User talk:Pschemp/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Hi

Thanks for your additions to the Turkish Van page. If you want to help out with the cat breeds project, please check out the cat breeds project page and the associated talk page. And so you know, the {{GFDL} tag for images only needs to be on the image's page, not in the article itself. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 03:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TV and Oriental Shorthairs photos

Do you mind if I crop the photo of your two cats in the window and the pile of OSs, and replace the originals with the cropped ones? I think it would look better if the cats were a larger portion of the picture. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 14:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From an Oriental Shorthair owner - what a lovely pile of cats! My Loki is the other picture on that page. —Morven 17:42, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Purebreds

Actually I had just left my opinion on the purebreed page when I got the note that you had left me a message on my talk page! Thanks for pointing it out, though. Elf | Talk 01:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spunbond

Hi! I saw your modification on the nonwovens page, but I think that spunlaid is a more general term than spunbond. For instance, spunlaid + thermalbonding = spunbond, while spunlaid + hydroentanglement = spunlace. Hugus 18:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:SEMexample.jpg

Cool image. I added it to a few more articles (Fiber, Polyester). Since you have access to a SEM, do you have any other images of other fibers/stuff that you could release as GFDL? Doesn't have to be feature material, but I think there are a lot of articles that would benefit from a reeeeaaaly close look. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 01:08, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Tableloom.jpg

Is that your loom? Lovely work! [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heartful Thanks

Pschemp, my heartful thanks for the pictures you found about the martyrii in the Romanian Orthodox Church article. They are superb and you are nice! - irismeister 18:47, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Whisker

Hi, P,
While the rich lore of cats is not one of my interests, i know there are three things WP thrives on: diversity among editors, expertise, and the diversity within each editor's ambit that always results from each specialization being related to a surprising number of other areas of knowledge. So i say that each colleague is more than just another colleague: rather, a nearly inevitable future collaborator.

I don't even remember how i happened to take an interest in Whisker, but in any case i want to offer a few pieces of WP lore:

  • Actually, WP prefers a sober everyday term over a technical one, at least in article titles.
  • Titles should be singular noun phrases rather than plural, in the absence of strong reasons to the contrary.

(With regard to both of those, i'll repeat Meelar's welcoming counsel to you,

Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.

bcz when you get into MoS, you'll come upon Wikipedia:Naming conventions which explicitly covers both of those principles.)

  • I haven't yet sorted out the history of the article you moved/renamed, and probably someone before you did it wrong: the measures you used for renaming may have been perfect. (Article names should be changed using the "Move" or "Move this page" tool, which is linked by the screen you are reading and, i think, every inprotected editable page in WP.) But it's a common mistake, and the tool has multiple steps to keep you from moving a page before you are sure you want to, so just click on that link and carefully read its instructions -- unless you seriously studied and understood the cautions already. (If you're interested enough, see also Wikipedia:Move.) In any case, please don't try to reverse what you did or fix the prior damage; it will take admin action, and further non-admin moves could just muddy the water and complicate the recovery.

I know you'll work out the balance that's right for you between boldness and RTFM, and i look forward to our inevitable next collaboration! [smile]
--Jerzy(t) 19:19, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Thanks for your reassuring response. I'm not sure where we'll end up with it, but it's good that you're more sophisticated about the issues involved than i realized.

And thanks for explaining that you merged, rather than bungling a move. It is not at all unusual to find such a merge needing admin attention, because the subject of merges is a lot more esoteric than that of moves; oddly enough, it's discussed at Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves (and its talk page). Although i think there was a proper move done once, the need for an admin-fix started at the point when both versions had been revised at least once (or when the second was created, if its content was not that of any of the existing versions of the first). Your overwriting of one version with a redirect was natural, and at worst went against an especially obscure piece of info. And your attention to the redirects is admirable and was no doubt adequate.

I'll try to say this without taking unfair advantage of it: your misspelling the singular, twice, in your reply suggests the kind of barriers against access to the material that IMO the guideline is intended to avoid. Let's talk some more about that; we'll work something out without going away angry.

As to the content, the only question i have there is about recasting the language about the sensory role from singular to plural. I originally changed it to singular, not bcz the article was then plural (tho it may have been), but because of logical errors inherant in the plural version i found, and i want to see if you managed to avoid reintroduced similar misstatments -- i haven't yet studied your wording. I would certainly want you to collaborate in my search for wording that is accurate (and hopefully less awkward than my original version), to benefit from your greater technical background.

Oh, yes, almost forgot: IMO "true whiskers" vs. whatever sounds like a good aspect for the article to discuss, maybe as separate sections. Imagine the article discussing what the average cat-naive reader would be intending to include, in saying "whiskers". Could i be right in imagining that content would justify to you having the article title being Whisker or Whiskers (with Vibrissa and Vibrissae as redirects)? And maybe "Non-sensory whiskers" or "Non-specialized whiskers" as one section, and something like "Vibrissae: true whiskers" as another? IMO that distinction is encyclopedically significant, if i am grasping at all what you've said.

It still probably will help for me to merge the histories before we try to perfect the content, and i won't do any content changes in that process.
Thanks,
--Jerzy(t) 00:16, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

My guess is that Mozilla may be to blame for your crash, but i was also having trouble in this time frame: i couldn't get a copy of my talk page's history that was up to date and got some no-answer screens , so for the bad data i think we can blame the server; probably a developer doing what hardware guys call a smoke test.

Re the above strikeout: Duh, i had a my-contribs window open, and didn't notice that it was my 2nd-most-recent 50 edits. [blush]

Now you've embarrassed me by being the first to say the truth so clearly: the exact title isn't very important. Still, i think, tho it isn't worth fighting about, we should try to come up with the best title, and (besides my feeling guilty if end up with the sense of having browbeat you into doing it my way), i hope you won't completely fold!

BTW, let me emphasize that including non-vibs is not a ploy to finesse the title question: it's only a good idea if it adds to the article; your initial take was that it detracts; and i trust your final opinion on that more than my own. If you weigh that proposal and it looks better than you thot it would, let's talk it thru; if not, i consider your original argument to be awaiting better counterarguments than i've offered yet.

I misspoke when i said Whisker, bcz IMO that should remain a dab, with its plural probably redirecting to it (per principle of minimum surprise). If Whisker (mammals) stays a redir, you're right to the extent that it would be better for it never to have existed. But one of the reasons that WP:RfD doesn't have its job done on WP:VfD is the principle that actual harm from a Redir has to be shown in order to delete it, since any title that lasts a significant time (and i've never heard a lower limit mentioned!) can become the target of a link from outside WP (probably within a Web-search engine that crawls WP at the right time), and we want to keep such links from turning into dead links. (And a few of even random links are actually considered a good thing, unless the result is badly misleading.) So i'm almost certain that all of these titles are around to stay, mostly as redirs and in some cases perhaps redirects that are monuments to cluelessness.

Hey, i look forward to the vibs of Phocidae and manatees, about which i am even more ignorant!
--Jerzy(t) 04:31, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)


Just a quick note to say the article on cats' whiskers is very interesting (no matter what the title ;) -- Tarquin 11:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yawning cat

Hi, I've uploaded your picture of the yawning cat to commons, just thought I would let you know. Great picture, by the way. Pilaf 02:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Manx (cat)

Good to see you're working on Manx (cat). That article has been the subject of a long dispute on its talk page; please try to consult what's been discussed before making any controversial edits. Cheers. The JPS 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read the hideous editing history and am trying to make the article clear about what does and doesn't happen. Much of the English uses poor grammar which I think contributes to confusing statements and obscured facts. I'm sure that my edits will be considered controversial by those with much emotion invested in the article, however, I am trying to make it neutral and factual. It needs help. Pschemp 21:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The article does attention. The bad English is a concern; I've always been aware whilst I've been moderating this discussion that POV could be disguised within ambiguous, poorly constructed sentences. If you can make it neutral and factual, that's excellent. The core of the dispute revolves around the need for verifiable sources, rather than personal experience. The JPS 22:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Glad to have you working on the article. This article really needs more users working on it. I liked most of your changes, however, not all. For instance, the word tailless is used way to much. Becomes very repetetive to read it all the time. And by the way, you had lots of typos yourself :) Either way, you're welcome.
EliasAlucard|Talk 02:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
My issue was with the grammar (word choice, order etc..), not the typos (spelling). I have never claimed to be a great speller. Also, tailless is used in the phrase "mutant tailless gene" and others and is not any more repetative than the word Manx. Its a moot point. Pschemp 00:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(discussion moved to article talk)

BRAVO!

A big thank you for all the time and work spent on the Manx cat article. It's nice to have another cat breeder/exhibitor join me there. I hope we can make plans to meet at the Annual or at a show sometime soon.

06:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Romania and show cats

First off, hi! To answer your question on my talk page, my first trip to romania was as part of a church group (well the first few trips). The longest was as an exchange student. I speak romanian pretty well though written it a much harder for me. In regards to the Show cat article, I think you misunderstood what was in the article originally and in my modification of it. The higher rate of specific helth problems in some cat breeds is a fact of science. This is not to imply that pedegree cats are unhealthy as a rule but it is something that breeders have to spend a lot of resources on and so it is very relavent to the article. I think yoru vet friends probbly ment that the helth problems are managable and that most of the unhealthy animals are not keep in the population or sold as pets. I have included a list of specific problmes by breed on the talk page and will not change the article back untill you have had a chance to look at the list. My problem with the article as it stands (othr than it being factually incorrect with the use of the word misconception) is that it reads like an advertisment for people to get into purebred cats, brushing the concernes away as a just a misconception. Dalf | Talk

Removing pictures...

Enlarge
Enlarge

I can't help but disagree with your assessment of my photographs. I believe the cat depicted is on-target for the breed standard. Certainly his vet's expert opinion supports my own layman's opinion.

I also wanted to apologize: I do not yet understand 'ownership' and 'sharing' in Wiki articles. Maybe you were offended that I just leapt in and added the pictures without asking first; I'm sorry if I missed a cue for etiquette there.

I do highly recommend adding my photographs back to your article. They are richly colored and, again, I think they illustrate breed standard fairly well.

Thanks! Auliya | Talk

11:45 PM - Sunday, August 07, 2005

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

The quotation you altered is found, both on the web and in print, in both versions -- "seldom" and "rarely." I haven't tracked down either original quotation -- but suspect she actually said/wrote both versions in different venues. Can you think of any reason to prefer either version over the other? Comments welcome. WBardwin 07:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


I changed it because the seldom version is the one I have printed on my bumper sticker that is copyrighted by her. It says "copyright Laurel Thatcher Ulrich 2004" underneath the quote. Also, I took a look around at all the web sites actually written by her and it says "seldom". Pschemp 15:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your wholesale reversions at Maine Coon and Maine Coon/gallery

  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a storage bin for pet snapshots. On its own, Maine Coon/gallery is not an encyclopedic topic. (See WP:NOT.)
  2. Subpages (or psuedo-subpages) are not used in the main namespace.
  3. If it is decided that there are too many pictures in an article, which is perfectly valid, then the images can be stored on the Wikimedia Commons and linked to using the {{Commons}} template, as I explained in my edit summary. (In the mean time, including them in the article is superior to this archaic gallery on a seperate page. Personally, I don't find eight images to be a problem when the gallery function is used.)
  4. The next time you decide to revert someone, please check the diff to see if they made any other useful edits besides the one you are reverting for.—jiy (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. The gallery was created as a compromise to a real problem we were facing, so it's good that people like you are there so that others don't come in and undo everything we worked hard to create based on their interpretations of policy that must be enforced at all costs. Maybe he should have looked at the discussion first as much as you shuld have looked at the diff (which I am sure you did).Gator (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There's some discussion about this issue on the Maine Coon talk page. Your input would be appreciated.Gator (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Gee jiy, I think that you completely violated the agreed upon consensus and therefore don't deserve this vitrol. Throwing policy at people won't win them to your point of view. Pschemp 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Please reread point four to get a sense of where the vitriol is coming from. Wholesale reversions that destroy edits unrelated to what you are reverting for is offensive. For instance, you reverted my lowercasing of the "Health Considerations" header, an edit I made based on a well-established Wikipedian guideline, and for what reason did you revert it? I was fully aware of the talk page discussions when I boldy made my edit. Did you even attempt to understand what I meant when I said "if there are too many pics use the {{commons}} template" in my edit summary? Obviously I knew of the consensus concerning the number of pictures in the article, otherwise I would not have thrown that in there.—jiy (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your continued help is apprecaited as jiy doesn't seem to want to let this one go no amtter what consensus is. Policy has been iterpreted differently than he'd like and he just doesn;t want to accept the consensus here. Thanks for the continued help.Gator (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My lesson is to go directly to AfD instead of trying to reason with the article owners who brand you as a terrorist and organize a two-man posse when their precious "consensus" is challenged. You telling me to be polite is the pot calling the kettle black.—jiy (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I have freely and previously admitted I was impolite in reaction to your impoliteness. YOU could have edited in a way to avoid the whole conflict, but you did not. In the future you may want to keep this guidline in mind: (quoted from be bold)"In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.
If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references." Pschemp 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I have read and understand WP:BOLD. Please don't quote it out of context. That passage is specifically referring to text within controversial subjects like abortion. Neither of which this article falls under. I read the talk page discussions on Maine Coon before my edit and didn't find them to be particularly arduous, and I considered posting to the talk page before making my edits, but based on past experience didn't believe it would garner much input. My edits were made in the spirit of be bold in updating pages and remain in that spirit. I didn't think my edits would be this controversial, thinking of them more as janitorial than a major edit, even when taking the talk page discussions into consideration. I was wrong. There are plenty of things we all could have done to avoid the whole conflict, but hindsight is 20/20. I'm sorry for my mistakes. It's time to stop mulling over the past and move on.—jiy (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/s/c/User_talk%7EPschemp_Archive_1_c36f.html"