User talk:R. Koot/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Thank you

I was just reading at WP:MOSHEAD. Thank you for correcting my mistakes on Algorithm with respect to the headers. I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and didn't realize headings should be in sentence case rather than title case. Again, thanks! /* Pradeep Arya 12:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC) */

[edit] Hi

Hi Rudy, you seem to be back, or so I hope. :) Note that it is possible to restore your user page history, so if you feel so inclined, let me know. Happy belated new year! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems I miss Wikipedia more than I hate it (don't know if that's good or not?) A happy and hopefully stress-free year to you as well! --—R. Koot 17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you back Rudy. Paul August ☎ 17:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Rudy! --Allan McInnes 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome back :-) --HappyCamper 19:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Rudy, I'm glad that you are back. Regards, --Carl Hewitt 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of mind

What is the point of this edit? Did you mean to post it on the talk page? —Ruud 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To show by analogy how the mind works; according to LeDoux. Yesselman 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User asm-N

[1] Template:User asm-N

Why the changing of the Assembler userbox? Last Avenue 17:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this way it looks like something I want on my user page and is a bit more consistent with the other userboxes. I you prefer the old text, however, might I suggest you use a custom box as described on Wikipedia:Userboxes? Cheers, —Ruud 17:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Programming#Other_Languages Ah, now I see. Maybe the User asm should be the current text and User asm-N the old one? Last Avenue 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Hope you had a good wikivacation! linas 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy portal

In what way do you think these links self-referential? Banno 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

They refer to a page which is not in article space. It would be better to put {{philosophy}} on the talk page. —Ruud 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I too, don't understand why you are doing this. Please explain how having the philosophy portal link on the article page is any different than the portals on uncounted other Wiki articles. And how is the portal self-referential? It calls attention to other articles, not to Wikipedia itself, which is what WP:ASR is talking about. --Blainster 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the portal links form, in my opinion, a form of internal spam (they don't add encyclopedic value but only help readers find additional "services") and should therefore be used carefully, e.g. only on category pages and talk pages. Take for example the René Descartes article. He was apart from a philosohper, also a mathematician and scientist and would therefore have three portal templates in the article. This was the first times I saw these portal links used so widely. You won't find them in articles on mathematics, physics or computer science, for example. Finally the templates were placed without great care and often disrupted the layout of text and images. Cheers, —Ruud 23:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about layout problems or some such but WP:ASR does not prevent or proscribe wikilinking - i.e. the "service" we provide to readers who would like to find out more about the topics around the article in question. Now, portals (such as the philosophy portal) are very useful tools to find more germane information about a topic being researched (and is little more than one big wikilink). Consequently, linking a portal does not violate WP:ASR. Please don’t remove portal templates Mikkerpikker 00:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am incline to agree with Ruud; there is a tendency to over-do the linking of Wiki pages, to add more and more navigation tools. I would be happy to have the portal link only on, say, the top ten philosophy pages. But in any case, perhaps we should move this discussion off Ruud's talk page? Banno 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, IF there is a case to be made here it cannot be made ito WP:ASR. What's wrong with wikilinking anyway? The reader can simply ignore it when not interested but it provides links to article that one would otherwise not know existed & saves a lot of time when researching. Mikkerpikker 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion portals fall under Wikipedia:Avoid self references#Community and website feature references as they are not article content, but meta-data. (Although I must admit that as a computer scientist I'm quite strict in not mixing these things). The real problem is that this template looses it's function when, for example, one prints the page. I also do not agree that removing the link makes doing reseach much harder. Wikilinks and the see also section should already provide links to articles which are relevant. I you want to look at philosophy in a broader perspective one could always use the category links at the bottom, where one would find the link to the portal. Cheers, —Ruud 09:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with that interpretation of the policy, and to clear up the issue, I've started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Use_of_portal_links_on_websites. Many portal-savvy folks hang out there, and I think it's the right place to discuss the topic. --Slashme 11:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mathematics Collaboration of the Week

Thank you for your nomination of Elliptic geometry. However, you forgot to sign your nomination!--Fenice 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micro-Soft

Hi - don't worry about it too much - if it was in the old version of the article I'll be sure to be it in the new one. Also, sorry about the large revert :\. If you have any suggestions be sure to let me know :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SimonP

Hey - no problem. Simon's a great guy, actually. The reason I'm opposing is that according to his candidate statement he thinks he can do this in his "extra" wikipedia time which I highly doubt (and especially if we want arbcom members to process cases faster this is not really ideal) add that to the fact that it would seriously detract from his insanely great editing it makes him not really the ideal arbcom candidate. A fantastic editor and person though, so if you want to support go ahead, as there are plenty of reasons to! WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] page moves

Hello. You seem to be making some odd page moves. In particular: Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/B6 doesn't make sense. -- Curps 21:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The location does seem a bit funny yes, but please read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Hot#Leftovers. Cheers, —Ruud 21:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
D'oh, sorry. Copy/paste error. —Ruud 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vacuum/Xiong's stats

Unfortunately I cannot move it back to the old title without receiving an error. I moved the page to my userspace because it was an orphan. You're welcome to move it anywhere you choose, just make sure it's linked to by a frequented Wikipedia page. Sincerely, {{User:Vacuum/sig}} 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using Words like "Cruft" in Edit Commentaries, biting Wiki Newcomers & Avoiding Sourcing

Dear R. Root, requesting that you stop fighting with Wikipedia newcomers like Theo, or starting revert wars with POV anti-astrology views. Please refer to Wikipedia policy on biting newcomers. Suggest you discuss the subject intelligently, and avoid nit-picking with Wiki-newcomers. This would be much appreciated. Thanks.Theo 22:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Theo's been here a month. The "stop biting me, I'm a naive newbie" line is wearing hair-thin. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you review Wikipedia's guidelines on biting newcomers Bunchofgrapes, and cease with the jabs. As a English-based Wikipedia administrator, your negative attitude, and hostilty to newcomers doesn't help. It also does not help you to be approachable because of the kind of things you say above as an administrator. Suggest you behave, please, and assume good faith with new Wikipedians. A month is 30 days, Bunchofgrapes, and not a very long time, and you haven't been much help from the get-go. Please keep your poor attitude, biases, assumptions, and negative one-liners to yourself, and pretending you know me. You do not. A month may seem like centuries to you, but to us Wikipedia newcomers, it is not very long at all. Try being of some positive help to us rather than coming off as a cynical snob, because that's how you come off to us "naive newbies." I could use your help on some matters. Questions, better ways to do things, etc. But, You haven't been of much help as a Wikipedian admin to us "naive newbies", as you call us. I'm a 19-year veteran journalist, and you know, there are reporters in here, Bunchofgrapes, who do publish outside Wikipedia, on Wikipedia as a subject. Please try a softer tone, and be of assistance. I've made some common mistakes here, and could've used more guidance from an admin like you. A more open approach would have reduced those mistakes. That may help us newcomers - and Wikipedia - more than you know. Thanks.Theo 02:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need you to look over something

Hi,

I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [2] Thank you. --Chris Brennan 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding Wikipedia policy

Hello! I've been hopping around Wikipedia for a while now, and occasionally I happen across a few userpage edits with the comment "Do not remove messages from your user talk page", referencing the link WP:UP .

However, curiously, I've not found anything on that page that talks specifically about removal of messages from one's talk page. Forgive me if I'm a bit blind about it.

Would you care to enlighten me regarding the location of the stated policy about it? Many thanks. Daniel Davis 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

I believe it once said something like do not remove messages from your talk page without responding to them, unless they are personal attacks. But it is not there right now. Maybe I was referring to another page, I'll look it up. Cheers, R.Koot 12:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] al-Khawarazmi

  • أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي

is tranlated as : Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī

Abu abd allah Muhammad bin Musa al-Khawarazmi

the other name : Abu Ja'far is tranlated as : أبو جعفر

but after i have reviewed some refrences , it is clear that the first one is more widely accepted as name of Alkhawarzmi but it is ok to mention the second name besides . i will try to search for the reason of this conflict .

you are always welcome , Dear R.Koot --Unfinishedchaos 15:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. R.Koot 23:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacTutor template

Do you realize that your change to Template:MacTutor Biography has broken all pages that use it, for instance Aristotle? By the way, I haven't said so yet but I'm glad that you've returned here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I need to do something with those conditional parameters, but don't know how it works yet. I hoped someone else would fix it :) R.Koot 22:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It should work now. —Ruud 23:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Never expect somebody else to fix something that you can fix yourself :) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That's the wrong way of saying it. Jitse, never tell others to fix their mess if you can fix it for them! :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. However, the if is relevant: I couldn't have fixed it as I don't know about all these template tricks. Actually, I thought that all the pages in which the template was used had to be changed, so I'm quite happy I haven't done that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with myself. That was a joke. The serious matter is that one should fix after himself/yourself. :) That's the first thing one need to learn as a child: clean up your mess, baby!. If more people would follow that, the world would be a much better place. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please don't move Theo's comments yet

Hey, Rudy, please don't move Theo's comments on the RFC yet! He's still editing, and I've written to him, asking him to move them himself. Please give him a chance to do that. You'll only get edit conflicts by editing at the same time. See my note to him, crossposted on the RFC talk and Theo's user talk. -Bishonen | talk 13:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

Alright. From the history page it seems he stopped editing 15 minutes ago so I assumed it was safe. R.Koot 13:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding your Avoiding Sourcing & Your Instant Revert Warring

Dear R. Koot, would like to know why you continue to revert back on the Astrology page that is unsourced, from my cited sourced version. If you must do so, it would be kind of you to use the Talk Page, rather than to engage in your POV in the edit summaries, which is your POV, by the way. Thanks.Theo 14:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV. R.Koot 14:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are continuing the same thing you've done from the very start. How can you claim to be NPOV without sourcing, yet, you will enter your point of view without citing sources? One-line, or one-word responses are not being open, nor balanced, R. Koot, and if you review your comments on the Algorithm Talk Page, for instance, it would be preferable if you would put a clamp on the cynical comments, and explain what you consider POV in an intelligent manner. This would help greatly. Thanks.Theo 15:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrit. R.Koot 15:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would you write such a thing?Theo 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep trolling? R.Koot 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you either become a serious Wikipedian, or refrain from your instant reverts please. That would help greatly to improve things. Thanks.Theo 15:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[For the record, I did provide a source, namely al-Khwarizmi's biography at the MacTutor archive. Other sources I've read are consistent with it, including Encylopædia Britannica. Theo, however, has refused to quote from his source. —Ruud 16:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)]

Really? Suggest you re-read the Talk Page, and the article I edited. Does adding sources, and citing them sound like a refusal? I suggest you are up to something nefarious, not honest, and clearly hostile to a newcomer with fresh eyes who has not been part of a clique. Note: you provided a "link" - not a source.Theo 17:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Would kindly suggest, again, R. Koot, that you please stop reverting the Astrology Page back to the unsourced article. Thanks.Theo 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And I would kindly request, Theo, that you please stop reverting the astrology page and discuss the (substantial) changes you wish to make on the talk page. —Ruud 19:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you have missed them. They have been there for a month or so. Besides, my changes are sourced, and cited. Try assuming good faith rather than engaging in revert wars, which, from my understanding, is exactly what you've been doing. I don't believe you.Theo 19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] oh my god

The hostility was so out-of-nowhere, juvenile, and uncalled for that methought "this editor MUST be troublesome with others". The rfc seems to back that up. Marskell 20:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special characters

ÿ and æ are still available under "Latin/Roman", and considering the rareness of their use in French and German I think it's really unnecessary to have them in the special sections for French and German special characters. And ä ö ü are "real" umlauts. Those are the characters associated with the umlaut keys of a German keyboard. You will probably never find a German text written in Unicode where the characters ő and ű are used for ö and ü, though there are very probably designer fonts in which the glyphs for ö and ü look more like ő and ű. --Angr (tɔk) 12:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Its my understanding that a block only prevents you from editing, not from viewing pages. The message is supposed to help people find paths to resolving a bad block, but isn't the only path. A blocked user can still edit their user pages to place {{unblock}}, which places their page under a special category requesting an unblock...or view Category:Administrators and select another from that list. Neither of those are particularily new-user friendly though, I'm afraid, because they are somewhat arcane. In any case, I wasn't trying to make light of your recent situation. :( --Syrthiss 21:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for adding the category to Empirical process. How does one add a category to an article; I'd like to know how. Thanks again. MathStatWoman 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of replying on MathStatWoman's page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Astronomy

Thanks for your courtesy in in forming me, and for watching over Astronomy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

Thanks for the encouraging words on Kelly Martin's talk page. Yes I am only one person who used only one user name, and I am a woman, hence I am she, not s(he).  :-). My latest comments are on Kelly Martin's talk page. I am very sad about all this misunderstanding and the possibility that I will be blocked, but it will not keep me from sharing use of computers with others. Cheers and thanks MathStatWoman 17:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP CS

Thanks for your help in getting Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science into better shape. I like the new project template! --Allan McInnes 20:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer science

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dzonatas (talk • contribs).

I'll be sure not to violate it. —Ruud 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haskell programming language

Hi R.Koot, welcome to editing Haskell programming language! We seem to disagree slightly about "that ridiculously ugly thing" which had the calming green colour and which tried to be helpful in warning readers about a potential pitfall. There's something about the note on Talk:Haskell programming language already, perhaps you should chime in there. --TuukkaH 16:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed policy

Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 specific verses:

--Victim of signature fascism 20:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for the Barnstar! It's nice to be appreciated :-) --Allan McInnes 03:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hello

Hi Rudy. Nice picture! Regards: --Powo 23:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cartoons

Why did you remove the image when protecting the page? —Ruud 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I've put the image in the body of the article as a temporary compromise until consensus emerges re position. Let me know if you don't agree with this asap. --File Éireann 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autofellatio

Hi, thanks for the message on my Talk page. I'm sorry it wasn't clear why I reverted the image. I used the "rollback" feature to rv the change.

Unfortunately, the rollback feature does not include a place for the edit summary, only the information who is being reverted and to what version. As Scm mentioned, this topic has been discussed already on the Article Talk page. A very similar image of an person fellating themself is on the MediaWiki bad file list and cannot be displayed inline. The drawing has been deemed OK to be shown throw a link, but not an actual image on the page. Johntex\talk 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... Interesting. I sort of do mind, actually, because of WP:POINT, as SCM also points out. We have to remember that anything we do in the article space is visible to all readers, and not just editors, or administrators, or whoever we happen to be in a debate with. That would also include mirrors that come along at just the right/wrong time. I really do appreciate your civility, though. Johntex\talk 04:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TSP

Why does the traveling salesman problem need to be on the top?? I suggest an alfabetical order!! It's more logical. (KTL 15:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Alphabetical order is fine with me as well. I found this page neither in alphabetical order, nor order of importance. I did not want to spent time alphatizing the list so decided to go with the latter. Cheers, —Ruud 20:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MATLAB/WikiProjects

I was unsure about putting the WikiProject CS notice on MATLAB when I was going through my watchlist tagging. It's a programming language, and other programming languages certainly deserve the tag. I wouldn't think of the tag as a "territory grab" (as though no other WikiProject can claim its relevance), but I'll leave it off as dubious. In the end, I think most computer scientists would be embarassed about the program, so it's best this way. :) --Mgreenbe 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I will post something about this on WP CS soon. This template is used mainly for advertisment purposes not "claiming ownership". Therefore is is not really necessary to put it on each end every page only those with a large audience of computer scientist. I'm currently thinking about programming languages. The Haskell programming language mostly of interest to computer scientist, but I don't think putting it on Java programming language would be a good idea as it would more likely than not attract the "wrong" audience (programming language discussions would most likely flood the talk page making discussions on other CS topics hard). Cheers, —Ruud 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joke's RfA

Hi Rudy, I feel ashamed spoiling this perfect talk page. But, thanks for your support in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship Vote

I want to sincerely thank you for voting on my adminship nomination. Whenever I mess up, please let me know. I want to learn from my mistakes so they don't become patterns. Superm401 - Talk 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject orange

I didn't realize that there was a standard Wikiproject color :-) --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Nightstallion, it appears there is. —Ruud 20:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
So I see. Well, good luck to him in getting all of the project userboxes "standardized". I suspect he'll have a few fights on his hands. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dzonats' 3RR

I spoke with Dzonatas on freenode today about his 3RR block, which was reduced around 1am UTC to only 12 hours. It seems to me like a lot of discussion has fallen into an unfortunate pattern. But:

  • He recognizes now that a calm discussion would have clarified the issue; the dispute would have been resolved easily.
  • At the same time, both he and I agree that your poll was premature. (Based on the HEC idea of holding back on edits — as long as an hour, they say. I've come to see this as incredibly good advice.)

So, on the one hand, the local dispute seems resolved. Which is great; it's very tempting to put the whole thing on the list of lamest edit wars ever. On the other much larger and perhaps gigantism-affected hand, I hope that you see this 3RR incident not as an proof positive of Dzonatas' malfeasance, but instead as a milestone on the road to harmonious editing. The template issues frustrated everybody; if we all hold back responses just a little, I think things will go much more smoothly. Cheers! --Mgreenbe 01:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICT/ICT-branche

Why should nl:ICT-branche be merged with nl:ICT (I think you mean nl:Informatie- en Communicatietechnologie, and not the redirect). There are two different concept and two fine articles that can coexist together. Maybe you can give your argumentation on the talk page of ICT-branche so that we can discuss it. nl:Gebruiker:SanderSpek

[edit] Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact, Chairman, 12:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

[edit] Other names for large numbers

I changed my vote per your extensive rundown. I don't know what I was thinking. Savidan 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have changed my vote to "delete". Thank you for informing me about your own research regarding the article. Best wishes. Dustimagic! (T/C) 15:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He was Persian

--That has been long established, whether he was Muslim or not is conjecture , thus we should not insert unsupported assertions in the article. Astriolok 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No , none of the source provide credible evidence , some think he could have been Muslim, but no evidence . What we do know is that is was Persian.--Astriolok 01:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the talk page for earlier discussions on this topic.--Astriolok 02:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination)

Despite the overwhelming support for keeping the list in article namespace, the above relisting was closed early. At Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual place_names, the deletion is being reviewed once more (to restore the list from Wikipedia to article namespace (it's currently at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names). -- User:Docu

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

A final decision has been reached in this case, and it has been closed.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he didn't take it well. --bmills 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a disappointing reaction :-( Based on some of the interactions I had with Carl during the arbitration case, it seemed like the arbitration had prompted him to adopt a more harmonious editing style. I was hopeful that we might actually be able to collaborate on getting some of the concurrency articles beaten into shape once the arbitration was over. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corporal

You say in your user namespace that coroporal is a number bigger even than Graham's number, which already is too large even to answer the question "What is the 103rd term in the sequence G1, G2, G3, G4, etc. where G1 is Graham's number and each subsequent term is the number of digits in the previous term??" How large is a corporal?? Georgia guy 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The term corporal was invented by some guy, see his website for more information. I have not studied his system in any detail so I really wouldn't how large a corporal is. Note that the page in my my user space is a copy of the now deleted other names of large numbers. It was deleted for some very good reasons (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other names of large numbers), namely that the names on this list are either made of by some non-notable (amateur) mathematician, or simply non-existant. For this reason I will delete this page from my user space as well. Cheers, —Ruud 18:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

The Editor's Barnstar
I award you this Deletionist's Barnstar for cutting through crap, fighting sockpuppets, and getting rid of Other names of large numbers. Renata 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) —Ruud 19:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7

This arbitration case has closed. Theodore7 is banned for six months from editing astrology- or astronomy-related articles. He is also placed on personal attack parole for a year, and is required to use edit summaries for the next six months. These remedies will be enforced by blocking. For further details, please see the case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer science architecture inclusion

Hi. There's currently some issues with the inclusion of Computer architecture as a part of CS. Would you like to contribute to the discussion? -- Evanx(tag?) 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Marr's language articles

Hi, if you check Talk:Ook! programming language, you will see that "Ook!" has already been consdiered for deletion, and survived. So methinks that the issue has already been settled in favor of having separate articles. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 18:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esoteric Programming Languages

Thanks for the info. I added my vote to most of the AfD entries. Thanks for looking through the languages and sorting out the non-notable ones. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

See my point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. The esolang articles should not be deleted, but merged. --ZeroOne 01:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding my de-prod of COW-PL. I don't neccesaraly think the article should be kept. But I did believe that it needed discussion, rather than being quitely deleted. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin?

Hi Ruud. I wonder, how would you feel about becoming an admin? From looking at your your contributions it appears that you have been here long enough and contributed enough to be aware of how things work on Wikipedia. If you would like to be an admin, I would be more than happy to nominate you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I would like to be an admin, being able to merge page histories and such would be handy sometimes. —Ruud 17:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R.Koot. You need to

  1. Answer the questions (give good thought to them, no rush, people are rather influenced by those answers; you may want to read other nominations first)
  2. Accept the nomination
  3. At the very top, change the ending time to be exactly one week since the time you accept the nomination
  4. Post the nomination at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

Good luck! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —Ruud 19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VWN en WCN

Beste R.Koot,

Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 21:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GoldMedal-bgwhite.png

Could you explain what happened here?

  • I don't see why this conversion was necessary in the first place.
    • The transparency doesn't work in all browsers. In mine, for instance, the transparency was showing up as black (which looked terrible...). I changed it to white, but then didn't realize that I should have used the gray tone that's used in the table itself.
  • In your edit summary it says you used AWB, does AWB automatically convert images with transparency to images with a white background? I could see some serous problems if this is the case.
    • I only use AWB because I have a terribly slow internet connection, and the save almost always fails on me if I'm saving on a normal browser. Sorry for the confusion!
  • The conversion was done incorrectly. My image contains an alpha channel, by the image was not blended correctly with the background in your image.
    • What I did was really rough. I don't have much graphic capability, and I didn't think it mattered terribly, especially since it is on such a small scale.
  • You changed the license from GFDL to public domain, while I doubt my image is ellegible for copyright I would have preffered if you had contacted me first.
    • You're right - I should have paid attention to your license. I'm very foreign to the whole copyright thing, and when I looked at the list, that's just what I figured you would have put down. Very sorry about that.

Cheers, —Ruud 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Finally, we are not even sure if we're going to be using images on this template at all. Please see Wikipedia:Olympic Conventions. tiZom(2¢) 21:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the background-color of Wikipedia pages is not fixed. I depends on the skin you use etc. What browser do you use? I know PNG redering is f*cked up in Internet Explorer 5 and the it is definitly fixed in IE7. Don't know about about IE6, though. —Ruud 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, like a good portion of the world, I'm still using IE6. I do know that gif's have the capability of displaying some transparencies (on all the browsers I've seen anyway. Any way you could convert it to gif for now? tiZom(2¢) 21:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] medal images

Image:Gold_medal_16px.png - the black background on all four edges looks very bad and because of that you can't really tell apart the gold and bronze. the current ones are so much easier to distinguish between one another. sikander 23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, they look great now! sikander 03:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *poke*

Hello! --HappyCamper 19:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

*pokes back* Hi! —Ruud 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
How are you these days? :-) I have a question for you...If a binary tree has a root node "1", and each node j has siblings 2j and 2j+1, what is the tree called? Is it a balanced tree? --HappyCamper 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine, thanks. I don't think you mean't siblings here as the root node itself can't have siblings. If you meant children it would be infinite tree and then definitions like balanced are not very useful. If you meant that tree has either 0 or 2n children at every depth n, it would be balanced but also but it's usually called a perfect tree or complete tree (in a complete tree all nodes from 1 to x exist and there are no nodes larger than x). Cheers, —Ruud 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're describing a binary heap? —bmills 02:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo Vogelsang

Hi, I've removed the prod from Carlo Vogelsang on the grounds that he has contributed to a well known book on games programming. Feel free to list him in AfD if you do not agree. Cheers, —Ruud 16:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's good enough for me; thank you. -- Avi 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know...

that deleting references is against Wikipedia's policies? In the al-Biruni page you deliberately deleted my reference to al-Biruni being an Arab, so you could keep mentioning he's Persian. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Biruni&diff=41464919&oldid=41457729 I'll put the reference again, if you delete it, then I'll contact an admin. Wikipedia is a source of information, not a place where you spread your propaganda. MB 08:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Onestone and the anonymous spammers

Just so you know, I've requested semi-protection for the articles being spammed by the physicsarchives spammer. I don't know if it'll go through or not. —donhalcon〒 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Khwarizmi

hi,

First, thanks for your natural stand on his nationality issue. Second, I never changed his nationality and left it as "muslim". All i changed was, that his birth place is not certain, and kharizm was a province in the arab abbasid empire. This is fact, and has nothing to do with the controvirsal issue on his nationality.Jidan 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate your concern about but I'm within the rules and I didn't break the three-revert rule. Also, it's an established historical fact that Khwarizmi was Persian and Khwarizm was a part of the Persian province of Khorasan. If you have any doubts, just check his background and how his father was a Magi. Whatever misunderstanding there is about his ethnicity, is attributed to the fact thet he lived under Arab rule and hence some sources list him as "Arab" by nationality. Otherwise, there is no argument about Khwarizmi's ethnicity, he was a Persian. Go read any Islamic scholar or historian such as Professor Bernard Lewis and see what they have to say on this matter.

Regards. --ManiF 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Image:Hidden-transformation-before.svg Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medal images

There's no need to use a GIF. When we decide to use 8-bit transparency, you can change revert the PNG, as the old version is still in the image history. ed g2s • talk 18:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The GIF. ed g2s • talk 18:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Khwarizmi in Persian

From annual international scientific Al-Khwarizmi festival which takes place in Iran. All the best ! Amir85 18:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catamorphism stub

Thanks for creating it, I'll try to work on it too (after all, with my username, it would be wrong for me not to!) Catamorphism 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medals Images

I don't think you should push to use these new medal images; it would talk a lot of work to add them to all of the pages, not to mention the fact that the ones I suggest (see the page you left on my page) look much better, people like them, and they are already on most pages with medal images. They seem to be the preferred ones. --Jared [T]/[+] 21:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about your "preventive warning"...

Shouldn't you follow your own advice, first? In the al-Khwarizmi page as well as al-Biruni page you've been exccessively edit-happy. You kept deleting legit sources I gave in the al-Biruni page, and in al-Khwarizmi. I have two sources that state that al-Khwarizmi is an Arab, you deleted it and kept Muslim, since you don't have sources to prove he's Persian. In the al-Biruni page, when I gave two more sources and cited one in the article, it got prominently deleted, why? Is it because you have a problem with proof that he could've been Arab? Does that disturb the propaganda you're trying to spread? Please take these nice policies and follow them before you start giving me preventive warnings: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. MB 22:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

rƒa · ɐƒɹ
Image:Admin mop.PNG

Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

 Thank you!
Hi R. Koot/2006, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 17:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

well done Dmharvey 17:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Good showing indeed (in spite of Dmharvey's playing the devil :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
And if I may suggest, probably it is not worth it visiting people's pages with a flowerbox as above thanking them, at least you may drop me if you do so. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
My congratulations also! --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! You achieved a perfect score! --Siva1979Talk to me 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Congratulations also on your successful nomination. Regards A Y Arktos 02:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esoteric languages

No worries. It's a fine line between usefully combining them and the combination producing confusion. I noticed that there were several very non-expert comments included but also several evidently knowledgeable people contributing to the debates...but few people actually commented on the full list which is what makes things difficult. You can be sure that if you list them separately, someone will say "why didn't you group them up?", but at least you can say why! I'm wondering what to do about the mega-nomination on Feb 25...perhaps leave to anohter admin... -Splashtalk 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

Hi. You're younger (from your pic) than I thought you were (from your contribs)! Anyway, that to one side, the recent 3RR stuff. I would be inclined to say that you are right, but that its probably not that important. I also think that jpgordons unblock is odd and somewhat impolite. But, put it to one side and go on... William M. Connolley 19:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the above is about a disagreement on whether a certain troll should be blocked or not, with Ruud advocating blocking. (When I first quickly read through William's note, I understood that Ruud, the freshly elected admin nominated by me, managed to get blocked for 3RR, I even checked his blocklog. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that, OA is right. Ruud knew what I meant :-) William M. Connolley 10:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ruud, you blocked 134.84.5.71, who has 4 edits in history (March 7 only), but left Kuban kazak, who did 5 edits of reverts (with one-word "edits"). How is that? And what Previous version reverted to: menas? Thanks.--Oleh Petriv 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. One more recent revert added. Please pay attention to change Ukr - Rus this is the only important change.--Oleh Petriv 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My block log

Hey Koot, I've been watching your actions regarding 3RR and I wonder if you could help me.

A couple of months ago (January 18) I was blocked by administrator Nv8200p. Fortunatelly I asked for administrator Bratsche's help and he managed to prove I had been unfairly blocked -- as you can check on Nv8200p talk page/Revision as of 04:26, 18 January 2006/Blocking of Lesfer.

Yesterday, however, I was taking a look at my block log and the block record is still there. This is wrong. It's as if I had been blocked and forgiven, which wasn't the case. I would like to ask you to erase that record if possible. Thanks, Lesfer 02:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it is possible to delete your blocklog, in the same way as one can't delete things from article history. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It's possible, see my reply on Lesfer's talk page. —Ruud 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Koot! Regards, Lesfer 17:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The blocklog is still there [3]. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he thinks it isn't worth the effort. —Ruud 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding 3RR ban

R Koot, on the Administrator noticeboard you advised someone right below the reference to my case: "You were right in placing a warning on his talk page, this is even strongly adviced and admins may even dicide not to block for 3RR violation if this has not been done."

I was never dignified with a warning prior to my ban...I made a mistake and rather than be advised I was banned and now this record will be carried with me from this point forward. I really would appreciate if this would be striken in some manner as I have as netkinetic had a long and consistent history in my posting conduct. Regards. Netkinetic 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic-English translation

Hi root! If you need any help in arabic-english translation, please let me know!

MB, forgot one word, in his translation.

It should say: Al-kitab al-mokhtasar fee hesab al-Jabr wa al-mokabala(title) - by Abi abdullah mohammed bin musa al-khwarzmi(author)

Rough translation on english:

The book of mathematics on algebra and combination - by Abi abdullah mohammed bin musa al-khwarzmi. Jidan


Can you please also do something regarding the people who continuosly keep labeling al-khwarzmi as persian. I think a natural and accurate term is Arab(Persian-born). You can read the sources and reasons i provided here: Talk:Al-Khwarizmi#ONLY_FACTS_-_Why_Al-khwarizmi_is_an_arab.21. Thank You! Jidan 01:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


oh, tt the bottom it says: printed in london. Christian year 1830.Jidan 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks root, i appreciate your effort. I think its really funny that the discusion on his ethnicity is more than 10 times the size of his main article!! LOOL ;-)Jidan 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] al-Khwarizmi

Thanks for your message. I understand your concerns, but as you know, online references are problematic to begin with and I wanted to use the others to not only back up the primary reference, but also to illustrate a point since it is often on WP that historical figures such as al-Khwarizmi are denied as being Persian. But you're correct, the others are not "proper" sources, but it does say quite a bit when a standard math text describes the man as being Persian, and a school or university text can be used to illustrate a point very effectively in resolving such a dispute. They might not be sources, but I think they can be used as online references when nothing else is easily available. As you know, even if something is established in history and referenced in all the primary texts, problem editors will constantly question them and demanding something they can see immediately. I'm sure that you can empathize when one is put in such a situation time and time again. Absurd situations often require absurd solutions. ;) At any rate, I agree with your introduction and I hope this will help resolve the dispute. Take care, SouthernComfort 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] About Scriptol

I have found your name in the history of the Scriptol page endorsing an attack against the Scriptol programming language and this is related to reasons I don't know.

I want just inform you that a search in Google with the words "Scriptol" returns 284 000 results. And apart the programming language, there is nothing else with this name.

Sincerely Splang 15:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more Scriptol

Thanks for your note. I was just about to ask you how one finds the number of unique hits, but you answered that question already (I feel kinda dumb having not known that.. how many years have I been using Google?). I'm confused about this programming language though. How is it not notable? It might not have that many google hits, but it looks like people do use it. You know more about this than I do. Thanks. --Fang Aili 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I've changed my vote to delete. Cheers. --Fang Aili 17:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a question

In the page for deletion of Scriptol, the programming language (Why?), you seem to consider the submission of the Scriptol Compiler to many listings as a spam.
Is it not normal to submit a program to all major distributors or reviewers of software?
Really I don't understand this grimness.
Splang 08:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spelling changes

Question for you: how does one deal with an anon user who keeps changing words to conform to British spelling? I ask him to stop, but he continues. --Fang Aili 20:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing spellign without a good reason can be considered vandalism, so I've given it another warning. Let me know if it continues. —Ruud 20:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another question

Another question, if you don't mind. What's the policy on blanking one's own talk page? Is the policy different for registered users and anons? What WP policy pages talk about this? Thanks. --Fang Aili 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The official policy guideline is at Wikipedia:User pages. Neither registered users, nor anons own their page, so if an anon removes warning messages from his/her user page your allowed to restore them, for example. —Ruud 20:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I was wondering because this guy is intent on blanking his talk page. But it looks like there isn't really a policy about blanking a talk page, unless there's needed information there (based on my reading of old talk messages). --Fang Aili 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't contain any warnings or things that must be kept, so it's not really a problem, but I've properly arcived it for him anyway. Cheers, —Ruud 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stepping back

If you look further down the page, you'll see that I presented all three theories of his ethnicity. Instead of choosing one or the other, we step back and give all three, letting the readers decide. That is the usual WP solution to intractable conflicts, yes? Zora 00:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I didn't intend to remove the footnotes, I just think that his name in Arabic and Persian should both be mentioned on top. Also, that section seems very clumsy and looks like a mess with all the links. Furthermore, please take a look at talk, I explained some more stuff there. --ManiF 16:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, well I think his Persian name Musa Khwarizmi should also be mentioned in Farsi. But that's not a big deal for me. I just don't wish to engage in a revert war, can you please keep the footnotes but change back the rest of the article to my last version which is based on the majority's vote and my explanation on talk. I already explained why user Zora's additions are not encyclopedic and very controversial. Such spaculatory statements shouldn't be added without a consensus on talk first. For example, there was not a single Turk in Khorasan back in 700-800...Regards. --ManiF 16:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I support proposal#1, and would suuport a slightly different version of proposal#2:

"Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (c.780 - 850) [your footnotes] (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي, Persian: موسى خوارزمى) was a Muslim mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. He was born around 780, in either Khwarizm or Bagdad, and died around 850. Al-Khwarizmi was of Persian ancestry, however by the middle of the 8th century Pesia was under Arab occupation and al-Khwarizmi published his works in Arabic. Few details about his life are known."

--ManiF 17:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Muslim and persian without arab is not OK. arab mathematican with persian ancestory is OK. Jidan 19:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:al-Khwarizmi

Whoa. It most certainly wasn't, and I've got NO idea how that happened. I was only trying to leave that little comment at the bottom. My apologies! --InShaneee 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Due to constant re-editing, manipulation of words and deletions, I have put up the strong evidence of Khawarazmi's Persian origin here: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/wikipedia/khawarazmi.htm [4]

If the other side has proof (and not just hypothetical argument) from ancient sources to counter the claims of the above mentioned article, they should bring it forth. Else, I believe the constant revision of the page should stop.

--Ali doostzadeh 19:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Here is what you have aked for: Talk:Al-Khwarizmi#Arab_mathematician_-_Articles Jidan 08:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppet

I was wondering if you might help me deal with a sockpuppet of Splang (of Scriptol lore) called Michaelli. I don't know how to put in the evidence. Thanks muchly. --Fang Aili 02:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added the AfD as evidence, but you can change it if you wish, although I think it unlikely he will return. Goodnight, —Ruud 02:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Fang Aili 16:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

I have deleted it myself( I have put it, I believe I can remove it), not because you are right (you are not impartial and not honnest) but because Wikipedia is not so important, I lost to much time here and I am disgussed by this affair.

I delete also in wikibook and all references to these pages.

I am sure that 80-90 % of the languages here don't meet your criteria (some of them, has not even a compiler), but it is no longer my problem. I'll cease to contribute to Wikipedia and gain of lost of time, I'll spend to write programs in Scriptol.

Don't believe you have reason: this is just that Wikipedia is not so important.

Splang 12:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Madea's Family Reunion

Thank you for the attention, but FYI - using yet another IP address 68.1.71.253, she has reverted the page yet again. I'm not sure how to best address this - I am hesitant to revert the page again, lest I, myself, violate 3RR. Is there a way to address/deal with it/her? Mhking 16:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Difficult one. I've protected the page so s/he can't evade hir block. I've asked for advice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#marcyu_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. You may wish to comment there as well. —Ruud 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Dariush

Hello Ruud! Thanks for the note. I had explained to the guy how to proceed... Adding Persian is ok but deleting other info is not. I hope he'd understand. cheers -- Szvest 19:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™ Wiki me up™

Hello Ruud! Why are you rolling back my edits? I'm not a vandal, neither is Dariush. I always explain my edits either in the edit summery or talk. Please understand that the majority of the medieval Islamic scientist were Persian by origin but their origin has been under attack by Pan-Arabists who want to claim these people as their own. Just look at what In Khaldun who is believed to have been an Arab says about this issue:

  • …It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars…in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs…thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent…they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar…great jurists were Persians… only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, 'If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it"…The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them…as was the case with all crafts…This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture." The Muqaddimah, Translated by F. Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R.N. Frye (p.91)

Regards. --ManiF 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your comment. I'll try to find better sources regarding Gaber, but I'm sure he's Persian as well. You have to understand that some of these misconceptions about these scientists origins have found their way into dictionaries and encyclopedias. Commonly these scientists are all believed to be Arab in the West, simply because they wrote many or all of their works in Arabic which was the scholarly language of the time, and also because for many westerners, Arab and Muslim are one and the same, which they aren't. --ManiF 21:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Can you please take look at this [5], that's a personal attack and provocation.

Oh and by the way, I think I found a better source about Gaber which calls him "Iranian Muslim Philosopher" [6]. I'm still looking for more sources though. --ManiF 04:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Congrats on becoming an admin! I was hoping you could help with something. In deletion review (and the deletion process for that matter) and article was deleted that I believe should not have been. User:Tony Sidaway agrees. The article was deleted for notability, but the person in question was mentioned in about a dozen different mainstream media articles, included a recent front page article in the New York Times. Can you take a look and vote accordingly? The review is here. Wikipedia:Deletion Review#John Bambenek. Thanks. -- Alpha269 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need Advice

Hello Ruud, Recently you had banned my edits for 24 hours. However, I understood the reason, which was OK. Aslo, I needed to spend the day with my family, so it worked out well.

However I am very concerned that a few individuals are circumventing the rules and ideology of Wikipedia which I believe is a violation of the spirit and intent of Wikipedia.

I had read that I should contact an administrator first. I would like to email you more specific information. I thought I had read somewhere here that you could be emailed but I can't find an email for you. Would you be the right one to send these concerns to? Thanks, I appreciate any help you can provide. Steth 23:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suuprised and disappointed

I'm surprised and disappointed that you of all people would endorse a strongly-worded lopsided accusatory statement against us, without having been involved in the case. I doubt you are even familiar with User:Aucaman's disruptive tactics and activities, which is what our RFC was all about. --ManiF 19:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I, indeed, have never met User:Aucaman, but this is not important as the statement I endorsed was about your and User:Zmmz's behaviour. I hoped my endorsemnt would (and will) cause you to reflect on your behaviour as it has not been any btter than that of User:MB or User:Jidan. Even being right is never an excuse start making personal attacks or engage in revert wars. In that respect I would encourage you to take an example in User:Ali_doostzadeh. —Ruud 20:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Your endorsement of a harsh lopsided statement against me, will not "cause me to reflect on my behavior", but rather dampen my positive outlook toward you, as I strongly believe that I have the higher moral ground compared to User:MB or User:Jidan. I may have been persistent but, unlike those two users, I've always remained civil and I've never attacked anyone on Khwarizmi or elsewhere. --ManiF 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how did I misbehave here?Zmmz 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khwarizmi

Zora had added a lot of incorrect info, totally rewriting the bio section, without discussing on talk with everyone else in detail. I restored the original version of the bio but I made sure none of your edits were reverted. Cheers. --ManiF 02:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the bit about the rivers was quite useful and you duplicated a sentence, could you clean that up? —Ruud 02:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Check out new comments on the discussion page. It should hopefully be the end or bring the matter to a close and end this discussion. --Ali doostzadeh 08:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked User

Hi RK, thanks for blocking here. However, the user has now returned with the same edit summary but as an anon. Details on the noticeboard. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 13:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated. Hopefully this mess will sort itself out. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 13:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, can I ask why you blocked me from editing? I was not reverting on violating 3r rule. Well I am not so experienced here and apperantly Metta Bubble is playing a dirty game. S/he has much more reverts than I did. It is not fair that you blocked me and semi-protected the page. Please review the history of the page and see yourself what s/he is doing and unblock me.
She is trying to kill a policy page I have started. I would like to get opinion from the community and improve it accordingly. She is lying and has some certain agenda. I did not know that I could keep his/her records how many times s/he reverted. But apperantly you can see it by yourself. I hope you do not choose to be bias on this. Resid Gulerdem
I don't need to understand the situation when blocking for 3RR and you've already been blocked for a 3RR vio 3 three times, so having not so much experience isn't going to save you here. —Ruud 13:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks you are trying not to understand me. That is your choice. I am not experienced because if I was I could also keep the reverts done by Metta Bubble and you could see who is actually reverting. Can you see my point now. Why do not you yourself go and check it? History page is there... Do you have a concern regarding being unbiased? If not, what can I do? Resid

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics

I don't understand why you semi-protected Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics. You say you are "avoiding 3RR block" but talk pages are almost never protected and this is only the talk of a proposed policy. If the revert problems are so severe, you should block the users responsible rather than disrupting anonymous users. Superm401 - Talk 13:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you. Please read my comments on the section above. All I am trying to do is: to get what the community think about the policy page. I hope you can help me put the poll into a form that we can get feedback from the people. Resid
Superm401, I think you missed that the user is blocked! Semi protection was the follow up action. If you read WP:AN/3RR you'd find all the information you need. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. Best wishes. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] at sign

You reversed my reversion saying that you cannot see a white hole and that content takes precedence over form.

First, I would like to say that whatever system you are working on may not see a hole, but I use Bill Gate's internet explorer like the vast majority of people, and if I see a hole and you don't .... guess what most people see.

Second, you didn't add content, you just changed the order. You wanted to put the historical development before the current use. Why does the historical development take precedence over current use? Where is the policy that says you put the history of something before its current use?

Please revert your latest edit, on that page. Uncle Davey (Talk) 00:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the history section (almost) always comes first in Wikipedia articles. I really have no idea what causes the hole on your computer, you might want to try moving around the images a bit. If that doesn't solve the problem, I really don't see what why there should be a hole and would strongly object to letting bugs in browsers dictate article content. —Ruud 00:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
KUVS-TV
Tree automaton
Introduction to Algorithms
Computation
Eager evaluation
Şımarık
Death-grind
InfoWorld
Massachusetts School Building Authority
Masuman
Clifford Stein
ARS based programming
Language-independent specification
Nv4 disp.dll
Charles E. Leiserson
Third-generation programming language
Sí TV
Marina Lobatch
Numberix
Cleanup
Interactive computation
Chenggong Fire Belly Newt
Maryam Rajavi
Merge
General-purpose programming language
Lenticular
Child node
Add Sources
Al-Battani
Misspelling
Jean Baudrillard
Wikify
California Public Interest Research Group
PLT Scheme
Role-Oriented Programming
Expand
Programming language dialect
Single assignment
Octafluoropropane

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic edits

This user has reverted the chiropractic page without discussion. His reason in the edit summary is that another editor's edits "looked like" POV. Will you please take the time to familiarise yourself with the issue on a controversial NPOV tagged page before reverting? Mccready 18:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

When you call people "cranks" without proving sources, when you unjustly accuse people of vandalism and when you are being genreally uncivil, you don't give me much of a reason to look further in the dispute you are having. —Ruud 18:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Ruud, for reverting the absurd pov that has repeatedly been inserted into the chiropractic article. Critical content in the body of the article reflecting its historical roots would be fine, but allowing anachronistic pov shoving in the intro is completely unreasonable. Ombudsman 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

This is stuff that Young Will has created. I am putting on the site per his request. He is a local radio personality, with a good following. Why can't he be included?

[edit] Arabic

no, my Arabic is very poor, I cannot read anything without a dictionary. But do try WP:RD/L. dab

(ᛏ) 13:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Want resolving dispute?

Sir, you must cease to write insults, and to threat as spam what was not spam but links to valid content (no advert, no multiple links in one page, no irrelevant, etc...). These links are not even still in the Wikipedia.

Splang 14:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location of Netherland bij rocket view

image:wikineet.gifavoid animations, they don't work when you print out the article...... You'r making fun ?? Abnormaal 23:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nee dat meen ik serieus, bovendien gebruiken de infoboxen van alle landen op dit moment de zelfde kaart, dus nog een rede om dat andere plaatje niet te gebruiken. —Ruud 23:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I get the picture Abnormaal 23:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Would you please look over the 3RR violation by Badlydrawnjeff. I think if you look at the whole discussion you will see that there were more than 3 reverts. I will list the facts for you here:


  (cur) (last) 21:35, 23 March 2006 Badlydrawnjeff (rv. Do not falsely accuse people of vandalism. See talk page about changes.)
  (cur) (last) 21:17, 23 March 2006 Badlydrawnjeff (rv to factual version. See link to what IHR actually claims on talk.)
  (cur) (last) 20:37, 23 March 2006 Badlydrawnjeff (rv. Your version is not accurate, period. Do not edit war over this, see the discussion at the 
  (cur) (last) 21:34, 22 March 2006 Badlydrawnjeff (→Criticism - fixing criticism section for NPOV and facts, leaving note on talk)

As you can see, that is four reverts, and a violation of 3RR.

Thanks Rogerman 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman


I apologize for offending you but I don't see why you are giving me a hard time. I demonstrated that the user had enacted 4 reversions, which as you say is the requirement to be blocked. The reason I posted to your talk page was you deleted my post from the 3RR page. If I had reposted it, you might of just as well yelled at me for reposting after you had deleted it. If you take a look, you will see that I have demonstrated the evidence of a violation of 3RR.

Rogerman 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman


I will try to follow the format. Will you remove or change your comments regarding my 3RR violation notice being removed so other Admins dont think the issue has already been vetted and dismissed. Thanks.

Rogerman 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

[edit] 3RR Report admining

Greetings Ruud, in my editing on WikiPedia I've gotten the impression that you perform your admin duties in a fair and balanced manner. Because of this I was wondering if you might have a look at User:Irishpunktom's 3RR report against me? Thanks! Netscott 13:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phaistos Disk's dispute

Sorry, but I am not as satisfied as Netscott about the way you acted concerning an alleged violation by me of the 3RR rule. In fact, my feeling is that you trusted one of your friend, who is party in this dispute. But you have been manipulated by him, Sir. Because if you get a look at the way the dispute started on March 23, 2006, you will see that Pmanderson took as a pretext modifying two or three words in a sentence for deleting at the same time a whole paragraph concerning a work he hates. And when I reverted the said paragraph, vandalized without any motive, a bunch of supporters of a concurrent theory began an editwar. At this point, the usual arbitrator, Dieter Bachmann, restored the NPOV, but a new attack against the Proto-Ionian Solution and his author, J.Faucounau, began soon after... Then, you came in, apparently misinformed. This is not the first time that this happens. The problem, in my opinion, is : To which point a WP administrator may take a blocking decision when the 3RR violation is just a way to restablish a vandalized redaction, and when by hastily blocking one party, he strongly favours a particular POV. Thanks you for listening. (User 80.90.39.149, 14:58, 24 March 2006)

Thank you, Sir, for having this time momentarily blocked the WP article, and not just one of the parties, so everybody has been forced to discuss about a consensus respecting the NPOV basic rule. This is true applying of the WP spirit, and I am now as satisfied as Netscott. Again, thank you for your last intervention in the dispute. (User 80.90.39.149, 15:40, 25 March 2006)
Just for your information : please know that the discussion which was opened between both parties, following your blocking of the WP article, has been relegated in Archive (n° 6) by those afraid that you may read it. (User 80.90.39.149, 22:23, 25 March 2006)

[edit] Al-Khwarizmi

Hello, I did what I could... hope that helps. - Eagletalk 20:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't move the page like that, that's crazy...see my note on the talk page. Adam Bishop 21:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block tbeatty Union of Concerned Scientists

I think you need to review my block. I added new content today. I reverted 3 times (not a 4th) becuase an anon IP kept reverting my sourced, factual and NPOV material without discussion or reason. Please look at my contribution to Union of Concerned Scientists and you will see it was not a 3RR violation. I was requesting page protection when you blocked me. User:tbeatty --143.183.121.1 05:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Koot, I believe you made a mistake. Another administrator has concurred and unblocked. Please review it and get back to me as to how this happened and wasn't corrected. I would like to avod mistakes like this in the future. Thanks! --Tbeatty 03:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just got your email. Thanks! Next time if someone complains, drop a note if you can on my talk page or the discussion page. I know the rules and have no desire for violating policy or witikette. --Tbeatty 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

I didn't file the 3RR form for Aucaman, but I did add some more dif links here which shows Aucaman undoing other editors' edits at least 6-7 times within 5 hours. Do you want me to correct the form, even though it isn't mine? --ManiF 12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


No I'll figure it out myself this time (but by not reporting correctly you risk that I miss a revert, of course). —Ruud 12:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Ruud, I wanted to report this myself but then I saw another user had already reported so I just left a comment under the existing report, with the diff links. --ManiF 13:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A user you blocked

A user you blocked for violating the 3RR rule, Tbeatty, claims he didn't violate this rule. I think you should reply to him.Eli Falk 13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And an other user you blocked, ManiF would like you to look at a dialog I had with him and reconsider the block.Eli Falk 15:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's here!!!

Dear Mr. Koot:

And it's here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Announcing my CS 492 term-end paper: On Wikipedia — the Technology, the People, the Unfinished Work. Image:Wikipedia.pdf

Thank you for all the kind help you have lent me during the paper-writing process!!!

Long live Wikipedia!!!

Shuo Xiang 22:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aucaman

Hey Ruud,

You recently blocked User:Aucaman for breaking the 3RR - I have some suspicions that he has recently evaded his block under the IP 128.32.159.41 (talk • contribs) - should I do a Check User? What do you think? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a check user would only be helpful if he would become really distruptive or if you want to take any further action against, so it's probably not worth the trouble. —Ruud 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Khoikhoi 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk page for deleted article?

Hi, you deleted an article on "John Birdman Bryant" a couple days ago that I had prodded. But I see that the Talk page associated with that article still exists. Is that normal? Bucketsofg 06:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's gone now. Cheers, —Ruud 12:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khwarizmi

The article doesn't mention anywhere that he was an arab, so why should he be in the categories? --Kash 23:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you add categories that don't exist? —Ruud 23:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Hitler

User:Bytwerk has violated 3RR:

1.[7]

2.[8]

3.[9]

4.[10] (logged out)

Pls block him an unblock me. You cannot block people that revert deletion of text without a given reason --85.250.152.41 10:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Haham hanuka)

More than one person reverted that particilar edit (with reason) therefore I can't say it was Bytwerk or not. But I would like to know, if editing anon while on ban is another offence? Agathoclea 19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf War

You blocked User:Ahwaz for violating the 3RR rule on Gulf War. I would like to present some information in support of Ahwaz:

  • The name Gulf War was accepted quite some time ago by consensus (there is a full archive talk page on this). Several times a week, reversions are made after someone goes through the article and changes Gulf War to Persian Gulf War without any discussion. I probably make this revert about twice a week, as the article history should show. Changing the name in this manner is considered vandalism, thus the 3RR rule should not apply at all.
  • It appears that we were both attempting to revert a name chage at the same time. I used popups for my first reversion and something hung up due to the connection. Due to timing, his occured first, then mine reverted his revert. He then reverted my inadvertent reversion. This revert should not count against Ahwaz.
  • It looks like I made a total of three reverts as well, including two reverts in a row. My connection to Wikipedia was very slow at the time, so something odd happened there.
  • User:ManiF changed the names in the the article three times from 15:19 to 15:45, and was reverted each time.

This is a bit more complex than it might initially seem: I would appreciate any resolution to this issue. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My edits were not vandalism. As I already explained in my edit summaries, the full official name of the conflict is "Persian Gulf War", "Gulf War" is simply the shortened version used in common situations, but still the full encyclopedic title should be "Persian Gulf War" as used by other authoritative encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica [11] , Encyclopedia Encarta [12], Encyclopedia.com [13], The Columbia Encyclopedia [14] and pretty much every other major Encyclopedia out there. --ManiF 17:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The point to this particular discussion is not about the name, but the application of the 3RR rule. I never stated you vandalized, although there was some implication. If the name in the lead-in of the article is that important, then the whole article should be moved. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Deleting articles

  • bow* Apologies. I'll make sure I follow through on my deletions in the future. ♠PMC♠ 03:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your block of User:Johnc1

Johnc1 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), you blocked him indefinitely after he'd already been blocked for 24 hours. Unless you unblock and then re-block, he will unfortunately (due to a software misfeature that favors the more lenient block) be back to editing in 22 hours, 40 minutes. — Mar. 30, '06 [04:23] <freakofnurxture|talk>

I believed that his 3RR block had just expired and he immediatly violated it the 3RR rule again', as this isn't the case I don't think I want to block him indefintly anyway. Thanks for the notice, —Ruud 04:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not familiar with the situation, just letting you know because my IRC client beeps on block conflicts, and I usually fix them myself if the reason is simple vandalism, which this isn't. — Mar. 30, '06 [04:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] re: HAC Compression

I want to tell you, HAC Compression DOES work; I have in fact written the program. As well, BASIC should NOT be considered a programming language.

Anyway, thanks for the welcome.

[edit] User:R. Koot/Esoteric programming languages

Hi. I tried pretty much the same thing about a year ago, and many voters got tired and just blanko voted to keep everything. I got a lot of heat (plus a little support) for doing this, was labelled as a deletionist, and overall it was not a pretty experience. To avoid you from the same fate, I would at a minimum not list languages you think should be kept. In fact, I think listing a few languages every now and then individually is much less likely to swamp the voters and pass regularly through the process. Of course you may refer to your list, but my advice is to prioritize VfD's, and start with the least worthy, slowly working your way through the list. Good luck, and thanks for cleaning up. -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi Ruud. I was wondering, do these four reverts ([15] [16] [17] [18]) by Aucaman on the Persian Gulf page count as 3RR? The last one is slightly different. --Khoikhoi 07:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the last edit seems too constructive.
Would the recent edits on Iran ([19] [20] [21] [22] [23]) count as well? --Khoikhoi 08:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how the last edit undid anybody else's edit? —Ruud 09:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right. On the Persian Gulf page he did however. --Khoikhoi 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotness

Perhaps this isn't the place to say it, but you're ridiculously hot.

I know ;) —Ruud 22:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymouser

User:Anonymouser has recently become more active again. Although there's not really a large enough number of edits to be sure yet, User:Anonymouser's edits so far look suspiciously like Carl Hewitt attempting to evade the ruling of the ArbCom. Probably worth keeping an eye on, if you hadn't already noticed it... --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymouser does use Hewitt's trademarked "large number of small edits in a short time". Have you noticed User:66.80.15.66 yet? —Ruud 01:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I've been watching the back-and-forth on articles like unbounded nondeterminism. I really wish I could get a copy of Carl's talk, just to see if it actually has any relevance as a reference for the articles to which it's been added. Unfortunately, it doesn't yet appear to be online. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't find Carl's symposium talk, but I did find this. It's interesting mostly because a lot of the text looks like stuff that showed up here on WP. I'm betting Carl was doing a lot of copy-pasting from papers that he had in the works. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I've contacted the AAAI and the claim the tech report that contains the Carl Hewitt paper should appear on thier website within a week or so. I'd like to see the actual published paper... -- Koffieyahoo 07:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: Given this pattern of contributions, and the fact that the edits are all on topics directly related to Hewitt's recent papers, I now have no doubt that User:Anonymouser is Carl Hewitt. I note that one editor has already commented on the self-promoting feel of the edits that User:Anonymouser is making. --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty clearly also editing as User:24.23.213.158 (see Special:Contributions/24.23.213.158), and probably User:71.198.219.119 (see Special:Contributions/71.198.219.119) since 24.23.213.158 seems to have been blocked recently. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've filed a request for clarification. —Ruud 15:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've tagged the accounts that look suspicious as possible sockpuppets. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
He's also probably editing as User:66.80.15.66 (see Special:Contributions/66.80.15.66). User:24.23.213.56 also has an iteresting contrib list (see Special:Contributions/24.23.213.56). User:24.23.213.158 was blocked, as one of the administrators considered its contributions "spamming of a conference paper" (see the user's block log). -- Koffieyahoo 07:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ook%21_programming_language

Well, the previous AfD wasn't my only grounds for voting to Keep. If you haven't already, please read WP:5P and WP:NOT and let me know which guideline(s) this article violates. Also, from User:Splash's summary on the previous AfD, "The only one that is often referred to is Ook!, which appears to be a keeper.", so the result of the previous AfD was arguably a "Keep" for this article. Please reconsider your vote. Ambarish 19:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:V, there is only one source describing it. —Ruud 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GoogleMe

I have logged GoogleMe on the ANI board. In his brief time on Wikipedia the user has vandalised several articles and disambiguation pages across broad subjects which myself, the general community, and users im close to from the Metal Music project have reverted. This user doesnt seem to understand the warnings given to him, and i want to know if there is anyway of cutting his actions short before they turn into a serial thing. Ley Shade 01:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sock puppets

Hi, could you confirm that these are not your sock puppets? Cheers, —Ruud 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never used a sockpuppet, under these names or others. If you view my contribution history, you will see I do not vandalize Wikipedia, but have contributed dozens of articles and thousands of good edits. I do have AOL as my ISP, however, and they provide dynamic I/P addresses. So, it is possible that those I/P addresses may have been used by me at some time in the past and either previous or subsequent to my use, those dynamic I/P addresses may have been assigned to someone else, who vandalized Wikipedia. It's not me, however, and I would like to see the reasoning by which I am being so accused. StuRat 02:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lowercase 'c' in Template:User c++

Hi,

may I ask you why you have changed the template code to show a lowercase 'c' before "++"? I'm not talking about the category name, just the text shown to the user. --Gennaro Prota 11:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GoogleMe and Serial Vandalism

User GoogleMe has engaged in serial vandalism on articles, especially Children of Bodom, in regards to the liking and disliking of the band by himself. Myself and other members of Wikipedia Project Metal Music have reverted this user several times for his unjustified attacks against users and vandalism on articles, being warned against this by Ruud [24]. GoogleMe has however ignored this and is now using his user page to directly insult every and all users who reverted him, labelling them Dorks [25]. The user also vandalised my user page [26], and blanked his talk page of personal attacks and vandalism warnings twice after being warned not to, [27], [28]. This user is also refusing to follow WP:NPOV and WP:CITE and has threatened to vandalise the policy pages. Immediate action is required. Ley Shade 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khwarizmi

I think you made a mistake on Khwarizmi, one of the images is invisible now. --ManiF 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I did, it's fixed now. Thanks, —Ruud 00:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I took the time and made sure none of your minor edits were reverted and you just revert me. --ManiF 00:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, you are about to break 3RR on Khwarizmi. --ManiF 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to bed. Just make sure I don't have to redo all my changes in the morning, k? —Ruud 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I went the extra mile making sure that you don't have to redo all your changes, but you still reverted me. Now some other guy is simply reverting without taking into consideration your minor edits. --ManiF 00:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Khwarizmi

How can you make a statement like "However, the preface to his Algebra indicates that he was a Muslim" ? Do you have a copy of it ? what is the source on that and what exactly does it say? --CltFn 01:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. MacTutor. Go look it up on Google Books (as I've told you about three times by now). —Ruud 01:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You have a link to the google book page? Seems that you could cite this in the article then , since it has been so disputed.--CltFn 04:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Lick

I blocked him based on his continuing disruptive behavior, and this discussion, where it is clear that he is inviting outside editors to come to disrupt. JustZisGuy questioned my block of him, and I told him what I'll tell you, that I won't object if somebody wants to unblock him, but I think he deserves to be blocked until he's willing to admit that he's wrong and will declare his willingness to be collegial and respectful of others. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll put it on ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science3456

Thanks for finally clamping down on this person. I posted in RFCU a while back but I don't think anyone ever looked into it. I had more people on my list that I suspected and I have added the template to all of their user pages, see my contribs. Some of them are still not blocked and probably should be. Feel free to browse the contributions of the users that I added the template to, I think you'll agree that they are sockpuppets of the same individual. Thanks. -Big Smooth 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:DecGon is active and claims he/she is not a sockpuppet, but if you look at all their edits from the beginning, there are extreme similarities to all of the other banned users. -Big Smooth 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ape... googletriplex... he isn't really creative, is he? —Ruud 00:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Uer:Facts and User:Jag149. —Ruud 00:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, User:Facts is probably OK; I had suspicions because User:Facts&moreFacts edited that user page but looking at the contribs it's probably a different person. As for User:Jag149, their only edits were to a page created by User:Facts&moreFacts after it had already been deleted in an AfD. If you notice, they also removed a prod tag 2 minutes after it was added when they should not have. They were unusually protective of the page (and did not use any edit summaries, like all the others) which is why I believe that account is also a sock. -Big Smooth 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
K, User:Jag149 is a very suspicious username. Damn, I thought I had most of 'em yesterday. Might need to go for a range block on his school, but he seems to edit from home and possible AOL as well. —Ruud 00:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a look at User:Car salesman, User:Stop war!, and User:Hot water heater? Thanks. -Big Smooth 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. How about User:Doorstop54 and User:Foosbury (on the latter, note the name and the accounts using the templates he/she created). Unfortunately, it does look like this person sometimes posts from AOL, as some of the edits of User:152.163.100.202 and User:152.163.100.203 fit his/her pattern. -Big Smooth 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] al-Karkhi

Can you please have a look at this: al-Karkhi. The user ManiF, by now you should know him very will :-), is deleting information from the main article that point to his arab origin and that is backed by authoritive sources. Thank You. Jidan 05:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

al-Karaji is a Persian scientist from Karaj, situated 20 km west of Tehran. Jidan is trying to make him an Arab by quoting obscure Arab or online sources [29], while the majority of encyclopedias refer to him as Persian, born in Karaj, Persia as his name suggests. --ManiF 05:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Magnus

Thanks. I only asked for a translation at 10pm yesterday, and you'd translated it by 11pm. Now go and translate it into the other 11 languages you seem to speak :) --Hughcharlesparker 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can only read most them :). —Ruud 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arab in Karaj?

Please don't Arabize the Iranian personalities, Al-Karaj is clearly a Persian from Karaj, anybody familiar with the history of Iran and Persia, would know that there were no Arabs in the city of Karaj. --ManiF 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sezgin calls him al-Karaji but also mentions al-Karkhi in the end notes, so thi si sclearly a case of unknown etnicity. —Ruud 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not a case of unknown ethnicity, all the Major sources refer to him as Al-Karaji from Karaj. There were no Arabs in Karaj. According to Wp:NPOV, very marginal views, not supported by majority of the academia, shouldn't be included in the articles. --ManiF 13:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Which major sources did you dig up in the library then? —Ruud 13:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if he was born in Karkh, that doesn't make him Arab as Baghdad and its surroundings were multi-cultural. But the name "Karaji" clearly makes him a Persian. --ManiF 13:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
WTF did I say he was an Arab? —Ruud 13:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You are implying that he's an Arab by changing his name into Arabic and calling him "Islamic". You want sources that he's a Persian?
  • Classics In The History Of Greek Mathematics by J Christianidis (Page 260)
  • Elementary Number Theory in Nine Chapters by by James J. Tattersall (Page Page 32)
  • A History of Algorithms by Jean-Luc Chabert, R Aasnogorodski, V Malyshev, R Iasnogorodski, G Fayolle (Page 482)

I have a dozen more if you want. --ManiF 13:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Koot, let me simplify my stance on this issue and similar issues for you. Put yourself in our shoes for a moment, I believe you are from the Netherlands, and your country was occupied by the Germans for periods of times. I don't think you'd feel very flattered if someone kept changing Dutch Scientists' ethnicity, nationality, and identity (name) into German, saying they lived under German rule or spoke German. --ManiF 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My Internet was down, so sorry I couldn't respond sooner. Those sources are fine, nice work in digging them up. —Ruud 18:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. By the way, User:Jidan has broken 3RR on Al-Karaji by reverting other users' edits five times within the last 24 hours. He knows the rules perfectly and he was just blocked for 3RR recently. --ManiF 18:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Jidan is breaking 3RR on every single page, he's been warned over and over by other users and admins to respect 3RR. I just reported him on 3RR board again, can you please take a look. --ManiF 22:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Magnus translation

Hi, thanks for the translation work! If you are done with the translation, would you mind moving the request down to the completed section on Wikipedia:Translation_into_English/Dutch, or just give me a nod and I'll do it. Thanks! --MJ(☎|@|C) 10:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] karaji

How can I not have read what is written there? Actually I am the creator of the al-Karaji article, so it is (was) almost entirely my creation until you guys showed up. And like many other articles, it is now being infested with this unsubstantiated tendency that is trying to revise the historical facts (for some reason I still do not understand).

In your edits, you left out some things. The goal was to be inclusive, not selective. I agree with the version Mel Etis and Zora did.--Zereshk 01:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So I take it youre not OK with Zora and Mel Etis' edit. Correct?--Zereshk 01:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Look, I have no time for arguments. They steal away the precious little time I have for contributing. Do you agree with Mel Etis/Zora version or not? Because that is what I reverted to. A person who professes to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles shouldnt be asking questions in the spirit of what did I do that you dont like, or what didnt I do that led to this edit? Just look at the current edit. if it's OK, fine, let's move on. Life is short.--Zereshk 02:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:3RR vio at Norman Finkelstein

For reference value, what 4 reverts am I supposed to have made to Norman Finkelstein that violated 3RR? Two of the "reverts" that User:Ragout claim are reverts where when I added new information, not reverting it to a prior version. Deuterium 13:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khwarizmi

I didn't want to interrupt your editing. But "Possible Persian ancestry" and "Persia, province of Abbasid Caliphate"? Let me ask you something, do you think Holland was a province of Nazi Germany during World War 2? --ManiF 22:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

...still busy... —Ruud 22:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
btw... ever heard of Godwin's Law? ;) —Ruud 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, persia was a province of the Abbasid caliphate. And Baghdad was its capital. And his ancestors were possibly from Khwarizm, which is actually not persia as you can see from the map. Jidan 22:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
And comparing the arabs with the Nazis is sick. But I am not surprised to hear it from you. Jidan 23:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Abbasid provinces during the caliphate of Harun
Enlarge
Abbasid provinces during the caliphate of Harun

[edit] Hypocrisy, they name is Ruud

I was blocked for editing facts into the item? Why don't you block those who removed my edits three times within 24 hours? Hypocrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by an apparently pissed off person. (talk • contribs).

And you are..? —Ruud 11:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slush Puppy redirect

Hi, I have no problems with you redirecting this article as you followed the PROD procedure correctly. However, I'd appreciate it if you would take care to clean up the links in future; Slush Puppie (the children's drink) included a link to Slush Puppy which is now confusing- because of the redirect it links back to itself. I've removed this, but please keep an eye out for this sort of thing. Thanks! :) Fourohfour 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

K, will do. Cheers, —Ruud 12:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick favor

Click on this oldid: [30] and hit save page. I'm having Internet trouble. Thanks! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 14:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nooooooooo!

It still has vandalism! See, I can't save pages, though I seem to be able to produce new UT messages. Two bloody IPs vandalized and all I have is rollback. Thanks once more, and sorry for the confusion. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems I'm not so good at following orders. I think it's fixed now. —Ruud 15:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now that I'm at home and not school, let me explain. Ever since about Friday at school, I have been unable to save any page on Wikipedia. The status bar says "Waiting for en.wikipedia.org" until the request times out. I've yet to see if this is a temporary glitch or if they've intentionally done this, but regardless, I can't save any page. The only exception is, if the total text in the box is about two lines long, I can do it. I have no idea why. Being part of the rouge admin cabal, I have a rollback button...and, since that's the only thing I can do, really, I go RC patrolling. And, of course, I rollback things that have vandalism two or three contributors deep, and then I am absolutely stuck, because everyone assumes the vandalism is fixed now, so no one will come fix it, I can't revert it myself. My only recourse is to ask anothre person whom I know is on to fix it. It sucks, but I'm hoping it's only temporary. But thanks for your prompt response this morning; you were the first person I recognized on the RC list. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

 Thank you!
Hello R. Koot/2006. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

[edit] 3RR block violation?

Could you have a look at the evidence for Naturtrina violating his 24 hour block? I saw that you were the admin that blocked him so I thought it relevant to respond here. Thanks, Ansell 23:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Poll

Hello there. I am an overseer of your brain. I have come to tell you that the Wikimetal Project is holding a poll on the inclusion of certain genres on the heavy metal template and footer that goes onto metal related articles. This poll has a closing date, however, and so here i am, reminding you to vote if you want to, by pumping strange chemicals through your veins. Its hard work being a brain you know!

If you would like to help in this crucial part of the project, the page is here. No, thats not it? Oh my! I posted those pictures of myself, what a devil i am. No the actuall link is here on this link.

I guess ill see you at breakfest when you finally recover from Wikipedia. Bye for now body, your Brain 07:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: aaahh!!

Sorry about that I didn't realise someone else was also working on it. The subcat per day is a tried and tested method used to keep track of images tagged as no source and no license so I duplicated that system, makes it easier to keep track of them IMHO, an additional benefit is that editing the article does not affect the timestamp of my method as it's all substed in. But I guess we could try out your system for a few days --Sherool (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pro-Lick

Dear R. Koot: Hello there, I'm writing regarding a block you set on User:Pro-Lick for 3RR violation. Here is the block you set:

18:44, 11 April 2006 R. Koot blocked "Pro-Lick (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (4rr vio at abortion)

An indefinite block would seem very harsh for just a 3RR violation; I'm assuming you likely perhaps made a mistake in the block duration - would you mind me removing the block now, since 3RR violations usually get a 24-48hr block? Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know that Pro-Lick has been emailing me and has asked for an unblock. I won't do it if you think it should remain, but maybe a couple day's cooling off is enough? He claims he's going to tone down his confrontational style. BTW, if you want to discuss this offline, you can email me. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of Compromise

R. Koot, can you please go here[31], and see if you feel like leaving a short comment there?; it is very important to me. ThanksZmmz 09:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{MEEproj}} Spamming

I noticed your massive spamming (See here: Special:Contributions/R._Koot) of {{MEEproj}} on various pages used by the MEE. You say that you try to track all the pages edited by MEE to generate a list. But the label you set: {{MEEproj}} says that the page IS PART of the project (like in BELONGS TO / OWNED BY). Please consider using another label like : this page was edited by MEE. Thanks a lot! --Goonies 16:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Goonies. —Ruud 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Replied at User talk:Goonies. --Goonies 19:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer

Having "Search First" in the shortcut box causes a enormous amount of whitespace on lower resolution screens and I doubt it increases visibility. Could you please put that line back with the other rules? - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

Stop your dated prod crusade, or at least payt attention. You are resetting the counters on articles which should be deleted. One was prodded since the twelfth. You tagged it anew as not being tagged until today. Please stop. You are also using the edit summary subst:prod when you aren't, you're using {{dated prod}}.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:WAvegetarian#re: Stop. —Ruud 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess I missed the memo that the old one was broken. I'm not sure what that means exactly or why the categories are all screwed up and needing to be manually fixed, but I don't have time for another mess right now. Sorry to intrude, although it kinda pisses me off that there are articles that were prodded two weeks ago just to get re-prodded now. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will go back and check my contribs to make sure the prods are corrected. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 23:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok so PROD is now working under the dated system I see. Well if that is the case, then you would agree that Rory096's block is unjustifed? As much as I hate being the only one sticking up for Rory at the moment, I hate it even more to see him blocked (twice!) for something he was doing correctly. It was I who unblocked him earlier so I am going to refrain from doing so now. However, I'd like your opinion on the matter, as a nuetral admin. Pepsidrinka 02:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion with Kelly Martin at the moment, however I think she fails to understand the situation. —Ruud 02:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

A tonne of Rory096's subst's screwed things up as he wasn't putting in the date the tag was added in, I've had one of my bots go and fix them all, so its putting in the correct dates now. Its best if Rory096 doesn't touch it though, much much better to leave it to a bot which doesn't mind doing the tedious task of grabbing the date to add in :o -- Tawker 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled back all of Rory096's substs so the bot can fix them to the correct date, thats what the mass reverts are for -- Tawker 07:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centimeter vs. centimetre

If it is an international topic, use whatever form of English the original author used.

In this case, the original author used the "centimeter" spelling (if you look back at the history of the article, you'll see that) and then someone moved the article to "centimetre", so the article belongs at the centimeter spelling. Hot water heater 23:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh start

We are looking for the same thing then. Best... Resid Gulerdem 05:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unicode2 shouldn't be used

The Unicode2 template simply can't be used. There's no justification on why it's better or different than the Unicode template, and no documentation on how or why to use it. Part of that documentation ought to be a real name that tells someone what it's for, not a name with a number.--Prosfilaes 04:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can your pronounce...

..."angstschreeuw"? --HappyCamper 21:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, not much more difficult than "koeieuier" :D —Ruud 21:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh :o) I just had to ask...I am reading Dutch language at the moment. I want to learn it someday!! --HappyCamper 21:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool :-) --HappyCamper 23:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to ask and answer

The problem has since been solved. All it took was a template savvy Wikipedian that responded faster than you did... :) Thanks for following up anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just testing?

Test away at Hiroh Kikai; but when you've finished, I hope you revert to full-size footnotes. Thanks. -- Hoary 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was distracted. —Ruud 10:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem! -- Hoary 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] small-references CSS class

Hi Rudy. Many thanks for the small-references class in MediaWiki:Common.css! This is cool. I'm applying it to where small fonts in references are wanted (replacing all that hardcoded 85%..92% font-size stuff). Cheers! --Ligulem 11:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic

Yes when I originally saw the changes the new characters came up as squares. I didn't even realize it was a formatting issue. Now I can see them as the proper characters. I actually don't prefer using the 1-1 mapping though, but that can be discussed on the talk page. Cuñado - Talk 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informatics vs. Information Science

Thx for the heads up on the talk pages of informatics and information science! Don't really know what to do about it tho? Elmers 22:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pointer

See my talk pages for answer to your question re: informatics and information science. Hope this helps. Michael Fourman 20:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guess who's still active?

To wit: Shoxer (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
Bools (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
Fiberter (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
Boathooks (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
Boatfarm (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
Cort5433 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
Who_is_your_daddy%3F (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
Jet_Engines (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
CheckerBoard (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
172.145.236.192 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
I think you know who I'm talking about if you look at the contribs. The pattern is not changing. Still mostly the same subject matter, blatant sockpuppetry, improper AfDs and removal of MfDs, etc. Not sure what else can be done, though. Damn you, AOL! -Big Smooth 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked them and a few others. —Ruud 16:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Check out Special:Contributions/Hoof38. -Big Smooth 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] juggernaut bitch

I voted at Deletion Review. Thanks for the heads up. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jet Engines/Science3456.

May I ask what evidence there is to connect these two users? -Will Beback 05:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

See two sections up. If you look at User:Jet Engines's contributions you will see he clearly is a sockpuppet that belongs to the same batch as the others. Taken together they have the same edit pattern as User:Science3456 socks usualy have: editing some articles related to numbers and disrupting AfD (and now MfD as well), among others. —Ruud 15:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Could User:MOOOO also be one of them? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Moe likely than not, yes. —Ruud 17:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Has RfCU been unhelpful? -Will Beback 20:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I already know his school and provider, but recently he has been contributing from AOL. I asked if there were anymore accounts at RfCU (to clean up some of the mess) but this is not covered by the CheckUser policy, apparently. —Ruud 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You might want to block User:MOOOO - he/she is a pretty obvious sock as evidenced by the unnecessary MfD created here. Edit: BTW, I am surprised this is not covered by the RFCU policy. This network of socks is bad for Wikipedia, IMO. All of the pointless articles and deletion noms are wastes of resources, most importantly the time of other editors and admins. -Big Smooth 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

"Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks."

I don't understand. I have never added links to a commercial site and I have no website (but I contribute to several projects as Wikipedia).
You have reverted my edits that seem good actually: a link that repeat the same text both in the label and the description, persons that put their name but that are not celebrities.
The Wikipedia don't forbid to add a link to its own website. This is YOUR policy, as is the removal of almost all external links in the algorithm page. Apart a page that is unreadable.
You have requested, without reason, this website I just added to algorithms to be in the blacklist, and your request has been rejected. This proves you have abusive behavior.
My edits was right, do you want ban me from Wikipedia? Make it clear. Splang 06:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Plasbar

I have reverted this user's MfD closure and warned him. Apparently there is some pattern of similar behaviour, but you seem to know more about this than me, so I thought I'd ask you to investigate/check what I am doing. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 01:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Another sock... thanks for reverting. —Ruud 02:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Al-Khwarizmi.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Al-Khwarizmi.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Fred-Chess 16:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CltFn and al-Khwarizmi

Hallo Rudy. What's with this guy, anyways? Should we provide a source that says he was Islamic, or what? P.S. I'm 1/4 Dutch, my great-grandfather is from Barneveld and my great-grandmother is from Hilversum. —Khoikhoi 01:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because technically the term "Islamic mathematician" does not even imply he was a Muslim (but I'm sure you'll be able to find a few). I'm sure he will be blocked sooner or later if he continues to make edits based on his naive beliefs instead of researched knowledge. —Ruud 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Naive belief? Present your sources for such statements that his introduction of his book indicates that he was a Muslim. That is original research. The evidence that he was a Zoroastrian priest is strong , while the evidence that he was muslim is conjecture.--CltFn 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
G. Toomer. Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York 1970-1990). The relevant quote is avialable at [32]. Have you read the introduction yourself yet? —Ruud 01:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
...and your reply was a straw man as well... —Ruud 01:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, like at the Islamic mathematics article. —Khoikhoi 01:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
To quote what I already stated at Islamic mathematics : The religion of Islam does not include math, there is no connection. Mathematicians who were living in regions where Islam was the dominant religion , does not imply that they were Islamic mathematicians . The term makes no sense , but is rather used in some sort of vain attempt at associating the glory of the accomplishments of mathematicians and scientists with the religion of Islam. The fact of studying the Qu'ran makes no impact on one's mathematic ability. The same goes for any other association of a faith with a scientific field. Thus editors who are going around weaving terms like Islamic mathematicians are using Wikipedia as a soap box.--CltFn 01:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No, people not using this (well-established) term because they have a problem with religion are using Wikipedia as a soapbox. —Ruud 01:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No Muslim mathematicians? Well I guess al-Samawal, Abu'l-Hasan al-Uqlidisi, Ghiyath al-Kashi, Abu Kamil, Kuhi, Al-Karaji, Abu Nasr Mansur, Ahmed ibn Yusuf, Al-Jawhari, Al-Kindī, Alhazen, Biruni, Lotfi Askar Zadeh, Omar Khayyám, and Ulugh Beg, were all just.....? —Khoikhoi 01:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What does Islam have to do with Math? Does being pious increase your mathematical ability ? Should we start articles like Buddhist mathematics and Jewish mathematics? Do you not see that this terminology is a misguided attempt to associate 2 entirely exclusive sets of information? How about a little analytical thinking ?--CltFn 01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It does not deserve a reply ? Or is it that you are unable to back up your claim with anything ?--CltFn 01:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blank

Why blank Kh1fiend's user page? ForestH2

It contained personal attacks on another user. —Ruud 00:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Saw your response. I agree no personal attacks, but the user is signing his name in the worst name and I think is sort of clueless about Wikipedia. ForestH2

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

I've had a change of opinion on this. Because of Gibby's relentless incivility and personal attacks on other editors, and his edit warring, but in particular because of the unbending nature of his approach to subjects on which he has strong feelings, I think it may (either now or soon) be time to consider invoking the General Probation in his case to ban him from Wikipedia completely. I don't think he's shown any sign of trying to work with other Wikipedians, and instead he's treating Wikipedia like a corner of Usenet. I no longer cling on to the hope that he has both the capacity and the will to reform.

KDRGibby is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby#Log of blocks and bans.


I'd be interested in your opinion on this. --Tony Sidaway 12:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis and would endorse a ban. —Ruud 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on this on WP:AN. I'd like to see if there are reasonable objections before pressing ahead. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Database to Wikitable

Hi, I was just wondering what the rationale behind switching the classes of the table definitions on Database normalization from database to wikitable was. The main problem is that the caption (really the title of the table), looks ugly now. Also, if it's no longer being used, I should delete its entry in MediaWiki:Common.css — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I already deleted the class from commons.css, which was the main rationale behind changing database to wikitable. Such style information really doesn't belong there, imagine what would happen if there was class for every articles (or even a hundred). Most style changes can be made in the article itself, although that should not be done too wildly either. —Ruud 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried to create a header using the <caption> element and some CSS, but it appears that this element is has the wrong semantics for that purpose. In fact, the caption of a table usually goes below the table, and it is only displayed above the table for legacy reasons. Do the tables really need to have a header? —Ruud 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about math formatting

Hi, I'm a new wikipedian and editing the information theory article. I am having trouble getting an equation to show up at the right size. It is in the subsection 'capacity for particular model channels' under the BSC example, the equation of H_b(p) shows in small text.

I've tried putting other equations in and they show up well like the rest of the equations on the page. How do I fix this? Thanks for your help.

--128.32.131.94 00:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not the first to run into this problem. If an equation is simple enough it will be rendered as HTML, but if you add a \, (LaTeX code for a space) you force the equation to be displayed as an image. Cheers, —Ruud 00:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Help:URL was removed from Percent-encoding

Is there any specific reason why you've removed the link to Help:URL at the "See also" section of the article Percent-encoding ??? This article Percent-encoding is related to URL, Percent-encoding is used in the URL, that is the reason i added the "See also" section and that link, so, peolple can obtain further helpful information. Thanks. ~ Tarikash.

By adding that link you created a self-reference (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). Acticles should not link to pages in the Wikipedia/Help/MediaWiki namespace. If Help:URL contains any information that is relevant to the percent-encoding article it should be included directly. Cheers, —Ruud 00:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. If reference/link to the wikipedia project articles are avoided, then, how can people go to the articles which are located at other wikipedia projects ??? As the link of Help:URL is part of the en.wikipedia.org like this Percent-encoding, i think it is not a link to a project, like the meta project article of Help:URL is located at meta:Help:URL. Are you sure, that Help:URL is a self reference ? Thanks again. ~ Tarikash.
I've added the link Help:URL into other couple of pages, i'll be removing those now. ~ Tarikash.
Linking to the articles at "Help" is shown in this articles Help:Editing. Paragraph located at this Help:Link#Interwiki_links_to_the_same_project article says, "Interwiki links to the same project : Although interwiki links can be used to point to a wiki from itself, this is not generally recommended". So it is not forbidden. Beside, the article at Wikipedia:Avoid self-references never said that, link to Help:x should be avoided, but instead said, to avoid link to Wikipedia:x. ~ Tarikash.

[edit] Template:foreign

Hello, I saw that you created recently the {{foreign}} template for tagging non-English words. However, there is also another template for that purpose named {{lang}}, and it's widely used. Did you dislike this template, or simply you didn't know about it before creating yours? Best regards. --surueña 09:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I know about {{lang}} (actually I'm the one who put all those templates in category:multilingual support templates). {{foreign}} also lets you specify a script, so in that sense it's a more advanced version of {{unicode}} with a built-in {{lang}}. It doesn't work yet, unless you add some declarations to your monobook.css. —Ruud 14:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. Maybe we should move this conversation to Template talk:lang or Template talk:Unicode, and discuss what's the best solution for this from the technical and practical POV. IMHO it's not a good idea to have more than one template for the same purpose. Or if different templates are needed a policy must be provided (does exist one?) to help editors use it. Thanks --surueña 18:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm doing some research on Unicode fonts and display issues at the moment. You can just ignore {{foreign}} for the moment, it's mainly there so I can experiment once in a while. I hop edo develop some guidelines and help pages at a later stage. —Ruud 18:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major_programming_languages template

Thanks for bringing it - I tried as much as I could. Isaac Gouy (the nominator) is actual expert on programming languages. Pavel Vozenilek 22:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My IP address blocked

You've just blocked my IP address as being a sockpuppet of User:Science3456. You are mistaken there, as I am not a sockpuppet of that user. Consider unblocking my IP. MSN360 22:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your IP? —Ruud 22:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert at number one

Can you tell me why you reverted someone's edit to number one and called it vandalism? number one actually can refer to urination, so that person was not vandalizing. After all, number two redirects to defecation. Anyway, I've turned it into a disambiguation page as "number one" refers can refer to many things. Hoof38 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest

You asked: Why is deletion of country - year Eurovision articles on Afd. Answer: the author of Romanian articles resisted suggestions to consolidate and merge, removed tags, etc. AStrothra called it fancruft. Bejnar 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics

Hi, I'm brazilian, (sorry with my english), I want to know if is permited in wp:en lyrics of songs. I wait you answer. Thank you.--Thiago90ap 00:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Thiago90ap. —Ruud 00:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fair use of the image

it says

Copyrighted

This is a screenshot of a copyrighted computer game or video game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

  • for identification and critical commentary on
    • the computer or video game in question or
    • the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question
  • on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Wikipedia:Fair use and fair use rationale.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.


please note: the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question.

That is why I think it can be used in the article. ILovePlankton ( L) 00:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Which means that you can use a screenshot from RuneScape to illustate an article on some RuneScape item, but you cannot use a screenshot from Rainbox Six to illustrate th article on the M16A4. The situation at Vibroweapons seems to belong to the latter. —Ruud 00:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I think that a screencap from one of the movies would be fair use. —Ruud 00:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you (you're probaly right). ILovePlankton ( L) 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The image is clearly fair use, as "This is a screenshot of a copyrighted computer game or video game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots... for identification and critical commentary on... the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question on the English-language Wikipedia... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." *FAIR USE*. I will reinstate the picture presently. The text cleary defines said image as fair use. I've added a section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars where perhaps there will be enough people to gain consensus. Please woice your opinions there. Thanks. – Xolatron 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Rudy, and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and I will do everything I can to justify the trust you've placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

[edit] Grrr

When i calm down I'm going to revert your revert. Of course this is allowed -- its a quotation, not an unatributed copy. If you want to compromise, take out the first part re the history but put back the second part. it's important for the Church-Turing thesis page. wvbaileyWvbailey 18:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll bring this up-- contest this -- with whatever overseers there are here on w)
Uhh... right? —Ruud 22:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Look: you behave like a dick, you get treated like a dick. You don't know squat about US copyright law. Learn your manners: open a discussion before you revert. Here is the consequences of your actions: I treat you like a dick. You are not the first dick I've encountered on the Wikipedia, and it is always a self-centered dick attitude: "I'll just tear this guys work up because I can". I tell you what. Try to be constructive <== opereative word. Then I won't think you're a dick. Don't just tear stuff up because you're puffed. That was good, thought-out work you tore out. I'm putting this cc on the comments page too. I'm sick of this. Don't write me any more, please.wvbaileyWvbailey 18:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] functional programming

I have noted your participation in editing functional programming. As one of the more respected members of the Wikipedia community you can probably accomplish more than I can, and I hope you expand your involvement. I myself have decided to refrain from editing it any further, but I will continue to monitor it to see how it develops. Ideogram 21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unicode Redirects

Ah, so only admins are allowed to create Unicode redirects? Like the one you deleted, Ruud? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%26nbsp%3B&action=history) ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What? Type &nbsp; into the search box. You get my redirect (if it hasn't been deleted). I fail to see how this isn't useful. --SPUI (T - C) 08:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Weird... that's a different redirect. Never mind then. --SPUI (T - C) 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Major_programming_languages

I did as requested. --Disavian 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we delete this yet? Ideogram 05:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pending further action

Hello Koot, :)

I want to know the current situation regarding the standby on re editing the Al-Khwarizmi article.

omerlivesOmerlives 01:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoof38

He is asking to be unblocked. I have denied one unblock request and commented at WP:ANI#User:Hoof38 that I support your block, but you might still want to elaborate a bit on his talk page on your evidence that he is a sock of Science3456. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 14:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm now convinced it is him, and have speedily deleted a couple of his contributions (Second floor, for exmaple) as WP:CSD#G5). I didn't delete every numbercruft, you might want to look through his contribs again. I also left notes at Talk:God about the mess he made by cut-and-paste splitting that article (his cited reason for the unblock is that he wants to work on God, by the way). I left First floor (as a redirect) because it helps in showing they are the same guys. Kusma (討論) 22:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because someone happens to edit the same article that someone else created doesn't mean that they are a sockpuppet of them. If you look at the dates of both mine and User:Science3456's edits, you can tell that we're different people. If I were a sockpuppet, then why has it been several months since that article was edited since it was created as a redirect? I'm not a sockpuppet of that user. But, even if you can't believe that I'm not a sockpuppet of User:Science3456 can you still unblock my account as I can help improve some of the articles in this encyclopedia. 152.163.100.5 01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] al-Khwarizmi

I didn't change the quote because it suited my purposes; I changed it because it was plagiarized in that form. It's fine now though. :) BhaiSaab talk 18:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For some stupid reason (mainly boredom) I decided to check this out. You probably have better things to do (like reverting edits to the article) but I was wondering if you had some thoughts on the causes of this problem and possible solutions. Of course if you had any solutions you'd be applying them, but I'm still interested in your thoughts. Ideogram 12:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the the problem is that a number of editors (read "people who edit the first sentence") are more interested in having the article state the thruth (read "their thruth") instead of reporting on what the expers have written. I've tried several solutions (stating his etnicity and back it up with reliable sources/state his religion and backing it up with reliable sources/stating neither), but neither sticked. I personally don't care much what people want to call him (as long as they back it up with some sources, most qualifiers are correct enough for an article on an mathematician), but above mentioned editors generally tend to mess up the rest of the article in their little war. So whenever I feel like editing the article I just start form my latest revision, wastes the smallest amount of my time. —Ruud 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informatics and interwiki links

Hi R Koot. I noticed you reverted an interwiki link I had put into the Informatics article, which I have no problem with. It was later explained that it's actually a link to the comp sci article, but actually, the reason I put it in there is because the RU comp sci article links to the EN Informatics article. I only bring this up because it turns out there are a ton of bad interwiki links between informatics, information science, computer science, and all the other based on the varying definition in the US and Europe. I unfortunately don't have time to fix this until mid-July; any chance you could take a crack at cleaning this up? Thanks! --Alan Au 18:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have very limited Internet access at the moment, but I will see waht I can do. Cheers, —Ruud 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Edmonds

Could you please take a look at my recent postings on Talk:Algorithm regarding Jeff Edmonds. I would value your input. I have previously posted to User:Jeff Edmonds' talk page, asking him not to insert self-promotional links (per WP:EL), but he appears to be reinserting those links as an anon user (either that or a very strange coincidence has occurred). Thanks. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Algorithm. —Ruud 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --Allan McInnes (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another sock?

Is Boar34 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) also Science3456? Kusma (討論) 22:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. —Ruud 09:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's some more: Freee (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), Lockser (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), 64.192.106.146 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (also see here). -Big Smooth 16:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Where are the templates in programming section?. It is a useful tool. --SkyWalker 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See Template talk:Major programming languages. —Ruud 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napmor

You might want to have a look at this. —Khoikhoi 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have indefitly blocked User:Napmor and request advice on how to handle User:Jidan at WP:ANI. —Ruud 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Dank u. —Khoikhoi 01:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Thank you for your welcome. I presume you came to my watchlist via reverse lookup of direct logic when you did the rename. Therefore may I suggest you add paraconsistent logic to your own watchlist. I do believe you will want to see the recent edits to it. -Dan 00:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four step for deletion

You flagged Four-stage model of data compression as unsourced, original research, and as a merge candidate. I took a look and escalated it to proposed for deletion. I don't see much there to salvage. If you believe the "four step model" has prior literature (I'm not aware of any), feel free to unpropose. MaxEnt 17:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can I...

...copy your Monobook.css? I like the pretty colours :-) --HappyCamper 14:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On an unrelated note...

If you get a chance, could you take a look at User:84.194.99.177 and see what this IP is up to? I think everything is written in Dutch. --HappyCamper 14:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help on the image resizing / purge issue I raised at Village Pump Technical - that solved the problem (I was not purging on Commons, just WP). Ruhrfisch 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prof. Oaks

Hi Prof. Oaks sent me an email today and I would like to share it with you.

[edit] prof. oaks email

Dear Ali,

I was quite surprised to see my article on al-Khwarizmi mentioned so often in the discussion section of the Wicopedia article on al-Khwarizmi! I'm writing to you now to help in two directons: (1) to give you an account of my background and more recent work, and (2) to steer you and others toward reliable sources on Islamic/Arabic mathematics.

(1) I began studying medieval mathematics in 1999, having studied Roman history for many years before. It is true that my article "Was al-Khwarizmi an applied algebraist?" relied heavily on secondary sources, but I can tell you, after several years of deep immersion in the field, that they are reliable sources. At the time I was just beginning to read Arabic---I have the good luck to have Haitham Alkhateeb, a native Arabic speaker, as a colleague. I continue to pester him with questions, though less and less as the years pass. Now I am finishing up writing my 3rd, 4th, and 5th articles on Arabic algebra. See my web page for a description of the first two:

http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/Oaks.htm

I can send you pdf versions if you like.


(2) For good sources on various aspects of medieval Islamic mathematics, see my online bibliography:

http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/Biblio/Intro.htm

Over 2,500 books and articles are arranged by topic. Many books & articles are for the general public, which I label "Introductory". Let me know if you want any guidance here.


Regarding the ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi: he was a Persian who wrote in Arabic and who worked in Baghdad. Most scholars in Baghdad at the time were Persians, and many were still Zoroastrian (though al-Kh was apparently a Muslim). This is not to slight the Arabs: the great (perhaps greatest?) Islamic philosopher, al-Kindi, was an Arab. The predominance of Persians in intellectual fields was due to cultural trends. Persia had an old tradition of learning, which had been supported by the vast Sasanian state and earlier Persian dynasties. The Arabs, up to the time of the prophet, had been traders and herdsmen, with little motive to study science (though they had a rich tradition of folk poetry). But of course, once the Muslims had conquered the Persian empire, things changed. As the decades passed, the Persian element faded. By, say, the 12th c., a scholar in the Muslim world could have just about any ethnic or cultural background.

I must add that it is a pity that just saying "Persian astronomer/mathematician" should raise so many objections! The word "Persian" to me places al-Khwarizmi geographically, and tells me something of his cultural background. Iranians can feel proud of this label if they like, while Arabs can point out in return that the man wrote in Arabic.

By the way, a couple days ago I did insert a few comments in the "discussion" section of the sub-article on his work in algebra.

Best wishes, Jeff Oaks

[edit] Template:Polytonic is protected but needs an update

Hello R. Koot,

since you protected it, could you kindly apply a little interwiki correction at Template:Polytonic? See Template_talk:Polytonic#fr:_changed for details. Thanks in advance! -- marilyn.hanson 15:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting redirects?

Under what circumstance is it ever helpful to delete a redirect, such as Template:Major programming languages small, especially when it was still linked? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Connel MacKenzie. —Ruud 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khwarzami

Why did you change his name and remove the relevant Arabic text? Please explain your reasoning on the article's talk page before reverting again. Also, be careful with your edits. Your at your third revert in 24 hours, right now, so please discuss edits you disagree with. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Yom. —Ruud 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Science3456

Before I'd file for a checkuser request, do you think they follow the same pattern as other sockpuppets of the same user? The edits include voting on one same afd (on Jonathan Bowers), some "keep per above" votes on other afds, plus several nonsense edits adding and removing spaces in articles in succession with no resulting change. I'd rather conserve the effort of people doing checkuser in case it's just my mistake and they're someone else's puppets and he would stop creating them after the particular afd ends. Thanks. - Bobet 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll file the request. - Bobet 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New socks

You might want to have a look at this. —Khoikhoi 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have indefitly blocked User:Napmor and request advice on how to handle User:Jidan at WP:ANI. —Ruud 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Dank u. —Khoikhoi 01:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember User:Jidan? The user is back edit-waring on several articles under three different usernames simultaneously, in order to evade 3RR block. Just take a look at the contributions of those three users, it's identical: Odenatus (talk • contribs), MARVEL (talk • contribs) and Sanatruq (talk • contribs). --ManiF 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a clear connection between those users. You might want to file a request for checkuser, as Jidan is known for using open proxies. —Ruud 12:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The connection is the fact that they are all edit-waring on four or five particular Iran-or-Persian related articles such as Persian Gulf, Khorramshahr, Hatra, Greater and Lesser Tunbs. As for the request for checkuser, as you said it yourself he uses open proxies, so would you be able to file the request instead, since you are one of the few administrators who is familiar with Jidan's history, and your word is more effectual than mine. It won't be long before he takes his campaign to the scientists' articles again. --ManiF 14:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Violation

My apologies if this is not the location to report this - but you are an admin. I'd like to bring the edit war/3RR violation going on in Berber people to your attention. Thank you. - Beowulf314159 23:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Beowulf314159. —Ruud 23:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Girls_In_Love.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Girls_In_Love.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rabbit Joint

Thanks for retrieving the old article. No refs there, either, it seems. I've tried searching for "The Rabbit Joint" and mostly got System of a Down arguments over authorship. "Joe Pleiman" worked much better, but I don't think a reputable source has fact-checked anything. The song exists, but until Joe makes it big a releases a statement, it'll just be supported by urban myth. In any case, I was beginning to wonder if deleted articles are gone for good, so thanks again for taking that effort for me. Xaxafrad 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hillman

I said I was thinking about that, but did I actually do it? Someone just suggested that I add a link to [33], which seems like a good idea. But yeah, now that I am involved in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-07-24/In_the_news#Digital Universe takes aim as the user mentioned by Haisch in his LA times editorial, protecting that page probably IS a good idea. ---CH 23:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need Administration Help

Hi, could you, as an adminsitrator, look into the edit war which is being fought on the John Littlechild entry. John Littlechild was the first head of the Irish Special branch and I added some neutral comments about the opression of Ireland and the fact that Littlechild was a homophobe for prosecuting Oscar Wilde. The other editors identify themselves as an British Policeman and the other as a Northern Ireland Protestant. They are not neutral. They keep reverting my edits. I requested full protection. An administrator should look at this hot topic. Thanks. 617USA

Can I just point out that 617USA's "neutral comments" included such statements as: "The consolidation of power in London gave the British police more effective organisation and means to further crush hopes of Irish liberation from the brutal British over-lords who had looted and destroyed the heart and soul of Ireland for centuries." A shining example of NPOV, I'm sure you'll agree! He's also committed a 3RR violation. -- Necrothesp 19:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edittools

Re: MediaWiki:Edittools

oh! whoops. I didn't mean for the < code > code to be included, (I was mis-using it for visual highlight I guess). Could you remove those from the "templates" and "polytonic" links? Thanks :) --Quiddity 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected templates

Hi Ruud, when I was trying to see if it was possible to add {{Tnavbar-mini}} to the Template:Campaignbox Lebanon 2006), I eventually realised that it's a "child template" of Template:Campaign - and when I got there, I found that it had been tagged {{protected template}} by you on 24 July. I did find it very strange, as the history of the template shows that it hasn't been modified more than 22 times since it was originally created on 6 November 2004. In fact, no anon users have ever tampered with it and all the modifications have been made by the same three users (with one exception in November 2004), and with Kirill Lokshin being the sole editor since 11 December 2005. He apparently added a {{hprotected}} tag to his creation on 16 July (more than two months after his previous edit), and you changed it to a {{protected template}} a week later. There have been several requests on the talk page for unprotecting it, as well as good suggestions for solutions similar to {{Tnavbar-mini}}, but Kirill Lokshin seems to dismiss all of them, claiming that it will make vandalism of campaign boxes easier.

As I noted that the {{protected template}} tag adds it to Category:Protected templates, I went there to get an overview of what else was protected, to perhaps understand the rationale behind it better. With the exception of one more questionable tagging (see below) all the other ones are what I would like to call "core Wiki templates" that nobody should tamper with.

The other questionable one I found on that page was Template:Albumcover, which was tagged by you on 27 July, but apparently - according to the talk page - has been protected since 19 December 2005 by Radiant!. In spite of at least two requests on that template's talk page for unprotecting it - those requests point out that it is the only fair use tag that is permanently protected although it has never been vandalised - it still remains protected.

Having read Wikipedia talk:High-risk templates I understand that the rationale behind protecting Template:Campaign is that it is frequently used and that people messing with it could bring the servers down. It seems that the whole policy was proposed and implemented by only a handful of users (including Kirill Lokshin) in less than two weeks (first proposal 18 December 2005 and implemented fully 30 December 2005), although several users objected to it, arguing that it was based on a a false argument. If that is true or not is way above my technical competence, so I have no opinion about it, but it seems odd to implement a protection policy based of pre-empting vandalism. If so, why not protect all of Wikipedia? One of the proposals I did like on the talk page, was the idea to permanently semi-protect the high-risk templates, as I've never understood the reasoning behind letting people edit pages who can't even be bothered to become registered users. However, it was quickly dismissed by the instigators of the policy, arguing that semi-protection is only intended for temporary protection - a most peculiar Wiki policy, which means that it's okay to protect pages and templates permanently from edits by registered users (and, by default, anon users at the same time), but that protections that keep anon users away may only be implemented for brief periods.

It's interesting to notice that neither Template:Campaign or Template:Albumcover are listed on Wikipedia:List of permanently protected pages#High use templates.

I also think that all protected templates and pages should have a visible protection tag, as a courtesy to the users. When I wanted to check how {{Tnavbar-mini}} is written, it had no protection tag, and I discovered that it's protected only because the "Edit this page" tab was replaced by "view source". By the way, {{Tnavbar-mini}} isn't listed anywhere on Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages either.

Anyway, as you are one of the persons with protecting and unprotecting power, and as you have been involved in the tagging of both these, I would appreciate if you would have a second look at the arguments for protecting them - and of course unprotect them if you feel that the reasons are insufficient. As the Wikipedia policy is that everybody (including anon users, which I don't agree with) should be allowed to edit Wikipedia freely, protecting templates that don't even have a history of being vandalised seems to be a way for some template creators to circumvent that policy in order to keep their "babies" for themselves. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add that I agree with Thomas on this... —Nightstallion (?) 11:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More socks?

Hi Ruud, take a look at [34] and [35] when you get a chance. They both voted "keep" in the Jonathan Bowers AfD and other edits seem to fit right into the Science3456 profile. Thanks. -Big Smooth 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am not a 'sock'

I wanted to make a minor grammatical change in the Günter Grass article and got the following message:

You were blocked by R. Koot for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Joseandricardo". The reason given for Joseandricardo's block is: "sock of User:Science3456".

I have no idea what this is about, but I am not and never have been a 'sock' or shill for anyone since becoming active on Wiki two years ago. (See my user page.) Please unblock me immediately! Thank you.

Sca 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khwarizmi alert

A recent edit to Islamic mathematics: [36]. I've reverted this, but it doesn't hurt to stay alert. --LambiamTalk 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR volitions by Islami

Islami (talk • contribs) has been using 63.166.226.115 (talk • contribs) to evade 3RR on several articles such as Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. He's already violated 3RR on al-Khwarizmi. --ManiF 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but as I'm involved I can't block. Try WP:AN/3RR. —Ruud 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netscott

Since you have blocked me in the past for far less, you should be interested in this [37]. It was my impression Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Deuterium 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Ruud, you might want to be aware of this WP:ANI report related to this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 03:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redirects

Hi. Regarding Abdülmecid, someone did a page move, which moved the history section to the new title. But to move the history to a page which already exists, that takes an administrator, which I am not. I will request help from an admin to get the history worked out. Cuñado - Talk 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WCN - etentje

Beste R. Koot, Aanstaande zaterdag is het zover, dan vind de Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland plaats waar je je voor hebt opgegeven! We hopen van harte je te mogen begroeten in Utrecht. Kijk op deze pagina voor informatie hoe je er kunt komen. Tot 31 augustus kun je nog vooruitbetalen voor zover je dat nog niet hebt gedaan, je krijgt dan €2,50 korting op de toegangsprijs. Er zijn nog plaatsen vrij, dus als je andere enthousiastelingen mee wilt nemen, zijn die van harte welkom. Wel graag inschrijven op de inschrijvingspagina.

Je kunt je ook inschrijven voor het wokken na de conferentie. Schrijf je svp zo snel mogelijk in, dan kunnen we plaatsen reserveren. De extra kosten bedragen €17,50 excl. drankjes.

Ik hoop dat jullie een geweldige conferentie zullen hebben komende 2 september, en dat er ook veel mensen mee gaan uit eten.

Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 15:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)#poll for standard transliteration. I noticed that you previously contributed to the discussions on Arabic. thanks. Cuñado - Talk

[edit] Wow!

And I thought I was a deletionist!--Andeh 02:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Programming languages AfD

Please strongly consider relisting this as I suggest in my general comment, dividing the AfD up into seperate groups based on the completeness of the article, and perhaps also parent language or concept. Currently the AfD is far too big for most editors to properly comment within. To check each and every article for references, notability, other merits and so on can be a lengthy task for even a single article nominated for AfD. To discourage proper checking encourages pure 'voting', rather than the discussion and consensus forming that AfD is supposed to be about. One big thing in the favour of restructuring would be that certain groupings would almost certainly quickly get snowball-deleted, due to only being very basic stubs. Other groupings, if done by parent language, will quickly appear to reveal that a merge will solve the problem. LinaMishima 04:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New category for 1911 template

I see you changed {{1911}} to put articles in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I assume that was part some category naming rationalization - what was the motivation? I do have a problem with the length of this text. It sprawls across the categories list. Can we perhaps make it more concise?

Also, this has not had the desired effect; now, EB1911-derived entries are spread across the new and the old category. That's because editors have (probably mistakenly) put 72 articles explicitly in Category:1911 Britannica instead of using the template. Not to mention the three subcategories.

Were you going to address this resulting fragementation? David Brooks 16:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:DavidBrooks. —Ruud 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
How about "Wikipedia articles using 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica text"? Only slightly shorter, but I think the smallest text that meets the specifications. I'd be OK with "Wikipedia articles using EB1911 text", but I think that abbreviation only has meaning to us incorporators. David Brooks 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reblocking of Science3456

Thanks for letting me know. I made the block so long ago that I can't remember the details. It was something that was reported at WP:AIV, I think. After I had blocked, I took a closer look, and wondered had I made a mistake. I left a message[38] on Science's page, inviting a response, but there was only a response from an anon,[39] and I couldn't be sure if it was really that user. I asked him to log on and then answer my question,[40] but there was nothing more from him until tonight. I had left his page on my watchlist. I think the pages he was editing when I blocked him have been deleted, so it's hard to work out what led to my original block, but I'm quite happy to have you looking after it, because you do seem to know more about it than I do. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roermond/rewrite

Hello,

Roermond/rewrite, which you created on 10 August 2005, is a /Temp file, and as such it should not be in the main Wikipedia space. I went over it line by line. Aside from the template, there is absolutely zero-point-zero content in Roermond/rewrite that is not in the main article (Roermond), and quite a bit of info in the main article that is not in the "rewrite". They even have identical spelling errors.

Would you please either move this article to your userspace or tag it as an AfD article for deletion?

Thanks --Ling.Nut 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split of "Funk and Wagnalls" article

Hello. I noticed you placed a tag for the split. Can you please elaborate a little on this? Into which articles to split it and what is the dab issue here? On the Talk page of article would be best I think. Thanks. Biblbroks 21:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedias

See my proposed restructuring at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 25. Please do comment. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 06:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a disaster...

Your editing of "Hello World Program in Esoteric Programming Languages" to delete all those with external links, in my opinion, was a complete disaster. All that information, just to be completely erradicated. Wikipedia has lost a lot of interesting info. Just like an English teacher, you've erradicated something very inteesting. --User:Thematrixeatsyou/sig

Everyone is entitled to their opinion... I don't quite understand the comparison with an English teacher, though. —Ruud 17:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird Obfuscated...

The problem is that the recreated content is different than the deleted material. Although you're correct that one need not undelete the whole history, the new content needs a hearing. Besides, having listed 5,432,232 a lot of these things :), I'm anxious to get a definite judgment on each -- if someone came to DRV saying, "this G4 on this language is based on an AfD from Apr. 2005", they'd have a good chance of getting a relist. I'd rather just get "all the ducks in a row," as the English idiom goes. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 17:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll never get a straight answer on exactly what AfD is meant to do. What is very clear, though, is that CSD G4 applies only to "substantially identical" content. Folks who at admire a "pure wiki" model put that language in to emphasize that many deleted articles could be rewritten to an encyclopedic standard; this being a wiki, theoretically any editor should be free to try to rewrite that acceptable draft at any time. (AfD be damned, see WP:NBD)
On the other hand, folks also realized that some AfDs were about the topic (not an individual article draft), like say, Encyclopedia Dramatica, for instance. In those cases, the AfD was almost binding, insofar as everybody agreed that, no matter how different a rewrite, the topic was dead -- encyclopedically not viable. One good way to see if the topic has been quashed altogether is to note whether "the earth is salted"/the page is protected blank. When that happens, an admin has made the judgment that, should anyone want to rewrite this, this need to get clearance from DRV first. Generally, this is reserved for controversial topics we've gone into a tizzy over, or for the "really bad article ideas", like I love my dog, her name is Andrea Smith, etc.
Fun stuff, huh? :) Best wishes, Xoloz 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/2E/_/User_talk%7ER._Koot_2006_936f.html"