia

Hello, thanks for your message on the AfD for ACM. This is indeed not a simple decision on the ACM question. In principal you are right that the AfD is not about future possible improvements of articles but the acutal status of an article. I do agree that the reference basis is meager. But I think that the article as it is now is good enough to be kept and needs to be marked as to be improved. There are articles about roles of TV-Series on Wikipedia that are of less interest than a regular conference. Another question is the article about the organisation behind the conference which realy lacks information. Best regards Neozoon 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

John von Neumann

Hello, I think you didn't understand what my edit was about. The hatnote has always been there, I just changed its placement. Take a look to these specific edits:

• (2003) An anonymous adds the first hatnote
• (2006) Jrp replaces this hatnote by the template {{otherpeople}}
• (2007, yesterday (CEST)), I change the placement.

When I edited the article, I didn't even look at what the hatnote said, I only wanted to correct its position which was wrong. As for your comment, I partly agree.

Actually I think the hatnote you deleted was added to this article because John von Neumann can be easily confused with some other people having similar name but the sentence rendered using the template {{otherpeople}} didn't explain this ambiguity very clearly.

For other persons named John Neumann, see John Neumann (disambiguation).

So instead I suggest {{otheruses4|the scientist|people with similar name|John Neumann (disambiguation)}} which gives:

This page is about the scientist. For people with similar name, see John Neumann (disambiguation).

What do you think about it? 16@r 19:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hdjeopalexbig.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hdjeopalexbig.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Archive submission

I have a full episode of Jeopardy! that is not listed in the J! Archive. It's dated 5/10/1996 and it's the fifth quarterfinal match of the 1995-96 Teen Tournament. Do you know who I should contact on submitting the information so it can be read online? Maple Leaf fan '04 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm transferring the episode to DVD now. The next step will be an overnight encoding using software I have that is specific to the job and then after I upload the file, you should expect a download link as early as Monday. The file size will be around 195 MB. Maple Leaf fan '04 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles and "All Those Years Ago"

You have a good point about use of the word "reunited", and I will not revert again. It was your explanation that I reacted to, that they weren't in the studio at the same time. Recording in the studio at the same time is not the defining characteristic of being a band because they often recorded separately on Beatles albums after they had the technology to do so. Ward3001 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see this comment now, Robert, but why would I have seen it before I wrote that edit summary? Nothing was on the article's talk page, and I saw three editors (including me) reverting to the established wording with one changing it (coming up to 3RR which I didn't invoke, by the way). I think when you find yourself being reverted by different editors it's time to have a discussion where the people who edit that piece can weigh in - I see you've now started one, so let's continue it there. Tvoz |talk 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

James D Watson

Unfortunately the article if taken verbatim is confusing so I attempted to condense by clearly attributing what Watson actually said, vs what Grubbe seemingly plucks from the ether, which is why I left it in originally and reverted your edit that blurs the distinction between actual Watson quotes and Grubbes extrapolation (oo, it's a day for long words); unfortunately Grubbe is a terrible writer, and that the actual piece is unclear as to who, what or when the comments were made by Watson (i.e. it makes no indication of it being the same conversation, year, date, event, or even the same topic) so it's difficult to attribute to him comments that Grubbe does not actually quote as coming out of his mouth (or pen).

I have changed the section to the below based on going back to the original Times article and more clearly defining what Watson says and what Grubbe asserts based on those selected quotes. I'd appreciate your feedback and/or any edits you feel would clarify the piece for the reader. Unfortunately working with broken goods makes it harder to mesh into a good piece without looking like you're either trying to white-wash the comments, or bury him under someone elses attributed beliefs.

Cheers

Hunt-Grubbe quoted Watson as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" as "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really". Hunt-Grubbe suggests that Watsons "hope" is that "everyone is equal" but quotes him as having said "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". Further-more Grubbe asserts Watsons stance as being that "you should not discriminate on the basis of colour" by quoting him as having said "There are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level".--Koncorde (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny Cide

I'm not sure if I have the correct contributor here, so please correct me if I'm wrong...but if I do have the right person, is there any reason why you feel changing direct quotes from first-hand sources is a good wiki idea? If you have a good reason, I'd be very willing to hear it. As a constantly criticised wiki contributor myself, I try to learn all I can.JiggeryPokery (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The person who is changing direct and accurate quotes into his/her own idea of what someone might say isn't using a username and I tried to do a little detecting. Obviously, I failed. Again, I apologize. JiggeryPokery (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Clue Crew section in Jeopardy! article

I didn't know that. My mistake. --Jnelson09 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I just figured that it should be mentioned in the main article, because it's referenced in a footnote. --Jnelson09 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: von Neumann

Yes, I think we have to be bold to remove the gossips. Doing that will no doubt offends some editors, who deem the gossips "interesting". Interesting! :( Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Cordray

In response to your question regarding my edits to the Richard Cordray article, I have recently created Category:State treasurers of Ohio as a subcategory of Category:State treasurers of the United States. I removed him from the latter category because it would redundant to list him in both a parent category and one its subcategories. I hope my response clarifies my intentions. --TommyBoy (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

State Treasurers

If you are looking for a list of of State Treasurers, there is a template with them listed in the aforementioned Wikipedia article, although several articles on current State Treasurers have not been created yet. By the way, sorry about the message left on your user page, I must have clicked the wrong tab when I went to respond to your original question. --TommyBoy (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Internets

An article that you have been involved in editing, Internets, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internets. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: John Vincent Atanasoff

The Bulgaria switch has happened only once by an IP in the past week, and it's more of a content dispute anyway. east.718 at 03:48, December 28, 2007

I've been keeping my eye on this, and it looks like one IP every few days. If the disruption continues, it can be solved with a block. east.718 at 01:58, December 31, 2007

A Hole in the Head

Robert,

How can you say that a tribute site is personal advertising? Doesn't make sense to me that a tribute site that generates zero revenue and is exclusively for the movie A Hole in the Head. Have you seen the tribute site? I would appreciate you take a look at it Tribute Site and you will see how it is important it is to have this tribute site a part of the film's biography. IMDB feels its important enough to link it to their site. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvSiegs (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC) (MarvSiegs (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

A neutral reply for a biased guy

Haha, my title even rhymes... What a wonderful coincidence. Anyhow, from our discussions I can only say that you are not very bright. Please do not consider this as a personal attack, for it is a mild form of communication in comparison to the subjectively driven vandalism you have imposed on one notable Bulgarian-American. If someone were to edit only Bulgaria related articles, how would that be construed as a negative act? After all, some people have better knowledge of Bulgaria than others. Obviously you fit the latter category and I the former. As such I also edit the Atanasoff article and despite the presented evidence to the contrary, you consistently impose your opinion that Atanasoff's biological and self-proclaimed Bulgarian identity and ancestry is not important! I would never say that Atanasoff was only Bulgarian, because unlike you I understand the fact that identity can link multiple nations in rather notable ways that are beyond your level of comprehension. Please tell an American of African descent that they are not African-American and you will find a 'simple' answer, relevant to our argument, that is neatly packaged within the confines of a 'complex' Pandora’s box. You've opened this one up with your biased edits and now this "discussion" between you and I will go on forever if it must... :)--Monshuai (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent names and cultural conventions

Hello! :) - Please check this out: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_reference_cultural_conventions_proposals.3F_Which_one_is_better.3F

Melty girl disputed your version and removed it completely. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What is verylong, Alex?

I placed {{verylong}} on the Jeopardy! article because it was, indeed, very long at 65 kb. I might fork off the Tournament section, and give a good copy edit to the rest -- many sections are very wordy. I'm not very coherent right now, so I'll hold off on any editing for now, but just a heads-up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Westinghouse Time Capsules coordinates

Those numbers appear to be difference than my reference. Do you have a source where you obtained these? I am temporarly watching your Talk Page, so you can put you source here - thanks!--Doug ^talk 13:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a source. If you have good reason for removing the numbers--e.g., the don't match some cited source--then remove them. I thought maybe you were just removing the template because you thought it was redundant and didn't realize the significance of its printing the geolocation at the top of the article (a handy and unobtrusive feature of the encyclopedia). Robert K S (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts and input on this - and the other improvements you made to the article. Thanks! I'll go ahead and remove the template at the bottom. Should you find a source then go ahead and put it back. The template also uses the word "is" where there are two time capsules and the word "are" is better - which the template can not do. The source I am using (which is basically the main reference source for most of the article pertaining to the 1938 time capsule) is the Book of Record of the time capsule cupaloy put out by Westinghouse in 1938 when they made the first time capsule. Also I am using The Story of the Time Capsule which was put out by Westinghouse in 1939 giving details about the 1938 time capsule. The video of this 1938 time capsule is also an excellent source and gives many details about this time capsule.--Doug ^talk 14:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Looked up both coordinates and clicking on Google maps, your numbers appear to be 200 feet to the West. If the people of the seventieth century went digging there they would probably never find the capsules. However even the referenced coordinates might not be good either, because of earthquakes and other geological events that probably will accure meanwhile and move the capsules anyway. What really concerns me however, is that the second capsule was not marked in any way on its exterior - so if somebody comes across it at the bottom of some river bed they might assume it is just an old 20th century bomb and just blow it to smithereens. Perhaps someone should go dig it up and put an inscription on it - then put it back (either of these being an unlikely event). I doubt the marker that is there today will even be there then and if it is the inscription will be long gone. Perhaps a new technology should be devised to track and locate these Westinghouse times capsules of 1938 and 1965. Maybe some sort of permanent emitting signal for a GPS?--Doug ^talk 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

URL for Big Chocolate

Should work now. Please find an alternate source for it if possible though. Suite101 is not as reliable and is more prone to original research than other sources. Grandmasterka 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

VS Ramachandran

I'll check the guidelines before the next rounds of edit, but please be aware that these changes are by proxy by Dr. Ramachandran (I'm a graduate student in his lab). If you'd like to confirm any of the changes or authenticity, please email him at vramacha@ucsd.edu. While we appreciate your adherence to a common look and feel to the biographies, please use restraint when Dr. Ramachandran deletes personal information; he does not want information regarding his children or date of birth to appear in this page. From what I'm starting to read from the Presumption in favor of privacy section, this does not seem like an outrageous request.

Some of the information on the page is also incorrect, mainly in the introduction (e.g. he did not specialize in surgery). I'll upload a new introduction this weekend, with these errors corrected, without the information Dr. Ramachandran deems personal, and hopefully to the set forth guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrang (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jacobs/Progessive Field

In response to the naming rights deal, user:Gimmetrow deleted the page's history. I cannot delete pages. 2008BaseballFan (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jérôme Kerviel

I reverted your edit about the "ref cleanup". Collapsing the citation templates like you did makes the prose easier to edit, but makes viewing and editing the citations themselves much more difficult. Since citations may need to be corrected or edited, it makes sense to keep them easy to edit. This is especially relevant in that newer users have trouble using template variables and errors in references tend to go uncorrected more so than errors in the main text. Drop me a line if you want to discuss this further. —dgies^t_c 06:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul Schrekengost

I'm not certain Paul had a career in ceramics -- he's noted for some prominent lines, though. I'll be in touch with Henry B. Adams shortly -- who currated the Viktor Schreckengost exhibit at the Clevland Institute. He's now with Case Western Reserve U. and he'll know more about Paul and how to get references on it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk • contribs) 2008-01-29T20:42:11

Cooper Canada Ltd. Did You Know?

On 4 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cooper Canada Ltd., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shuster

I noticed that you have edited David Shuster's bio and am wondering why no one has provided additional Internet related information about him. I have been reading a lot about him over the past two days and there is a lot of information circulating about his having made false statements about various issues. Is the Shuster page a vanity page? It certainly looks like it to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.66.59 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles

Your assertion that British is given more than English is not true. See The Rolling Stones and The Kinks just as two examples. Please cease edit warring and discuss on talk, then wait for consensus before changing. Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're being very underhanded. The article has said English for MANY months. I merely changed it back to the way it was. I cannot change now because of 3RR. For that reason also, YOU need to be the one to seek consensus. And I think it's safe to say that MOST articles use English. If you have any sense of fairness you will revert it yourself until there is a consensus to change the way it was. Otherwise I will change it in 24 hours if no one else does. Ward3001 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is no consensus in the nationality discussions, then by default The Beatles should remain as English because it has been that way for a very long time. If the consensus changes, then it can be changed. Again, I think you're being very sneaky. I can change it in a few hours, and if you continue to revert I will consider it edit warring until a new consensus is reached. Ward3001 (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm even more convinced of your underhanded tactics. You take the very articles that I point out as examples contrary to your POV (with no consensus) and change them. If I had any respect for the possibility of reasonable discussion with you, it's quickly evaporating. I ask you politely to wait for a change in consensus before making this change again to any article. Likewise, I will not change British to English in articles that have long used British. Ward3001 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll "hang tight" if you stop POV-pushing. You're the one who needs to hang tight. And any discussions will not be completed in a matter of hours. Leave everything the way it is until there is consensus. I plan to change The Beatles back to English when I can because that's its long-standing status, but I will not make any other changes unless you do. Ward3001 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale argument must trump "consensus-by-inaction": How convenient for you to reach that conclusion. I happen to disagree because the "rationale" does not yet have a consensus, and consensus trumps everything that is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. I am much more perturbed by your POV-pushing that you try to hide as "rationale" than I am by whether it eventually ends up British or English. I've got your number. You assume that you're POV is always the right one, and proceed with that until someone slaps you down for POV-pushing. I'm changing The Beatles to English until there is a consensus otherwise, and I don't care to discuss this issue any further with someone who uses your tactics. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How have you determined that there was a consensus to change before you posted the discussion of the issue on the Talk page rather than waiting for others to express their opinions? Ward3001 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment was focused on the unilateral action that was taken before consensus, regardless of the user. If you really want to work toward consensus and fairness, you'll change The Beatles back to English until there is a consensus to change. End of discussion between you and me. I'm not adding more to The Beatles talk page unless others respond to my comment, and I'm certainly not discussing this any further with you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a pity that I had to argue so much with you because you decided that your opinion was more important than waiting for consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Road

Robert, I was "bold" and changed the photo in Template:WikiProject The Beatles. Let's see if it stays ... Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work, WWGB. I have no idea how the French photo could have been used so often (and it has) but good work that you (both?) spotted it. --andreasegde (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Excuse me!

Hi, Robert! Could you please point out which image I deleted? The only image of yours that I can find that I deleted was Image:USCMainEntranceExpositionBoulevard.jpg, and that was over a month ago. east.718 at 11:35, February 16, 2008

Sorry about that - I did delete it way too fast. Admins are supposed to wait ten minutes or so before deleting images under CSD I3, but I usually don't check the times if there's a really big backlog. Again, my apologies and glad to see that you were able to upload it again. east.718 at 14:13, February 16, 2008

It's to deter uploaders from uploading non-free images under free licenses, which takes lots of time to sort out. When you try to upload an image as non-commercial/educational/for Wikipedia's use only, it hits you with a huge warning that the image will be deleted and instructs you what to do, all before the upload. If the uploader doesn't bother to read that and continues, the image gets deleted. east.718 at 14:45, February 16, 2008

I see your issue now, and am personally quite bewildered as to why Wikipedia:Upload doesn't offer an option to upload free images, but instead points you towards the Commons. I didn't design that uploader, nor am I a fan of it, but I'll try to poke some people and get that fixed. I've added a quick line to the bottom of the upload interface for now, and will see to making the rest more user-friendly.

Regarding donated images, it's usually fine if the image can't be found anywhere else... but if it's up on a website somewhere and the license is unclear, it's best to shoot an email over to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. east.718 at 20:44, February 16, 2008

Invite

	Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us. --andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet! Todo:

Thanks

RKS, thanks for the generous thought. You more than made up for the tirade I received from another editor the same day who would disagree with your assessment. Good to have you around.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Two game shows

Robert, the editor with whom you're currently discussing the merits and validity of the sourcing of the Jeopardy! pages is having an identical (and equally belligerent) discussion about the Wheel of Fortune pages. A group of us who've spent a lot of time on those articles have suddenly been told by someone who's never contributed to them that our work is trivia, fancruft, unacceptably sourced (e.g., the show's Website is not a reliable source of information on itself), etc., and two of our sub-pages have been unilaterally nominated for AfD with no prior discussion. An ongoing discussion about article revisions taking place amongst ourselves on the articles' talk pages was apparently ignored. Like you, we would also have been happy to discuss the editor's concerns with him/her ahead of time. Instead, we've been subjected to a unilateral (and, IMO, unreasonable) interpretation of the rules and an utter lack of respect for our work. I wanted you to know that your discussion isn't the only one going on with this person, and any suggestions you might have as to how to deal with this would be appreciated. Thanks, your fellow former Merv Griffin-created game show contestant JTRH (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight and suggestions. If the consensus is to delete the articles, I'll follow your advice. JTRH (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. It's not the substance of her comments that bothers me, it's the attitude she brings with them. If she'd phrased her comments in the form of a suggestion rather than a demand, I might well have taken her advice already. As it stands at the moment, one of her AfD motions is losing narrowly, and the other's losing 6-1. Thanks again. JTRH (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PPS. As I was working on cutting down the pages (which does need to be done), she blocked a vandal who was reverting everything I took out. I expressed my thanks to her. Just wanted to let you know that she and I are now working cooperatively. Hope your experience turns out similarly. JTRH (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Capra quotes

Thanks for your input. I agree with the contention that quotes are best sited in Wikiquotes, and that would have exactly been where I would have placed the Capra quote. Since there was only one, it did not appear to be overtly a major section, I decided to restore and leave the quote in place. If there were a series of quotes or more than one, I would have preferred to move the section to Wikiquotes. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks!

Thanks for the citation information and the clean up. I admit I "cheat" most times and use Wikicite, which I guess hasn't been updated to reflect the new template. I'll make every effort to manually make the changes in the citations that the tool generates. I came upon Drew Casper in the backlog and figured, "Hey, I can fix that one." I like that feeling :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request for Rollback

(copied from here) Well, I have to say I'm impressed. All requests for rollback I've had thus far have been from people that unfortunatly should not have Rollback. You're the first exception to the rule :). The only thing that I'd say is that your number of edits without an edit summary is a little higher than I'd like, but I'm still willing to grant you rollback access ;). _TalkIslander 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1974Jeopardy!Art1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1974Jeopardy!Art1.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

39 weekly Fleming episodes

I didn't bother to cite it in the article, because I only changed the number in the infobox. Broadcasting Weekly, March 31, 1975, confirmed what I'd been told in a response to a message board query when I looked into this a couple of months ago. Best, JTRH (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an article in the 1975 issue of Broadcasting said 39, whereas the ad in the 1974 issue advertised that 36 would be made available. JTRH (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Chronologically, the message board response came to me first, and the Broadcasting piece was the confirmation. JTRH (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

UToC name change

Robert, you may not be aware that Fred R. is in the process of legally changing his name and gender. I don't know who made the edits, but the IP was from NYC. 271828182 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am inclined to keep the record as it was at the time of the game. It avoids confusion. But I figured you might want to know. As for me, I emerged from Fred's last game. 271828182 (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Emerged" is, I think, the least self-congratulatory verb to describe the aftermath of that game. I just noticed, however, that the WP MOS may contradict our inclinations in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 271828182 (talk • contribs) 2008-05-14T12:56:36

By "last" I mean Ramen's last game in 2005. I agree that the MoS stipulation strikes me as arbitrary (as much WP rule mongering does), but I noticed it and figured you should be prepared for what potential edit conflicts may come. 271828182 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Burks bibliography

Re your comment -- Will do, please give me the rest of today (Sunday) to shrink it back down without losing the corrections. (I have to go to work today, but I'll have the spare time to do it). The Tetrast (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maria Callas header

There is a broad consensus at the opera wikiproject. The project's policy is to not include info boxes on opera singer articles (a policy that was made through discussion with broad consensus across project members) I suggest you bring it up there if you feel that Maria Callas should have one. There have been several major problems with info boxes on opera singer articles hense the policy.Nrswanson (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this header anyway? I keep looking at the different versions of the article and I don't really see a header anywhere. Could you enlighten me??? Shahrdad (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. What is the purpose of the header, and why should we or shouldn't we have it there? Thanks Robert! Shahrdad (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Early computer characteristics

My reasoning behind the change was that, without the colour, it is being non-judgemental and does not imply what is "good" or "bad". comment added by TedColes (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maurice Wilkes

I've moved it, but I only asked for more evidence; I didn't object as such. And at the time (I can't remember the numbers) Google showed up a lot more for MVW than MW (but most of the time it changes because of caching). It therefore didn't strike me as an uncontroversial move, so I moved it to the disputed section so I could have more substantial evidence that it was uncontroversial, which you've now provided me with. That was all; I didn't object. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Early computer characteristics

You have a point, although "silly" seems a bit strong. But I don't go all the way with you. Firstly, trying to be less judgemental is surely in the spirit of Wikepedia. Secondly, development is not simply linear. Who is to say whether, as with automobiles, advances that were real progress at the time should now be, in efffect, condemed? TedColes (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But you are discussing simple, uncontentious facts about US presidents, not judgements about which developments led on to the characteristics of today's computers, and you must admit that there is contention around "firsts" in computing (one only has to look at all the energy expended on whether the ABC was a computer or a calculator). Also, there is no doubt that red implies danger, if not "bad" and green the opposite. I am afraid I still think it better to avoid drawing the parallels implied by the original colour coding. TedColes (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On further reflection and research, I find myself more, not less, adherent to my previous view. So we shall have to agree to differ.TedColes (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Von Neumann architecture

OK, fair enough, if that makes it conform to conventions. My reason for inserting it at that early point was that the whole subject matter of the article relates to the First Draft, and yet it is not mentioned until way down the page. TedColes (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Do you think ther might be a case for merging the First Draft article with this one?TedColes (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Checkmate

Hello Robert. Thanks for the message you left at the talk page. please feel free to introduce the disambig as you see fit, I have no problem with that, and I am sure nobody else does. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 23:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dover Beach

Thank you for your comments and additions to the Dover Beach page. I never did like that weasel wording in the intro. Thanks for fixing it. As for the comment about the article sounding like somebody's English paper, I'm not sure what you mean by that. (As the editor of the bulk of the material on this page, I can assure you it is not.) Can you be more specific about your concerns on the discussion page? (Am I wrong, I thought such comments belonged on the discussion page?) Mddietz (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Atanasoff–Berry Computer

You have undone two of my edits that said that the ABC is considered by many to be, in today's terminology, a calculator rather than a computer. Is your concern with what I am saying, or with the way that I have tried to say it?TedColes (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect the fact that you have more experience in editing Wikipedia articles than me, but I am puzzled by your vehemence over this matter and find your intemperate language to be contrary to the guidance in the article on Wikipedia etiquette. However, I agree with you at one level, that the distinction between a computer and a calculator is not very meaningful, but the level of sophistication and level of attribution that you appear to want is, in my view, inappropriate for this type of article. Why make a simple thing complicated?

I am not trying “attack” ABC’s capability and efficacy or to make an abstruse semantic argument, merely to present factual information in a neutral way that clarifies things for an ordinary 21st century reader. Such a person may read in the Wikipedia article on computers that:

The ability to store and execute lists of instructions called programs makes computers extremely versatile and distinguishes them from calculators.

and the article on calculators which includes:

A calculator is an electronic device for performing mathematical calculations, distinguished from a computer by a limited problem solving ability and an interface optimized for interactive calculation rather than programming.

Do you disagree with these statements? If you do not, how can you object to the substance of what I have written? My aim is genuinely to express a neutral point of view, not a biased one. How do you think that we can move forward on this matter?TedColes (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite and constructive response, I will consider what you say.TedColes (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken Messages.

Robert, I take it that you were not commenting upon my additions. Is this correct? William R. Buckley (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fun with Commas

While the year-hyphen-month-hyphen-day method has its appeal, to be sure, if one is spelling out the month, giving the day in numerals, and following that with a comma and the year, another comma should follow the year if the sentence continues. Comma (punctuation)#Grammar, paragraph 10. (contrast the British method of not using any punctuation in many situations, and then sprinkling commas around, especially between the subject and predicate of a non-compound sentence) --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:1992-05-19Jeopardy!Season8LeaderCard.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:1992-05-19Jeopardy!Season8LeaderCard.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:2007-01-11Season23Slate.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2007-01-11Season23Slate.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Beatles banner picture

Which banner still has the French road? I thought I changed them all.--andreasegde (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a comment you sent to User:Kingboyk at 02:48, 13 February 2008. You are right about the French road being on a lot of talk pages (I just checked) but the ones on the project page have been updated.--andreasegde (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy episode status

I realize the value of episode status, however it would be better if the information was included in the versions section. We dont need an entirely dedicated section to status of TAPES. No other show page on Wikipedia has that. Also before that information is included, citations must be found. As far as anyone is concerned it could be made up information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahambrunk (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I should better state that i didnt mean Jeopardy was the only show with this, but it appears to be the only show that has a section dedicated to this which i find ridiculous. The information needs to be included in the sections that talk about the different version of the show. We dont need to do a whole other section on different eras of the show to just talk about tape status, especially if we arent even sure if the info is true. I would leave it be till it could be integrated if the info was cited, but it isnt, therefore it shouldnt be there! If you wanna work on integrating it into the other content and citing it than do so. Until then i will keep reverting it. Grahambrunk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also i think you are letting your "being a fan" for the show Jeopardy stand in the way of article accuracy. Grahambrunk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are letting your being a fan of the show stand in the way. I mention this because you have no idea where these tapes are! I will tell you that for the past year I have interned at a rather large television archive in Miami. We get tons of stuff all the time. Currently we have several very old american versions jeopardy in our possession. We have not really made this public info, had i not mentioned this, you would not have known that. Therefore i believe because the jeopardy episode tapes and reels are spread all over the place at different archives, there is no real way to know where all are. The info should be integrated into the sections that talk about each era of the show! There does not need to be a separate section about the tapes. --Grahambrunk (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are just as guilty of making person accusations. You are letting your joy for the show stand in the way of accuracy. I am not using my personal knowledge because i didnt post anything, i just removed what i knew not to be true. There are NO citations to prove me wrong, so i am within my full power to do so. As for the archive. Very often we get stuff donated to us that has been passed from studio to archive to studio and then eventually donated to us when someone is cleaning out in house programming. I do know that there are Jeopardy stuff there as i have handled them. The Museum of Communications in Chicago has some episodes also. I THINK what we have is on U-matic. Since i am not sure i dont post. But i do know for a fact that what is posted there may not be entirely accurate. I see that you found a source, GOOD! I am not saying this information doesnt belong! I am saying that it should be INTEGRATED into the ARTICLE. --Grahambrunk (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Robert K S. You have new messages at Xymmax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jeopardy!

I see you're very interested in Jeopardy! and help maintain a website for it. Hopefully I'll be on it in the near future...I did my second round tryout in Savannah last week and I think I did really well on everything! Perhaps you'll see me this season. :) Mike H. Fierce! 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)