User talk:JulesH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Marky48's warning to me

Please refrain from leaving accusations of bias an inaccuracy on my talk page. These are attacks on my work and my character and thus personal, and in violation of the policy.Marky48 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JulesH" Posted in the wrong spot by accident.Marky48 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, discussion of the content you have posted to wikipedia is not a personal attack. Inaccurate and biased content is inaccurate and biased content, regardless of who added it to the article. JulesH 10:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the article was innacurate except for your conflict of interest with the players in the piece and the fact that it's a vendetta for your friends.Marky48 02:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please see my talk

- CrazyRussian talk/email 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Different to/from

Thanks for your message. The edit summary I've been leaving is actually slightly misleading - I've only been changing "different than" (which is always incorrect). I agree with you that "different to" is wholly acceptable, and I haven't (nor will I be) changed any of those. I'll change the edit summary in future. Waggers 20:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That Word

I Googled "bifrication," and it apparently is a word, used (among other things) to mean the fallacy of "only two possible outcomes." (It has other meanings in engineering and cardiology.) I keep wanting to quote Inigo Montoya at him: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Honestly, though, I've having a hard time deriving any coherent argument from certain recent remarks, so I can't tell whether the word is used correctly or not. Karen 09:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected! :) I thought of "bifurcation" from the first, but when I saw the Google hits I wrongly concluded that the other spelling was legitimate also. But I still don't think it means what he thinks it means. I'll be shutting up now. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

English words can mean what users say they do online. It's the nature of the contrarian society we live in. My useage of "Bifurcation" is correct. Get more ammo because my assertions are true. Marky48 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disemvoweling

You might want to go over to Disemvoweling and check out Marky48's latest tomfoolery. He's edit-warring over the history of the term -- and he's reached his limit of three per day. --Calton | Talk 04:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for enhancing disemvowel at Wiktionary! I've done part of what you suggested, and explained there why I'm leaving out the rest. – SAJordan talkcontribs 09:07, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Barbara Bauer

Sorry... I missed the prior deletion notice on the talk page since it was hidden under the other boxes. :( It's not at all clear to me as a random reader, while reading the intro or really the rest of it.. why the subject is interesting. Could it perhaps be made more clear? It would make more sense to me if we had an article on the company rather than the person... is there a reason that our article is about her rather than her company? --Gmaxwell 15:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look in the history, you'll see there was quite a bit more information about Bauer and her habit of making spurious legal threats against people who quote her name in relation to the Writer Beware list of worst agents. It's currently not in there because the only sources we have for it are self-published (although at least one meets the description of acceptable self-published sources on WP:V), and previous editors have taken exception to that. It'll be back in shortly. JulesH 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks for stepping in. I really shouldn't have taken Marky48's bait. I let his last slam against me stand, and I shouldn't have responded last night while I was tired. Oh, and a hearty "what you said." (grin) On a similar topic, there is some information about a judgment against an someone on the 20 Worst Agents list. I'm watching this to see if it is indeed true. No use opening another can o' worms until there's a chance the lid can be put back on. St jb 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Update - Look here [1]. This links to court dockets, and uses a blog source that has been approved. Is that enough to revive at least one of the 20 worst?

[edit] Redirect on Event Driven Architecture page

I don't think Event Driven Programming is necessarily the same as Event Driven Architecture - unless you believe that IT architecture is not a valid discipline. Architecture defines the framework and concepts, while programming realises and implements them. I don't think a preemptive redirect on the Event Driven Architecture page is appropriate. It would be better to flag this on the dicussion page for the article prior to making this change. Peter Campbell Talk! 23:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the article as it stands doesn't really make a lot of sense, whereas the Event-driven programming article describes exactly what it seemed to be talking about, and does define the "framework and concepts" of event-driven systems in general. The merge was proposed with a box on the article page over two weeks ago; it isn't as if I just suddenly decided to do this. Please feel free to revert my changes if you feel they are wrong; I certainly won't be offended. But I do think something drastic does need to be done with the article as it stands. It really is hard to read if you're not familiar with what it's talking about already. JulesH 07:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the the article, the discussion page about the merge did not reach consensus on merging it. However, the article does need a rewrite. It needs to be much clearer about what EDA is and cite references. I have had a first go at sorting this out. Peter Campbell Talk! 00:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Good work. Makes a lot more sense that it should be an independent article now, since it discusses in-depth interactions between components. I think as the concepts are so closely related, though, there should be something at the top of each page like "this article discusses the use of events in the design of information processing systems; for details of the programming design pattern that uses events see Event-driven programming" or something like that. I also think the article's good enough now that you can remove the stub marker, if you're happy with that. JulesH 08:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : AfD//Disemvoweling

There are some newly-registered accounts and one IP voting keep, so they had to be discounted. In any case, 66% (2:1 ratio) IMO still falls short of consensus if strictly speaking, which is at least 70%. In any case you don't have to worry since no consensus always defaults to a keep. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

It appears we were thinking the very same thing at the very same time. I have never had an edit conflict be with a comment of such a similar nature before :) I guess I should start actually reading edit conflicts instead of just quickly posting behind them.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WYSIWYG

WikiThanks

Thanks for fixing the WYSIWYG article! We appreciate it! Shinobu 06:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] self-published

Thanks for taking the time to see what was saying. So, how do we go about changing the policy? Do we hold a vote or something? JoeMystical 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't a clue. I've been trying to get a more rational version of the self-published sources policy together for a while, but there seems to be very few who actually care, and enough people who care about maintaining the status quo that it's a tricky one. JulesH 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. So, let's write a policy for self-published sources being used as sources of what the ideas of the self-publishers are. Then we can post it and let people vote with "Yes" or "No". What do you think? If it's totally rational I don't see why it would fail. It's just a self-evident truth that a self-published source is reliable for that. JoeMystical 20:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'll copy the current section to User:JulesH/Self Published Sources/Proposed Text, then we can make changes to it until we're happy. JulesH 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject CS

Hi! Just noticed that you have signed on as a participant in WikiProject Computer science, and wanted to welcome you to the project. Please stop by the project talk page to see what the other participants have on their minds right now, and to add your own thoughts. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perl 6 Good Article Review

I just want to thank you for helping out with the reviewing of the Perl 6 article. Having someone with the right background knowledge goes a long way towards improving the overall quality of the review process and again, we appreciate the help. We do get a bit of Tech articles put up for GA nomination from time to time, if you are ever interested in reviewing just stop by the candidate's page or drop me line. Take care! Agne 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core policies?

Since you were part of the earlier debate about this on WT:ATT, please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:List of policies. Thank you. (Radiant) 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca in July. You may want to review/comment at User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns.-- Jreferee 22:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/l/User_talk%7EJulesH_e716.html"