User talk:Schutz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello Schutz, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to join the community. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. And of course, feel free to talk with me or ask questions on my talk page. Enjoy! --Alex S 02:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] {{delete}} on non-English articles

We have a tag for cases like these: {{notenglish}}. Please try to use it :) -- Grunt (talk) 14:43, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

Whops, I was too fast with the delete -- sorry, will do. Schutz 14:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RV subcat deletion for Mathematical Logic

I reverted the edit where you eliminated Math Logic as a subcat of Logic. If you object to transitive inclusions among subcats, the better choice would be to eliminate Logic as a subcat of Math, since most of that category is not mathematical in nature ---- Charles Stewart 11:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The inclusion of the subcat looks wrong to me indeed; however, I'm happy with the reversal if you believe that the subcat should be included. It would be nice to solve the problem, but I don't feel qualified to go further. Schutz 11:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at Article in category and parent-of-category: it's about articles and not categories, but the general idea is that the kind of redundancy is not a problem provided it makes sense from a usability point of view. As I said, I think there is a case that Logic should not be a subcat of Mathematics; at the moment I'm trying to drum up support for a WikiProject:Logic, and will raise this as an issue when that gets started. ---- Charles Stewart 13:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Switzerland

sorry. I googled before I made the change, and there were both spellings. But admin.ch clearly prefers the original version. Thanks for fixing it. dab 12:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No problem. It's a hard one; the spelling with a capital letter looks more correct to people used to write in English or German (including me, even though French is my mother tongue) Schutz 13:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

Hi. I was very annoyed about the Swiss section on racism, and was pleased to see your comment. It always amazes me that the countries which try to do the right thing come in for criticism. I do feel that the Swiss people are far too worried about racism in the country. It is one of the most open countries for people in the world. Wallie 17:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Tronic Articles

Thanks for the heads up! Karmafist 01:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ji Guang

Hi Schutz, thanks for your message. Honestly, I don't know a thing about it. But I did see that someone had linked the article off the Chinese mythology page, so at least someone thinks it's proper. I Googled a bit and couldn't really find much definitive, but then again I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe it was a hoax or false etc., so I removed the speedy. It does need some work, though, if it's to be a useful article. Wish I could help, but this is beyond my realm of personal knowledge! You might leave a message about it on Talk:Chinese mythology. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a fine idea. Best · Katefan0(scribble) 22:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Geneva

I moved the image because, in combination with the infobox and the table of contents, the beginning of the article was very cluttered. I agree, there should be an image at the top, but it doesn't fit in well with everything else that is there.—Kbolino 22:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting Lussery

Sorry for typing in the sad news about redirecting Lussery. For that bad news I will make you free to redirect any articles in Category:Vaud

User:Jezerfetnae

[edit] Talk:Switzerland

Thanks for e-mailing me that text; I have now posted a summary. Let's see where this will go... Lupo 15:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TSR Logos

Hey, sorry I don't have the new logos, I just did a search and came up with these. Did not know they are changing but why change them I think these 'dice' logos look cool! HeMan5 19:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have the new logos and have added them in. I decided to keep the old ones too. HeMan5 19:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pythagorean triples

For more about the megalithic monuments see the section on the history of the Pythagorean theorem. My reference is van der Waerden's Geometry and Algebra in Ancient Civilizations. By the way, take some of the deductions van der Wareden makes from his evidence with a grain of salt. I reject his assumption that identical theorems can only result from copying. Rick Norwood 23:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TGV on front page

I see you are watching out for vandalism/silly edits while it's on the front page too :). Looking at previous TFAs' histories, there seems to be a lot of vandalism while it's on the front page... Willkm 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your question about laboratory error

Hi Schutz, thanks for your message regarding Genetic fingerprinting and associated problems with lab error. In my experience, our match probabilities are still in the astronomically huge range, despite coming from real world applications. You can mess around with various online STR frequency calculators to see the probability of having a certain profile. I put in a sample profile of only 8 STRs into one of them (we normally use 13) and got a match probability of 1 in 10^23-10^30. This huge variation, 10^7 may seem like a large range (it is!), but when you consider that even the lower end of the probabilities is 10^23, which is about 10 billion TIMES larger than the Earth's population. These gigantic probabilities, which have been rigorously proven by statisticians and population geneticists are the basis by which DNA has become the preeminent evidence method these days (I might be a little biased in this regard, but no other field has such great discrimination value). Now, your question was regarding how lab error comes into play. With the current STR system, we are allowed to accurately quantitate discrete alleles -- there's no fudge factor in interpretation. You put in a sample, the instrument spits out discrete numbers of repeats. For a single donor, it's fairly cut and dry and that's where you get those huge probabilities. Lab error isn't so much rooted in people making mistakes -- each lab has to undergo an extensive accreditation process every 3-5 years that involves an in-depth review of training records of the scientists and the scientific methods in place for doing the DNA analysis. On top of that, every step in the process is reviewed on a technical level and on an administrative level by two different people. These rigorous checks were not in place in the early days of DNA analysis (the first recommendation for such a standardization of methods was only in 1987, but was not implemented until some years later). The main problem with unclear results or what might be considered as lab error today, is in messy profiles. These might be from multiple sources, degraded, low quantity samples or there might be a random mutation that causes someone to express 3 alleles at one locus. These will all make it difficult or impossible to get a full 13 STR profile. However, even with a partial profile (like the 8 STR profile I tried out earlier), you can still get a huge degree of discrimination. Just one pair of alleles yields a match probability of 1/10000, and you wouldn't expect to see such an incomplete profile from most casework samples (skeletons that have been underwater for 25 years yield more information than that). Furthermore, if an allele shows up as faint, it can be excluded from the match probabilities. There are so many checks and reviews that it seems very unlikely that lab error could bring a match probability down into the realm of possible "you've got the wrong guy" issues with today's STR based systems. Older systems such as the HLA DQ-alpha didn't offer such fantastic discrimination and may come under attack in future years, however, current methods seem to be fairly airtight. On further thought, I realized that if the evidence was collected or stored in an improper manner, that would definitely be a source of an error, however it would not be on the part of the lab, but of the police agency that collected it. There was a case in which the bloody clothing found at a crime scene was stored in the same container as an item from one of the suspects; there was nothing the lab could have done to prevent this error from occurring. The result from the evidence presented to the lab was correct, however, the evidence itself was not. Sample switching is another issue, however, there are generally safeguards in place to prevent such things from happening, such as only having one piece of evidence open at once. In court, the defense will first try to discredit the integrity of the evidence itself, then the actual interpretation of the analysis or the analyst. They will never try to attack DNA as a forensic method though -- it's just too good. This was really long-winded, but I hope that I answered your question somewhere in there!

[edit] Image:50 CHF.jpg

I had updated the linces status for this picture. I think you placed the copyright asking. Now is the copyright status right. --Viperch 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and I'm sorry, that i deleted my entry in your guestbook.I hope the licence debacle are now past. Greets --Viperch 19:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TGVweb to Wikipedia

I've had permission (and encouragement!) from Clem Tillier of TGVweb to incorporate the entirety of TGVweb into Wikipedia (email me at willkm@gmail.com and I'll forward the emails, if you want - including info about picture copyright etc). I was wondering if you could give me a hand wikifying and checking over/improving articles before links are created to them? I've started off with a basic wikification of TGV History to Development of the TGV. Willkm 00:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The procedure seems to involve a permission letter for every article, so I thought it would be easier and sent another email asking for a note on the front page releasing the text under the GFDL. I'll try to get a page/article a day across, if I have time. Willkm 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ROC

gedday Schutz! must humbly confess complete lack of reference... I actually got told this by a visiting american professor (the developer of the APACHE score) at a lecture. I'll be embarrassed if it turns out to be false! have you googled? It does make sense from both the name perspective and the time. Erich 07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno

hey, great job with the image of the cupola! Did you get a general permission on all their images? They have quite a few others that might be useful on Federal Palace of Switzerland. If so, I suggest we upload them right away to the commons, and categorize them as, say, "Category:Berne", and create a page commons:Federal_Palace_of_Switzerland, which also would be categorized under "Berne" and "Switzerland". Lupo 07:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, I have created commons:Federal_Palace_of_Switzerland and uploaded nine images. Feel free to add more, of course :-) Lupo 09:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Hofmann - 90 years

Hi! I'd like to inform you that the copyright of that article has always belonged to me. Cheers, Ivan [ivan_val]

[edit] FAC for Australia at the Winter Olympics

Hi Schutz,

You commented on the FAC for Australia at the Winter Olympics. How do you feel I have gone in addressing your objections? Thanks, Andjam 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Albert Hofmann

Hi Schutz! I think that Albert Hofmann deserves a comprehensive biographical article, after all he's one of the most famous living researchers (though not active) in chemistry and related fields today. Although I met him a couple of times (last time I saw him at a symposium dedicated to his centenary in Basel 2 weeks ago - http://www.lsd.info/ )however, I don't know him that well to write (or edit) some articles about him more thoroughly. But since he's still alive and of remarkable mental health for a man of his age, I suggest that he be contacted personally - possibly by someone from CH - and interviewed for the Wiki article, which could also include the info from all contributions already posted. Cheers, Ivan [ivan_val] Jan. 28, 2006

[edit] Re:Marty Meehan

Hey no problem. Keep up the good work! — TheKMantalk 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More

Since you helped out over on the Meehan article, perhaps you could give me a hand with User:70.50.168.136 over at List of people with attention deficit disorder. They keep removing a disputed tag without providing any reliable sources, it's quite a pain, and I have a feeling they are not making their edits in good faith. Peyna 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Macha

No worries, i dont quite understand how this works yet, so thanks for the help and i hope im not messin up your page

[edit] don't suppose

your boss is a fox? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeago (talk • contribs) 07:32, 20 February 2006.

huh ? Schutz 09:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bundeshaus images

Say, did you ever get an answer from permissions AT wikimedia DOT org concerning the permission? Did they mention some OTRS ticket number? Other images for which I had forwarded permission e-mails have been tagged with {{ConfirmationOTRS}}, both here and on the commons. Lupo 07:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User:David.Monniaux replied to my email; actually, he emailed back the Parliament webmaster (and cc:ed me) asking them to confirm that they would allow the distribution of the images under a specific licence (one of the Creative Commons), rather than just giving a blanket permission. I have not heard back from him, so I guess that he did not get an answer; I'll check with him to see what is happening, and if we can get the ticket number. Cheers, Schutz 07:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Damn. Why did he do that?? (I know, you can't answer that...) Now we risk not hearing back from them, with the result that these images remain in limbo. How exactly did you phrase your inquiry to the webmaster of the parliament? If you made it reasonably clear that redistribution would also need to be allowed, I see no reason to ask them for a CC license, in that case their response is good enough. If you just asked them "may we use these images on Wikipedia", then I can see why David wanted a clarification... (BTW, when you forwarded the permission to Wikimedia, did you also include your original inquiry?) Lupo 08:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
My original request clearly mentioned redistribution, modification, etc. I'll email it to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org to make sure that they have all information. If this was a problem, I wonder why he did not ask me, instead of going back directly to the Parliament people. I will let you know. Schutz 08:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Please point him to this discussion, too. Lupo 08:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. Also, I emailed you my original permission request email (in French). Schutz 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. That certainly looks good enough, so I don't know what David was up to. (Sent an e-mail reply to you, too :-) Lupo 09:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
David would rather receive the clarification he was looking for, but in the meantime, we can start tagging. I've added the ticket number to Image:Federalpalace-dome.jpg already it you want to copy it. Cheers, Schutz 13:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. Good job! Lupo 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reversion of teletubbies

Schutz,

You reverted Teletubbies using popups. Did you intend to? There's been vandalism but I think you reverted one revision too far. - Richardcavell 15:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Richardcavell, thanks for noticing this. Indeed, it is an error — I checked the history page right after the reversion, and did only see Waggers's edit, so I thought he just did the revert faster than me; I guess there was a bit of lag before mine showed up. I have reverted it now, thanks. Schutz 16:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swiss Family Robinson

The reason i added it to the article Merchant Marine of Switzerland was to illustrate the unusual historical connection between Switzerland and the sea. It's a well-known tale, it gets the point across, and i do hope you'll consider putting it back in the article... Cheers. Thesocialistesq 04:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

But isn't the Swiss Family Robinson a purely fictional story ? I am not sure how it relates to the Merchant Marine of Switzerland. I'd suggest to discuss it in the talk page of the article to see if I am the only one puzzled. Or maybe, if you readd it, instead of just putting it as a "see also", you could add a few words of background information explaining the connection between the two topics. Cheers, Schutz 08:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I've done the latter... if anyone else takes issue with it, they can mention it on the talk page. As far as the merits, it may have been fictional, but it still shows the cultural connection: there aren't many other landlocked countries who have their children's adventure stories based around ocean voyages. Cheers again, Thesocialistesq 09:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNA Overview

Hi,

I'll start by stating that I realize you're working on the DNA Overview section with the best intentions, and this message is in no way meant to criticise you as a person or as a contributor. But please be aware that the "Overview" section in that article was meant to introduce the lay person to the topic -- think of a 14 year-old who has no idea what the heck DNA really is, hears about it on the radio or on the Discoveey channel and checks out Wikipedia for more info. Make no mistake: that section is intended for that kind of uninformed person alone -- we do NOT need to re-establish known facts to biologists in there. We just want to give a comprehensive glimpse on the topic to the lay person, we only want to make an uninformed party understand the very basic concepts on DNA. As such, I think your re-structuring of that section isn't a very good idea, because it makes non-essential parts of the explanation distract the reader from the main "epic" (again, "non-essential" as far as the layman is concerned -- I have no doubt that it's scientifically very significant that "these allowable base components of nucleic acids can be polymerized in any order giving the molecules a high degree of uniqueness", but I highly doubt the average Joe needs or wants to get that into his head.)

So, my plea to you is this: please, pretty please, make that section work for your average Joe! I was the original author of that section, and without me that section wouldn't have been there at all -- and I really, truly only intended that section to exist for the average Joe; that section was even called "DNA for dummies" in its original version, but that was deemed silly for an encyclopaedia (which is fair.) But my title was not really meant for the readers as it was meant for the contributors -- so please don't mutate that section into a "proper" overview for a biologist: they don't really need an "overview" section anyway, do they?

Please do let me know if you disagree, or if I'm not making sense, so we can discuss this. And, as always in Wikipedia, have fun! :-)

--Gutza T T+ 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, don't worry about the criticism — I am not the kind of person who would take it personaly... You are making perfect sense, and I do not disagree with what you say. My first goal was to get rid of the bullet points, which I hope you agree is a good idea; it is a prerequisite if we want the article to get back to featured article status eventually. While I have reordered the section (put similar topics together, which I hope you agree is a good thing too), I did not add much new content, so that the sentence you cite was already there before, along with a few others which indeed may not be well-suited for an overview (mainly the ones I left as bullet points for now). I you agree with these points, please do improve what I wrote, as I know this is far from perfect; but I believe that the current version is better than it was before. One question, though: what do you think is the overlap between this overview and the DNA article on the Simple English Wikipedia ? Best, Schutz 09:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knuth

Right now I am writing the article. Check back in 10 minutes... mikka (t) 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jura

I added a to-do list at Talk:Municipalities_of_the_canton_of_Jura (feel free to add to D6's agenda). -- User:Docu

[edit] Greenvale Primary School

An article I started, Greenvale Primary School, has been taken off for including copyrighted material. It recommended that I re-write the article, and I have at Greenvale Primary School/Temp. The page says that 7 days after its listing for deletion it will be replaced by the temporary page (Greenvale Primary School/Temp). It has now been 10 days. I was wondering if you, an admin, could do this? --DChiuch 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I am not an admin, but I'll see what I can do for you... (I'll follow up on your talk page). Schutz 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayors

[1] [2] have some of the info. -- User:Docu

Good; I will try to complete the list. What about the members of the Conseil Administratif ? I could probably start a new page, since all the information is on the web too. Schutz 12:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frog on the main page?

Schutz, you have mentioned Frog as a {{mainpage date}} article before it was appeared on the main page. I am not sure, is it the right thing to do so or should we wait before appearing on the main page? Shyam (T/C) 00:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shyam, short answer is that Frog was on the mainpage when I made this change (and when I bolded it in the list of featured articles); I must admit that I was pretty puzzled when I saw it, given that this page was indicating the current time as 23:19 UTC and I was not expecting the featured article to change for another 40 minutes or so. My only theory was that it had to do with the start of (European) daylight saving time, but I don't really see how it could be related. I will see if I can find more information. Schutz 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your well response. Shyam (T/C) 12:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  :D

Sure. 68.39.174.238 22:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth images

I was hoping to find which satellite actually took the images since the copyright of the photo can be different depending; I wasn't able to narrow it down other than to find that most satellite photos of the area aren't from the ones that are considered PD, so I've gone ahead and deleted the image. You're right though, the software-fairuse tag was horrible for that image :) Usually I leave a note on the image talk page when I'm researching; sorry I missed doing that on this one. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truncating the truncatable

Nice work, Schutz, on Prime number. You managed to sort out the mess while I was thinking about what to do :-) Elroch 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IBSN

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the IBSN article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Schutz 11:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it's exactly the opposite: the article about IBSN is just a translation of the [article in the Spanish Wikipedia] and [http://www.hewop.com/~ibsn/] just copied & pasted the text from IBSN to his site. I am sure of that because *I* translated the Spanish article to English. Please use [this contact form] to contact the webmaster of [http://www.hewop.com/~ibsn/] and get confirmation.Pgquiles 16:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pgquiles, and thanks for your note. Sorry if this was a mistake; the only way to know was to ask either you or to contact the other web site, and we usually start by questioning the content on Wikipedia... If the website just copied the content, then he is in violation of the GFDL... Cheers, Schutz 22:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The webmaster answered my request, but according to him, he did the translation in English, and it was copied afterwards to Wikipedia... in any case, he agrees for it to be published here under the GFDL, so there is no copyright problem (except knowing who the author is...). Schutz 12:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox and Pres. Garfield

I've reverted to check for the problem, and I don't see it. Could you upload a screenshot illustrating the problem? If there is a real problem, I assure you I can fix it. I don't see one at this time, however. — Apr. 21, '06 [11:57] <freakofnurxture|talk>

[edit] Heritability of monozygotic twinning

Saw your question about the "20 families, 50% twin rate". Good question. I could not substantiate it anywhere (admittedly with only a very quick check). So I suggest you go ahead and remove it. I may get on the topic this weekend.

I will admit to being rather frightened/horrified/fascinated at how widely my statements have now been distributed over the web. It seems an unethical person could almost create a new reality in this way. I'll never add something like that without a reference again. NuclearWinner 21:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SOURCE

Did you even look at the website you dismissed in the God article. It's spot on and has well articulated reasoning. Must I belabor the point by finding something published in a journal like Philosophy and Theology to cite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.178.82 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 26 April 2006.

I did; I found only three lines of unsigned text, and nothing in the parent directory — tell me if I missed anything. A source does not have to be a journal (even though a reputable, peer-reviewed, journal is probabaly among the best possible sources). A quote by a reputable person cited outside of a journal would be good too. In this case, an anonymous text on a Geocities website is probably not a source that Wikipedia can rely upon to build an encyclopedia. Best wishes, Schutz 06:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this. It seems rather arbitrary. I am trying to do my best to contribute and I keep getting rejected all the time.

Simply because something is anonymous and brief does not, in my opinion, make it unreliable. The most brilliant proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, even usigned, would still be a valid proof; are we to reject all in the name of namesakes? This article was, in my humble opinion, succinct and to the point. Far from being dismissed because it has three lines, I think it should be applauded for its brevity in a time when academics tend to pontificate far beyond what is necesary.

What if a reputable person said the holocaust didn't occur? Would we admit that as reputable evidence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.178.82 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 26 April 2006..

I am sorry if you feel like you keep getting rejected. I encourage you to look at pages such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which will explain better that I could what is considered to be a reputable source or not, and why it is important.
Of course, a source is not unreliable just because it is anonymous and brief. In particular, you are right to say that the length of the article is not a reason to dismiss it. But look at it the other way around: anyone can publish anything and the opposite on a website such as Geocities. If Wikipedia was to accept all these pages as reliable sources, it would be full of non-sense and contradictory pages, meaning that the readers would have to decide for themself what is correct or not; one of the goals of an encyclopedia is to avoid this problem (otherwise, nothing would differentiate Wikipedia from a random search engine).
Obviously, the most brilliant proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, even unsigned, would still be a valid proof. However, if it is not backed by competent mathematicians, any reader would have to decide by himself if it is correct or not. This is a feat that few people can achieve (even most mathematicians would be unable to judge if such a proof is correct in its entirety), which is why it is useful to have someone sorting out this kind of things.
To answer your last question/example, "being reputable" is probably not an objective measure, and it has to be judged against what the person says (a Nobel prize in chemistry is certainly reputable in his field; however, he may not be a reputable source if he talks about economy). In the case of the holocaust, there is a strong body of evidence that says it did occur; so strong that few historians will probably accept a theory denying it based only on someone's reputation. If someone unqualified, or a revisionist, says that it did not happen, noone will even look at his evidence (if any). If a reputable says so, other historians may at least have a look at his documents, so that being reputable still makes a difference.
I hope this answers your questions, and will not discourage you to contribute to Wikipedia. Please do not hesitate to ask me if you have any question, comment, or need any help. All the best, Schutz 06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Federalpalace-dome.jpg

Bonjour,

J'ai peut être raté des étapes mais il me semble qu'on n'a toujours pas reçu l'autorisation précise de la part du parlement. As-tu reçu une autorisation ? Cordialement. Pyb 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I see that the ticket is still opened in OTRS... well, in my last email, I asked David if he wanted me to pursue this further, but he did not mention anything (I note that the Parliament's webmaster did not answer David's request). Now, it was my opinion that the blanket autorization ("copyrighted free use") received from the Parliament was enough; Lupo was also happy with this email (see above on this talk page). Would you agree with that ? If really needed, I can go back and ask them, as I mentioned to David, but frankly, when someone tells me that I can use their images "without restriction", I would feel like I was harassing them if I was going back and asking for more details... Schutz 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Schutz's e-mail asking for permission as well as the response were both clear enough. Schutz, do we have access to the OTRS tickets? I didn't know that. If so, where? There's a couple of things I'd like to check... (unrelated to these images of the Federal Palace). Lupo 07:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
We don't, in general; I got an account in the framework of "Wikimedia CH", and found my permission ticket opened when I first did a search on my email address following a test ticket I sent. Schutz 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brilliant Mathematician

The brilliant mathematician is a well known source, cited all over the internet. It is wholly by chance that two of my sources came from the same geocities, edged on by the fact that brilliant mathematician is cited almost everywhere on the 'net.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.178.97 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 May 2006.

I can only refer you to my comment above about anonymous sources and random web sites. Tell me if there is anything that is not clear in there. All the best, Schutz 07:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New structure of Copyright Problems page

Hey there, I wanted to speak to you about your bot, and it's maintainment of WP:CP. I have slightly altered the way that the page works, and would appreciate it if you would contact me via AIM: lightdarkness42, MSN: lightdarkness <at> gmail (dot) com, or email (Same as MSN). Thanks. --lightdarkness (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, by email. Schutz 23:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks GREAT! Thanks so much. --lightdarkness (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shahin Badar.jpg

Hi Sysy, I am following up on your call for help on the page Image:Shahin Badar.jpg. There used to be a copyright tag indicating that Wikipedia received permission to use such an image, but its use has been discontinued. Now, such images can be used on Wikipedia only if the rights holder has agreed for them to be distributed under a free licence, such as the GFDL, one of the free Creative Commons licences, or even just a blanket "any use or modification allowed" permission. If this was indeed the case, this person must confirm this permission by email to "permissions at wikimedia dot org", using an email address that makes it likely that he is indeed the copyright holder (see Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission for more information). This allows Wikipedia to centrally store a copy of the authorization. In the meantime, I am going to tag your image as having no licence, which means that it may be deleted in a few days. However, should this happen, you can always reupload it if you get the authorization sorted out. Hope this helps – don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page is you need more help. Schutz 14:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can tag the image as being "Fair Use" for the illustration of the article Shahin Badar, if you cannot get a more general authorization. But the latter option would be best. Schutz 14:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll get in touch with her manager and let him know the situation. For now I think I'll mark it as fair use, to perhaps give the picture a bit more time to live. =) -- Sy / (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've tagged it as fair use already, so that it does not get deleted in the near future. Schutz 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caius Stained Glass

Dear "Schutz",

Two down and four to go! What about Sherrington, Green, Fisher, and Chadwick?

Well done (so far)!

I cannot agree more with your erudite comment above...

NitramrekcapmpNitramrekcap

I replied on your talk page. Next time, please put a "c" in my Wikipedia name, and put your message on my talk page, and not on my user page, thank you. Schutz 13:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No bot flag

You may want to explain on your bot's user page that new bots run without a bot flag, in order to reduce confusion for users who click "Hide bots" and still see your bot's changes! Brian Jason Drake 01:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Done; thanks for the suggestion. Schutz 06:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Knuth-check2.png

Hey, I noticed you added a little note on the WP:CP page about this image. A few of us discussed it in en-admins on IRC, and a few agree that a fair use rational will suffice, specificly noting that the copyrighted font-face's and images in the check are displayed without intent, and that the image is there to illistrate the reward check.

When you supply the image with a fair use rational, you can remove the Imagevio tag. Also, be sure to use the {{fairusein}} template.

PS: I endorsed your bot for a bot flag on WP:BRFA, now you'll just need to bug a Burearucrat.

Cheers,

--lightdarkness (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a fair use rationale and updated the text; can I let you have a quick look before removing the page from the list of copyright problems ? Ta, Schutz 16:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A much belated apology :(

I was looking backward through the history tab of my User_talk: just now, and I feel obligated to humbly apologize for rolling back your edit to Template:Infobox President a month ago. I had, all this time, mistaken you for a different, problematic user and his various sockpuppets ([3], [4], [5], [6]) with names similar to yours. Sorry about that. — May. 19, '06 [07:42] <freak|talk>

Thanks for the apology — although I did not even notice that this problem occured, I am glad to know that I won't be confused with a sockpuppeter... My initial thought when you reverted my edit was that you wanted to see what was wrong with the previous version of the template; since we did not manage to reproduce the problem afterwards, we let things as they were and to me, the "case" was closed... Anyway, it's good if the confusion has been sorted out. All the best, Schutz 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demand Note

Hmmm. I'm just wondering then why there is no star on the article's page now... Ifnord 00:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio listing page move

You moved the June 1 Copyvio page due to naming conventions, but this is causing some confusion, as among other things, Template:Copyvio points to the redirect page. Can you try to fix these issues, or consider moving the page back until they can be fixed? A confusing system will lead to people just not bothering to report problems, I'm afraid. --W.marsh 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I can't do the move back because of the already existing page; can I let you do it, and I'll fix the resulting breakages ASAP ? Schutz 13:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know — the problem was not so much naming conventions, but the fact that the bot which updates the copyright violation pages every day did not find the correct pages, so this move solved the problem. I thought the redirect would prevent any breakage, but I did not factor in links which points directly to a page edition. I'll fix the bot before the next run; thanks for having mentioned this problem. Schutz 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved it back... my concern was just that because the template brings up an edit page screen directly, people trying to report copyvios get a page editting the redirect. This might be able to be fixed just by changing the template, I'm not sure. But for now it's back to the original location. --W.marsh 14:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, there is no need to change the template. It was better (and clearly more correct) to fix the address of the pages. I have updated the bot so that it should do things correctly next time (since it started operating in mid-May, it is the first time that he has to handle single-digits dates, and he was not ready for it...). Thanks again, Schutz 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Er, the template will still point to June 1, June 2, and so on, instead of June 01, June 02, etc. right? This problem will just happen every day then. I might be missing something here though...--W.marsh 14:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the template will still point to June 1, June 2, but the copyright problem subpages (which are automatically created at 0:00 UTC) will now be named June 1, June 2, etc, instead of 01, 02, so that everything will match. The links from the main copyright problems page will also be correct (and will not involve a redirect). This should solve all the problems, or am I the one missing something ? Schutz 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it all makes sense to me now... thanks for your time. --W.marsh 15:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Sorry - it was an edit conflict (a silent one too). I must have started editing, been distracted, come back to save my response, and inadvertantly overwritten yours - all without any warning :( Sorry again. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passports

Fwiw, after a little hunting UK titles appear on the passport and driving documents as well. It was really difficult find this as for obvious reasons so few people have need to know. However looking through the debates of the House of Lords I found a discussion over the standardisation of European Passports. Previously the Style and title of peers or knights were printed on the front cover of UK passports but now it has to go inside:

"Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been a concession to that end—not on the front of the passport but on the page that contains the basic fundamental data—that titles can be included in a shortened form and that somewhere else in the passport the full title can be printed for observational purposes."

UK Common law recognises the title as their lawful signature. ie "Earl of Somewhere" signs "Somewhere". I could also find warrants allowing foreigners to add those foreign titles 'officially' and a similar practice existed/exists elsewhere e.g. some former Italian Royals (who were denied Italian passports) were apparently given Dutch passports with their titles included. This is the best I could find quickly Alci12 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is more than enough; to me it settles the issue since it clearly shows that there is something official. Thanks a lot for spending time to look into this issue; do you think this interesting piece of information and source could find its way to one of our articles (and maybe get linked from the relevant page of the manual of style) ? All the best, Schutz 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can add citations to the MoS itself as it's a guide to use not a place to justify that use. As to the info well if I can find somewhere to add it I certainly will - it doesn't appear it is covered atm - probably as those who wrote such things just assumed them too obvious to mention.
I have found a video recorded this monday - in the House of Lords of an introduction of a peer (timeline skip to 9 minutes) [7] perhaps which mentions his name forename+surname in the warrant read out but as a consequence of that warrant being issued he calls himself forename+title. The clip is of Baron Cotter of Congresbury in the County of Somerset – Brian Joseph Michael Cotter.
To record the information, I was thinking about an article in the main space, such as Sir (the first one that comes to my mind); from the MoS page, the reference could be as simple as "(see Sir for more information)". Schutz 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny coincidence, I just found another piece of convincing evidence, and on Wikipedia no less: see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Civil_partnership_elton_john.jpg. Schutz 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And we can square the circle with this In the link above the Royal Warrant carefully uses Thomas Maurice Ponsonby (commonly called The Honourable Thomas Maurice Ponsonby) to indicate that this is not a matter of law but courtesy where it called Ashley's brother - who holds a peerage - Rupert Charles, Baron de Mauley [note omission of the surname]
With regard to the MoS, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes seems to have links to the respective article atm. But perhaps I'm not understanding you. I will try and see who I can find to advise what to do about the house of lords quotes wrt passports as it ought to be somewhere after the effort to find it ;) Alci12 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding these quotes and links directly to the article Sir, perhaps under the first section: after the explanation about the names, add how this prefix is used with the relevant references. I can give it a shot if I am not quite clear yet. Schutz 16:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Order_of_St._John#Precedence_and_privileges gives some lead in that it makes a distinction between State Orders where "Sir" is granted along with precedence and non state orders where only the post nominal letters are granted. In this sense the latter example is exactly the same position those foreigners who are given hon knighthoods find themselves.Alci12 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Municipalities of Switzerland

Hi there! I saw on your user page you have a project going to create stubs for every municipality in Switzerland. Are you running a bot for this process? I've been creating quite a large number of Swiss municipality stubs myself, but I have been creating them by hand and working from the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr. If there's a quicker way of creating the basic stub article, containing the standard {{Infobox Swiss town}} template, a navbox and interwikis, I would definitely be interested in taking part. It's been proving to be a very slow road otherwise. Regards, --BillC 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not used a bot so far; however, I have collaborated with User:Docu, whose bot, User:D6, can do the job. I have not done much on this in the past few weeks, but I am still interested in doing it in the near future. If Docu can not help, I could provide a bot to do this as well. All the best, Schutz 22:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I'll get in touch with User:Docu. BillC 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pythagorean theorem

You're right that I put it in the wrong place. But obviously the section on the converse of the Pythagorean theorem does not belong within the section on proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. (I've moved it; the "converse" section is now separate from the "proofs" section.) Michael Hardy 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, note that you have messed up with the section while moving the section on the "converse". Otherwise, my problem is that I don't think that this very short section on the converse really deserves a top-level section. Putting it under "Proofs" (note that the section is not called "Proofs of the theorem") looks like a reasonable option to me, since we actually provide a proof of the converse (which was already enunciated in the lead). I am happy if we can find a better solution, but I don't think we should have section that are only one or two paragraphs long. Schutz 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's how it is to be viewed, then I think that subsection should be titled "proof of the converse" (or "proofs of the converse" when and if more than one proof of the converse is included), and placed after the proofs of the main theorem. Michael Hardy 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have made the modification; I let you have a look if it is ok. Schutz 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of 82.36.241.165

Hi. You might like to have a closer look at the edits being done by 82.36.241.165 to Tots TV and elsewhere. You've warned this user, and he/she has been blocked several times already by other admins, but is still carrying on with a campaign of vandalizing edits. Do you think it's time for a longer ban now? --MichaelMaggs 04:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not an admin, so there is not much I can do, but I see the AmiDaniel has blocked him for 24 hours. I can only agree that a longer ban would be justified — I just spent a few minutes looking at his latest edits before the block, and I have reverted quite a few of them again... Cheers, Schutz 10:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question about 217.33.74.20

The reason why the person is editing again is because of a quirk in the software. There were 3 blocks at once. Logically, you would think that the longest one would be the one that takes precedent. But it's the opposite. There was a 1 hour, a 3 hour and a 48 hour. Once the 1 hour elapsed, it cancelled out the 3 and 48 hour blocks. It's a known quirk...and it's a pain...but that's why he can edit again. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation — this is confusing indeed. One would indeed expect either the longest one (as you say), or maybe the latest, to take precedent. Anyway, it's good to know, thanks for looking into it. Cheers, Schutz 11:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem. :) It's something that even admins struggle with. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response; Talk etc.

Thank you for your message and the valuable links. And regarding the Swiss Franc talk page, that was duly a mistake on my behalf, probably made in the process of logging in, and in so doing copying the text but perhaps not having scrolled down the full length of it. My apologies. Staretsen 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought so indeed; this is not a problem, since the history of each page is reported. Hope you'll enjoy editing Wikipedia ! All the best, Schutz 23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Course de l'escalade

Cher Schutz,
Je vous ai laissé un message sur votre page francophone.
Cordialement,
Moumou82

[edit] Your edit to Canada

Your recent edit to Canada (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 12:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, for non-bots, this was due to an edit conflict while reverting, and also to the fact that reverting using popups reverts only the last edit by an author, so that I did not revert to the last non-vandalism version. So the bot did not revert a legitimate edit, but it was still a good faith edit. Schutz 12:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wrong edit

Please don't make changes if you don't know what you are doing. Her Majesty's Government is used in the context of Letter of Credence because that is the formal name applied and the article is about legal and constitutional formulae, so the correct constitutional language is needed to give context. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I knew what I was doing... I did not (and still do not) see any need to use a formal title in this context; the important point is that the Queen got advice from the government, and there can be no doubt about what it means in this context. The only ambiguity may be to know which government we are talking about; however, as the page Her Majesty's Government (which you linked to) points out, this term is also used in other kingdoms, so that using the formal name does not help much. Taking this point into account, "The British Government" looks to me like the best formulation — simple, clear and to the point. Schutz 16:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, looking at your userboxes, you will probably not enjoy the following comment, but: I just noticed that the fair use rationale for the two images used in the Letter of Credence page look bogus (and inexistent for one of them). It should be possible to find one such free image from a government which puts its works in the public domain (such as the US). Schutz 16:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. She did not get the advice from the government. Britain operates a Nominal Chief Executive system of Government. Constitutionally she is part of the government, not being externally advised by it. The formal term to use in that context, is Her Majesty's Government. her government means something totally different, a subtlety you do not seem to grasp. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to trust you (although I would find it hard to believe that no generic name exists to designate this government, and that only a formal name can be used), so I am asking this only to improve my personal knowledge because, indeed, I don't grasp the subtlety. You say that her government means something totally different, so what does it mean ? Schutz 18:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cryptography

Thanks! Yes, your comments were helpful. Anytime anyone can spend real energy on criticism of an article, it's a good thing (provided someone actually is willing to incorporate the changes!) I'm a fan of the FAC process now and I intend to participate in the future... I think I learned something, though: the process doesn't really work so well if the nominator isn't trying to make an article featured; it seems like about 2/3 or more of the nominations are brought by editors who happened upon an article they like... then criticisms get made but no one listens. Too bad, really. Mangojuicetalk 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for your constructive criticism and support of the FAC for Cryptography, which became a featured article today. I appreciate your effort and attention! Mangojuicetalk 19:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 82.36.241.12 et al

I see you have came across this user. He/She is known as the "Tots TV" vandal because of his contributions to the article, and his/her obsession with changing the sex of characters and other silly vandalism. None of their contributions are, at least to me and several other admins, useful to this encyclopedia and are reverted as they cannot be trusted. If you come across him/her or any other IP that is similar, alert WP:AIAV. Thanks and regards, Iolakana|T 16:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen him/her a few times already, and listed him/her at WP:AIAV already after the relevant warnings, but I did not know that I could/should go there directly. But I am very glad to know it, because he is a pain. Thanks for the advice ! Schutz 18:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding bands

Hello! In January, you deleted my page for the band A Royal Death. What would some parameters be on the significances of adding band pages? Of what importance must be addressed? Must the band have released albums? --Fractions 20:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply is on your talk page. Schutz 20:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks! I appologize that it took me six months to finally get back to you, I've just been preoccupied! Thanks again! --Fractions 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mangojuicetalk 21:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Image

Doesn't the "no commercial" use mean that we can use it? I mean, we aren't using images of the Swiss government to seel a product are we?

Booksworm Talk to me! 13:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia may be sold, for example on a CD or on paper — this would be commercial use, even if the endproduct is free/libre and the image is only a tiny part of the end product. Also, it is a general principle of Wikipedia to use only free images (I think that "non-commercial use only" images used to be allowed, but they are not anymore). Fair use images are not free, but they are accepted in the cases where no free image can replace them (for example, a photo of an historical event, a CD cover, etc). In practice, I feel like this is often abused; in the case of the Swiss President, and we want to use the "official" picture, fair use should apply because there can only be one official picture. Schutz 13:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog page

Please read the dog page before altering. It put it in a more objective light.

This is clearly better, but still not perfect, as you can see from the fact that someone reverted your change. To start with, the grammar and spelling should probably be improved so that the point you are trying to make is clearer. In addition, your comment seems borderline to failing WP:NPOV. Schutz 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swiss district templates

Thanks for letting me know. I have been converting a lot of these, as you point out, and it is possible that some errors have crept in. I will go back and check to see if I have allowed any more to creep in. The intent behind this, by the way, is to standardise on both the name and format of the templates. Once that's done, I will run a script I have written to create the remainder of the missing Swiss district templates. Thanks again, and regards, BillC 06:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to get some consistency in the templates is an excellent idea, by the way. As Docu mentioned on your talk page, we created a few of these manually but it takes a lot of time, and it is harder to be consistent, so your help is very welcome... Cheers, Schutz 06:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! I finally got round to completing all the Swiss district navigation templates, which can be seen at Category:Swiss district templates. I standardised on both the format (a 'collapsible' dynamic bar) and the name (they're all called Municipalities of the district of xxxx). There may be some dispute over name: should some be called Wahlkreis xxx, for example?, so I have no problem if anyone wants to go in and edit them. I have added the templates to all existing municipality articles. I amended my Perl script to add the appropriate navigation template in each municipality stub. One thing I couldn't easily do was add in the coat of arms image -- not all are on the de wiki or on the Commons, and the naming convention is not standard. The municipalities all have interwiki links out to the same languages as the de article does (plus also to de itself), but I have not been making interwiki links back to the en article. I have been speaking to User:Yurik, and apparently YurikBot can handle this task. Regards, BillC 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot to archive the village pumps

I saw your offer at Cryptic's talk page, and am looking to follow up on it, do you think you could set up a bot to archive the village pumps? Steve block Talk 16:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I could probably do it (would need a bit of time since I am quite busy at the moment, though) Schutz 14:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. To be honest I pinged a few people, and at the minute I'm in discussion with User:Werdna648 regarding using his bot. See User talk:Werdna648#Archive the village pumps? for the discussion so far, perhaps you might have thoughts on the issue too? Steve block Talk 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] math formula to png graphic

"Rv to math markup (if only for consistency across the article); note that it is rendered as HTML anyway" It is not rendered as HTML for me. http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/f/8/ff84c6edc541466263055f8dc19006c8.png

I get the whole consisteny thing, but hey its a great waste for something such as the fermat equation. Timothy Clemans 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, what do you mean by waste ? The math markup is shorter and (I think) more readable than the HTML (of course, I am talking about the equation itself, not about a, b, and c which have to be enclosed in math tags, and which, indeed, are longer). Schutz 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Math markup is more for stuff that can not be expressed well in HTML such as such roots and many symbols than something like the Fermat equation which is some real basic stuff. If the png graphic for the math markup was turned off for everyone, then I would be more ok with this math markup for this eqution.
Isn't it the default ? Schutz 06:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not the defult and if it i rendered in HTML then it appears smaller which I dislike.
I did not use math forumla code in the introduction. Timothy Clemans 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I just saw that. Given that you seemed to agree with the consistency argument above, and noting that the top of the article seems to have been using <math> markup for the past 500 revisions or so (with a few inconsistencies), I'll probably change it back. Schutz 06:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
After checking, the default is "HTML if very simple or else PNG", so when Fermat's equation is inlined, it should be HTML by default. (personaly, I had a hard time noticing the difference in size, despite being trained in mathematical typography; however, I much prefer the font of the <math> version, which is really italized instead of being just slanted. Different people, different tastes...). Schutz 06:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are doing it for consistency with all formula on page, then why have you not gone in and changed every formula written in HTML? Sorry about the arithmetica images. "Either form is acceptable, but do not change one form to the other in other people's writing. They are likely to get annoyed since this seems to be a highly emotional issue. Changing to make an entire article consistent is acceptable." Timothy Clemans 07:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I aim for consistency indeed (and I even remember reading the paragraph you cited), so I sometimes check the article completely (cf for example [8]), and otherwise try to keep things consistent as they are modified. But indeed, you are right, there has been quite a few additions of HTML maths which passed below my radar lately, I'll try to have a look. Thanks for pointing this out. Schutz 08:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There are some strange things in the article. I'm trying to improve the content of the article which is very hard. Timothy Clemans 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; I just finished updating the math markup, and I found a few strange things. I have corrected a reference, but will look into some of the other low-hanging fruit. Schutz 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not see a single coded math piece that should be coded in latex. Timothy Clemans 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The FLT article is uninteresting so I would rander see you working on content rather than formating. Timothy Clemans 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, I am quite happy to discuss about this article, even though we do not agree on the formating; however, telling me what I should do while editing Wikipedia is not something I particularly appreciate. We have many editors who do nothing but improve the formating of articles, and they are also valuable contributors to Wikipedia. As for this particular article, please check out my contributions in the history before commenting on them. Schutz 20:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there is no point discussing this too much; I personaly believe that using LaTeX is technically superior to using HTML, if only for semantic reasons (for example, it will allow us to use MathML when the browsers support it, see WP:MATH for example) and that this is far more important than a personal taste about the layout (which could and should be solved at the level of the stylesheet !); since you probably do not agree, in the end, it boils down to the quote you cited above: don't change it, expect for consistency. Having followed this article for a while now, it seems to me that latex markup is what we've used most of the time, and that it is what we should aim for if we want consistency (note that I would not, however, go and randomly convert other articles just for the sake of it). Schutz 20:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that latex should not be used when html does everything expect tell the browser that something is math formula and the text formating. You have not been helping with content. Editing typos is not editing the content. Content is like paragraphs etc. The notation in the FLT article is not a very help right now expect a few things here and there. besides math notation is to be on its own line. Timothy Clemans 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Old edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem&action=edit&oldid=103439 used html not latex. Timothy Clemans 21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The first time you edited FLT (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem&oldid=6478811) there wereonly two latex formulas out of 19 spots that would be in latex today by you. Timothy Clemans 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In the history of the FLT article there does not seem to have ever been a record of that article having all math formula in latex. Timothy Clemans 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok I've done the history work on your edits to the FLT article. You only did 1 or 2 content edits where you made major improvements out of
  1. 20:49, 10 October 2004
  2. 06:05, 30 September 2005
  3. 18:57, 31 December 2005
  4. 03:13, 4 January 2006
  5. 09:08, 25 January 2006
  6. [07:24, 2 February 2006] (strong edit-all else is just rv, image, 3 three word edit, etc)
  7. 07:03, 14 February 2006
  8. 20:59, 1 March 2006
  9. 05:57, 7 March 2006
  10. 14:53, 26 May 2006
  11. 02:48, 27 June 2006
  12. 14:48, 13 July 2006
  13. 17:06, 14 July 2006
  14. 04:47, 18 July 2006
  15. 14:35, 18 July 2006
  16. 14:21, 24 July 2006
  17. 14:27, 24 July 2006
  18. 14:57, 24 July 2006
  19. 03:56, 25 July 2006

Timothy Clemans 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Timothy, but I don't see where this discussion is going. What point are you trying to make ? That you dare telling me that I should work more on content, while you waste your time summarising my edits (yes, I suggested you could have a look at them, not list them all on my talk page) ? That the article was in a certain format in 2002, and so it should stay this way ? You are allowed to disagree with me on what a "content edit" is, but saying "you have not been helping with content" is just plain wrong (I feel obligated to mention that when you dismiss an edit as being just "adding an image" and thus without content, this tiny edit included finding the original book, getting a photocopy of the relevant pages, scanning it, uploading the image and adding to the page. Not exactly something minor.). And as I mentioned above, it misses the point completely, since we do not care if people work on content or format as long as what they do improves the encyclopedia.

Now we are both starting to repeat ourselves, so let's go back to something technical. You say: "The problem is that latex should not be used when html does everything expect tell the browser that something is math formula and the text formating.". Why should latex not be used ? The only reasons I have heard so far were about layout, which is subjective; WP:MATH lists only aesthetic pros of HTML over latex, while technical pros are given for latex over HTML. The one that really convinces me is in number 3, which says, "where possible, all the benefits of HTML can be retained, together with the benefits of TeX".

In the end, if you think there is a good reason for the article to use HTML over latex markup (and "I dislike it" is not a terribly good reason), please bring it to the article's talk page for discussion. Schutz 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not wasted my time going through your edits. I have shown that latex was never the main tool for the description of math formula and therefore consistency does not support usig latex. Latex should not bbe used right now at all, because none of the math formulas are complicated, however some of the notation that might be put into it later on will have to be in latex. So in the end it comes down to complexity of the notation. PlanetMath puts all notation into tex formula, but it is not the case on Wikipedia. Timothy Clemans 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
"Before introducing TeX markup for producing special characters, it should be noted that, as this comparison table shows, sometimes similar results can be achieved in HTML (see Help:Special characters)." "Changing to make an entire article consistent is acceptable" HTML code got changed to latex before the whole article was changed, however there seems to have balways been a large imblance between HTMl an Latex with HTML in more use. Timothy Clemans 04:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we do not just go and use latex, becuse it gives us more information and many pages have a mix of latex and HTML. The whole sectio on using HTML for math formula on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_Wikipedia_article_on_Mathematics#Typesetting_of_mathematical_formulas.

"Either form is acceptable, but do not change one form to the other in other people's writing." There was a huge imbalance between use of HTML and latex for most of the article's history. Timothy Clemans 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that the text content on the FLT article is far more important than images, because people wanting to learn the history of Fermat's Last Theorem are going to need content. I have been working on that. There is very little informtion about anyones' contribbutions to the study of FLT. Timothy Clemans 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The 500th post ([9]) has 2 latex formulas and 3 HTML ones. Timothy Clemans 05:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The 450th post ([10]) has 3 latex formulas and 10 HTML ones.
The 400th post ([11]) has 3 latex formulas and 10 HTML ones.
The 350th post ([12]) has 3 latex ones and 10 ones.
Timothy Clemans 05:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMM Link

Oops, sorry for the link added. It can be a good opportunity to learn something. What's the difference between an external link and a reference ? A reference is more a scientific paper and a external link more a web-page, or something like this ? JeDi 11:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The main difference, probably, is that the reference section is supposed to indicate the sources one has used to write the article. A web page could be a reference, but a scientific paper or something similar (more likely to still exist in the long term) would probably be better. In the case of the Rabiner article, it has become a de facto reference/review on the topic of HMMs, so it is a good paper to cite as a reference. "External link", however, should contain only webpages; other papers and books (interesting, but not used as a reference) which happen to be available on the web should be listed under "Further reading" rather than external links. "External links" is an often abused section, where people list any website that is remotely connected with the topic. Hope this helps ! Schutz 12:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date copyright categories

I am in the process of changing the copyvio template to be similar to Template:Prod so that it will automatically put copyright violations in a dated category like CAT:PROD. Do you think that Zorglbot would be most appropriate to set up these categories, because it is otherwise involved with copyright page maintenance, or do you think that User:DumbBOT would be more appropriate, because it is the bot that already sets up dated categories for CAT:PROD? —Centrx→talk • 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Fermat's Last Theorem article draft A page

You edited my draft m User:Timothy Clemans/Fermat's Last Theorem/A‎; 15:22 . . Schutz (Talk | contribs) (typos), thank you, but how did you know that I was even working on it and do you like what I have done? Timothy Clemans 07:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User contributions is your friend ;-) The structure looks good, although I imagine that you will not keep all the explicit sections in the end (either you won't have enough to say to fill in all the sections, or the article will become very long...). I have only one suggestion; using the draft for the structure looks like a good idea; but now that you have started filling in content, you could maybe add it to the article directly ? Be bold, as we say. For example, the new lead could already be useful in the present article. This will also allow other contributors to participate as soon as possible, in the Wiki spirit (if you dump an entire new version of the article at some point, it'll make it harder for others to contribute). Or maybe, if a draft is needed, it could be done under the article's talk page, with a link from the page ?
I have a few minor comments about the intro (not even including the math typography ;-), but I don't have much time for the moment (and won't have much access to a computer until next week). Schutz 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
In fact, a few quick comments/suggestions (sorry if you know about them but just did not have time to take care of them)
  • you should wikilink all the dates, such as 26 July 2006; this allows the user to get the date displayed in is preferred format, as set in the preferences.
  • references should go in the relevant section, with only links in the next (and not "(see...")
  • it is probably not useful to give the date of birth and death for people cited in the article; readers can go the relevant article if they want the information.
  • I would start the article by actually citing the theorem first (that's what the article is about !), and only after that indicate that it is the most celebrated, etc. Schutz 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about signpost, I just got the procedure for editing mixed up. I will not bbe the one to transfer my work, but I will still be working on it. I have been studying the manual of studying. I'm just gald I was able to get so much work done. Do note that my userpage on Fermat's Last Theorem is there to not be edited by other people, so please never change my drafts for any reason other than typos unless I'm ok with it, but feel free to do whatever you want with it outside of my userpage, because it is an open source document. Thanks! Timothy Clemans 03:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Schutz Thanks for your kind indication in reference to the article Suzanne E. Baumann and the website www.suzannebaumann.ch. I will add the mentioned authorization for the content published on Wikipedia, next week to the website.User:S.baumann 20:30,03 August 2006

[edit] Suzanne E.Baumann

Its done! The needed authorization for the content published on Wikipedia is now added on the main page of the website www.suzannebaumann.ch (and www.isisvoice).Thanks again- Suzanne E.Baumann User:S.baumann 10:03.04 August 2006

[edit] Wikipedia:Copyright problems, Zorglbot

At Wikipedia:Copyright problems, User:Zorglbot puts listings older than 7 days at the top of the list, but it should put them at the bottom. Please fix that. Thanks --Commander Keane 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll make it more resistant to this kind of problems. For the record, this problem is due to people who add an empty line between the comment and the transclusion of daily templates; when no inclusion follows directly the comment (e.g. because there is an empty line), Zorglbot believes that there is no backlog and add the new day directly. Schutz 21:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanne E.Baumann

Dear Schutz,as still a newcommer, I would be glad for your help for the suggested redirection to be added. Thank you for your support User:S.baumann 09:28, 11.August 2006

Hi Suzanne, are you saying that everything in the page Suzanne Baumann has been integrated into Suzanne E. Baumann, and that the redirect can take place ? Schutz 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Schutz, yes the redirect can take place, the content of the page: Suzanne Baumann has been integrated into Suzanne E. Baumann-User:S.baumann 11:04, 14 August 2006

Ok, I have added the redirect. You can look at the source of the page Suzanne Baumann to see how I have done it, or you can also look at Wikipedia:Redirect for more information. Schutz 10:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Schutz, Thank you-I have a little question: is it declared clear enough on the website http://www.suzannebaumann.ch and the article Suzanne E. Baumann, that only the texts and (later images) published in wikipedia are licensed for GFDL utilisation,that the intellectual property, copyright on the content of this texts, artworks,and listed projects remain with the author? I would be very greatful for your help.User:S.baumann 14:14,16 August 2006

Looks good to me. Actually, the best way to do it, if possible, would be to send an email to permissions@wikimedia.org from an email address in the @suzannebaumann.ch domain (to prove that it was sent by someone who has the right to do it) explaining this. This way, the information can be stored in our archives, even if the mention disappears from the website. Schutz 12:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zorglbot

Is it posible to run the bot for tr.wiki? --Cat out 13:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it could be but I need a bit more details on what you'd like to do ? Schutz 22:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zorglbot moving CPs to backlog

See Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#New template limits. Because of some software changes, it is apparently necessary that the size of the page or the transcluded templates be minimized, so the way to do that is change the Article and Image pages, like Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 August 12/Articles, from being transcluded into being just links when they are moved the backlog. That is, from e.g. [13] to e.g. [14]. I don't know if this is the best way, but it's what we've got for now, and otherwise it is going to have to be done manually, so the bot might as well do it as the bot is already moving the days from New to Backlog. —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've spent quite a bit of time researching what was happening on this page. I'll change the bot ASAP (but probably not before early next week). We'll also have to reduce the backlog at some point, but I can't help much there. Schutz 08:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted maybe 300 of them in the past few days; I was mostly doing it among other things via Special:Shortpages though, not by day from oldest to newest. What I really think is needed is a stronger message on MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning to discourage people from posting copyright-infringing text in the first place, I have brought it up on the Talk page there, but there has not been much participation and people, me included, really like the current short, clean message. Another possibility is to put something at the top of MediaWiki:Edittools (above the Insert character box). —Centrx→talk • 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not very optimistic about the fact that people will be deterred by a more prominent/stronger message. But it may be worth trying anyway, who knows... As for Zorglbot, I'll probably continue to transclude the main page for every day, but on this page, I will link to the two subpages (articles and images) when they go into the backlog, rather than transclude them, as has been done for the oldest pages in the backlog. It is very easy to implement and should do the job; what do you think ? Schutz 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zorglbot!

The da Vinci Barnstar
I award the barnstar of da Vinci 4 code written by Schutz in making Zorglbot an indispensable device on WP:CP. --Gurubrahma 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)



Hi, just wanted to say thanks for the good work you've done with Zorglbot. btw, your userpage is a good read! --Gurubrahma 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nesh

I notice that you 'Wiktionary' tagged this article that I created. I have removed the tag. Wiktionary already has an article on this word. I am currently developing the 'Cultural significance' section which is encyclopaedic and unsuited to Wiktionary. Further, this article is fully sourced. If you have further concerns I should be happy to discuss them. TerriersFan 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As you will see, I have taken your points on board, and I have rewritten the article in a more encyclopaedic form. Thank you for alerting me to your concerns. TerriersFan 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi TerriersFan, I'm glad to see that the article is well-referenced, but to me, it still reads like a dictionary entry (and I don't say that in a pejorative way !). The cultural significance section looks like a list of examples of use which you would find in a dictionary. However, I don't feel so strongly about that that I would push the move any further. Cheers, Schutz 08:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortpages

Looks amazing. Will it do the whole 1000? Please also teach it to pick up {{copyvio|xxxx.com}} and other {{template|xxxx}} tags in the rightmost column, which it currently doesn't appear to. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it should as many as I want but I am waiting for approval before using it because I am worried this may be a lot of pages to request at once. I have already modified the regular expressions in the script to get the {{copyvio|xxxx.com}}, I'll look into others {{template|xxxx}} as soon as possible. Schutz 05:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rounding down on FA page

Hello Schutz, thanks for your response regarding my edit on FA page. I think 'a number multiple of 10' does still make sense between 1200 and 1300. Don't you think so? Or should we make a poll on the talk page regarding this? Should we decide it upon majotiry? Shyam (T/C) 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry. I think 2 significant digits would be enough precision in this case, but I also think that this is not important enough to deserve a poll, so we can leave it at 3 digits, as it is now. Cheers, Schutz 19:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] La bot

Hi Schutz! Thanks for that. I looked over the bot's page (well, glanced... well, glanced at the first line or so ;o) and couldn't see obvious testing. Didn't fancy the research (it's 00u40 here and I should be in bed) so just tagged the deletion log.

If you're testing, that's fine and don't worry. I'll actually look at what the bot's job is tomorrow... not for sinister reasons, just because I'm interested :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] geodis

also hndis, 3CC, 4CC, 2CC, TLA, TLAdisambig. FYI. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the list; I'll try to add them quickly and run the script afterwards. Schutz 06:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Any other template I should take care of, please tell me. Schutz 07:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:IFD

Great job on creating the TFD pages - it brings a sense of conformity instead of having to have other people add the headers on top. Could you also have User:Zorglbot also create the daily IFD page as well? Hbdragon88 21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm back from holidays, I'll try to do it as soon as possible. Schutz 23:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zorglbot comment inconsistent with WP:TFD

Hi. FYI, when Zorglbot creates a new date at WP:TFD, it includes the following comment:

<!-- Add new listings at the bottom of the list with the following format:

{{ subst:tfd2|template name|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. ~~~~ }}

-->

But WP:TFD#How to use this page says in step II that new listings are supposed to go at the top, not the bottom. I couldn't determine if the robot was using another template to create those pages - if it were, I could have fixed the discrepancy myself. Thought you'd like to know! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; unfortunately I can not fix it until I come back from holidays, but I will do it ASAP afterwards. Schutz 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Schutz 23:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortpages programming

Plz teach your Bot to recognize {{cvio}} in addition to {{copyvio}}. Enjoy yr vacation. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Should work next time the bot runs. Vacation was good... Cheers, Schutz 22:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your bot wrong time

on todays Tfd sub page, it's specified last day as November 31:st instead of September 30:th →AzaToth 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez, this is annoying... I have no idea what the problem is, and won't be able to correct it before mid-October... Hopefully it will be only for the 1st day of the month. Thanks for telling me, Schutz 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, bug found and fixed (hopefully for all other possible cases). Thanks for pointing this out. Schutz 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanne E. Baumann

Dear Schutz, you have been a great help earlier, now I kindly ask you to give me an advise. Someone has deleted immediatly, nearly in the process of editing,any article on ISIS VOICE and SYNOPSISM,or other and now also the article Suzanne E. Baumann seams to be questioned- I honestly dont know why? Thank you in advance for your comprehencion. User:S.baumann 13:02, Okt.08.2006

The comments left on your talk page should tell you more about what happened; basically, it has been determined that the topic of these articles was not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The fact that you edit pages on yourself and your own work, and that no one else has been editing these article is an indication that this interpretation may be correct. Please come back to me if you have any question about this deletion process. Schutz 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA bot

The bot that "bolds" articles that appear on the main page in the list of FAs doesn't seem to be working. The missing templates went back to October 5. Medvedenko 02:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for reporting this and for adding the missing templates. The bot should be back in business now. Schutz 22:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When you're back...

I've been notified that Zorglbot has not been running for a couple of days and requested to set up DumbBOT to temporarly perform the creation of subpages (and their addition/move) to WP:CP. When your bot is back to normal operation, remove the line mentioning "Zorglbot" from the page User:DumbBOT to stop my bot. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this; Zorglbot should be back in business now, so I have removed the line as you suggested. Schutz 23:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Will this fix TfD? I have noticed that the daily subpages have not been transclusing correctly lately. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should have fixed TfD as well (for the technical details: the bot lost its session while I was away, and I did not provide it with the correct login password before going on holidays... sigh). Schutz 00:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein edits

I don't see how I could have deleted the text that the diff shows. My guess is that it was a matter of two simultaneous edits colliding. Anyway, it certainly wasn't intentional.. — DAGwyn 21:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I assumed indeed that it was not intentional. It is strange, because edit conflicts are usually detected by the system, and since we were editing different sections, it should not have been a problem anyway. Oh well. Schutz 21:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Fields

Thank you for casting your vote on the Einstein infobox. Please now go to [15] to give your opinion on how you want the individual fields modified. SuperGirl 08:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "See also" for Albert Einstein

Hi SureFire, it seems that most of the links you just added in the "See also" section are already in the article, which is not supposed to be the case according to Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See_also. I did not want to simply revert your edit, but you may want to prune your list to keep only the most relevant entries, before someone else removes it altogether. Cheers, Schutz 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Schutz, Thank you for the heads up. I think I'm going to leave it there for a while and see what happens. If someone removes it then I'll prune. I personally disgree with the guide to layout. I think that the "see also" should in fact duplicate main links in the article, because once someone reads an article they often need to go back to that article and quickly find links without having to spend time trawling through the whole article yet again. It's very useful! God bless, SureFire 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suspicious image, possible copyvio

Image:Upskirt.jpg is more or less appropriate for the article, but I don't believe the contributor's claim that s/he took it him/herself. I'd just revert, but my reasons would be a) assuming bad faith, and b) calling User:Jerkface a troll, and as I understand it that's not the Wikipedia way. I've checked the image for internal metadata comments and there are none. What should I do next? Is there an investigation process? — edgarde 07:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You can list the image on Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations, but indeed, if there is no concrete reason to assume a copyright violation, it may mean assuming bad faith. I would personaly be more concerned about the "permission" that he got from his girlfriend — even if he got permission to take the photo, it may not mean permission to post it (especially if, who knows, they split up between June 2005 and now...). Given that it is a "sensitive" topic, I would suggest the following: ask the author if his girlfriend would agree to have the same photo taken, on which she would be holding a sign saying something along the lines of "Posting of this picture allowed on Wikipedia", or even simply "Wikipedia Ok". This would prove both copyright ownership and authorisation to post, and we could keep the picture as proof and post the other one. Otherwise, let's see what his reply is and ask for deletion if it is not convincing. I remember there was a similar case a few months ago (a girl who was posting pictures of herself), but cannot remember a reference right now (it may be found in the signpost). Hope this helps, Schutz 10:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take exactly this approach. — edgarde 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] law of horizontal etc

this guy did the redirect [[16]] from the history logs? Boris 19:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean ? I reverted an edit by Mididoctors where he blanked a redirect that was legitimate; can you give me more details ? Thanks, Schutz 19:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I did not notice at first that you are Mididoctors. Well, I let you check the edits. Schutz
On reflection its a it of a mystery. burning midnight oil this end. I think it had to with checking "what links here" and chasing duff links there is nothing wrong with the article apart from being orphaned and rather short. brainfart my end?
Anyway, I have reverted the blanking, so everything should be ok now. Cheers, Schutz 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lydia Jackson

I did not blank any content, I removed a redirect. The redirect takes users to an article about Ralph Emerson, not Lydia Jackson. A "Lydia Jackson" once married Ralph Emerson, and this is noted in one sentence in the article. But otherwise, the article is not really about Lydia at all. A wikilink entered on the 1978 Miss Black America winner takes readers to an article about early 19th century, Ralph Emerson, and another editor wants to give the Miss Black America an article. Obviously the redirect was causing a problem, and I was told how to edit the redirect by an editor at the help desk. This redirect on Lydia acts as nothing more than a keyword redirect, since the article itself is not about any Lydia, it's about Ralph Emerson. That does not seem to me to qualify as a normal candidate for redirect linking as per this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#What_do_we_use_redirects_for.3F. I appreciate the caution for making this edit, but I'm offended to be accused of vandalism or horsing around by making it. It was thought through, it seemed like a perfectly reasonable and justifiable fix to make, and I sought assistance first through the help desk! Professor marginalia 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the boilerplate vandalism warning, it was maybe a bit harsh indeed (I'll leave a comment on your talk page to indicate this). The result of your edit was still an empty article, which is not something useful — as such, having the redirect in place is much better ! Another solution could be to come back to this revision, which was an actual article about this person. However, if the only reason Lydia Jackson was notable is because she was married to Ralph Emerson, having an article in her name may not be justified. If you are actually talking about another Lydia Jackson, then we need to write an article about her and explain who she is (and why she is notable enough to deserve an article !), and make sure that there is no confusion. Any of these solutions would be ok; simply blanking the article is not. If you need any help with this, please do not hesitate to contact me, I'd be happy to oblige. Schutz 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you :-). It was another editor working to create the new "Lydia" article, and I will share this info on his/her talk page. Professor marginalia 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein advice

For what it's worth, I've offered my opinion on my talk page. My considered legal opinion (subject to the Wikipedia general disclaimer, of course) is that a great deal of consideration is not necessary in this case ... :-) Best, Sandstein 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor bug in Zorglbot

Hi, i happened to notice that the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 30 page created by Zorglbot links forward to November 1, skipping October 31. Even worse, the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 31 page links forward to October 32, which is a day that rarely comes up. :) I think there's some minor bug that needs tweaking, just wanted to let you know. Cheers. --Xtifr tälk 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Whops, thanks for telling me ! I must admit that Zorglbot sent me an error message this message but I haven't had time to look at it closely. Oh well, life would be boring without bugs :-) Schutz 15:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also teach Zorgl to recognize {{deletedarticle}} for shortpages purposes. Thx. - crz crztalk 07:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whops... {{deletedarticle}} was already recognised by the set of regular expressions built into my local version of Zorglbot, but I forgot to update it on the server where it is run. I have also found {{deletedpage2}}, which I have added to the set. Thanks, Schutz 18:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry

I understand your move and IP worries, which I also share (and I am not a hollywood producer :-). )

• Actually, if you want I can obtain the validation of the copying of the texts (which in any case I have slightly modified, when fitting) on part of the FH President, M. J.D. Pasche. • The Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry is the official body representing the Swiss Watch Industry, in delegation of the Swiss Government. Do you need a confirmation?

I would not like the page erased in any case, as I believe that the public must be more informed about the Swiss Watch Industry, its bodies, the value of the Swiss Made, etc.


Best regards claude 14:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Claude, I do not want the pages erased either, but Wikipedia can not accept a text copied without permission from a webpage, especially when this web page mentions "All rights reserved"... But don't worry, there is still time before the page is erased ! You basically have two choices:
  1. Rewrite the whole text so that it is a new work and not a copy
  2. Ask for permission/confirmation, as you mentioned. There are at least two ways to do so: firstly, the copyright on the web page can be changed to allow for diffusion under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL); or this can be confirmed by email. Details can be found at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, but basically, an email should be sent to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org, and it should indicate which material is concerned, and it should confirm that permission is granted to use this material under the GFDL. Please tell me is this happens so that I can later add the permission to the relevant page.
As for the "official" part, you are probably refering to my edit to article Switzerland; even if the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry represents the Swiss Watch Industry, I do not feel that they are "official" in the same sense that the Swiss Confederation or one of the federal offices is official. Schutz 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanked re-directs

I was planning on creating actual bio pages for the individual members (I know some users are frustrated when they click on a band member only to be kicked back to the top of the page they were already on). In retrospect I shouldn't have wiped them until I was prepared to create the neccessary pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radagast1983 (talk • contribs).

Indeed. A redirect allows a reader to get at least some information, while a blank page does not say anything (and make Wikipedia look bad...). Good luck with the creation of the individual pages (even if they are only stubs at the beginning). Cheers, Schutz 12:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About my deletion requests...

Hello Schutz. First of all, I should introduce myself. I am pl (sysop), de, simple, fr, nl and commons:user:odder (sysop). On en wiki I'dont use this username because it was taken by, I guess, one of my opponents. So simply call me odder.
Second, I think that these redirects are stupid (and not linked from the main space, too). Why? A good redirect is redirecting from a shorter to a longer article name, not from a longer to a shorter. I don't know any person that will be writing a longer article name if he/she can write a shorter one. Don't forget that Wikipedia is for readers, not for writers :)
Best regards, -- odder (T.W.K.) 12:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of Cyrano de Bergerac (opera)

Hi -- I blanked the article Cyrano de Bergerac (opera) and transplated it to an article with the proper Italian title of the opera: Cirano di Bergerac, as it is known widely in the opera world Massenetique 15:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. Schutz 07:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops!

Oh my god, I'm so sorry – I am probably the last person that would consciously remove a picture of an ancient printed book, especially one like this one! Thanks for pointing out! Ciacchi 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry; you're not the first one, and probably not the last one either, since these images are very similar. I should probably add a comment in the page for the next one... Cheers, Schutz 13:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Condensed matter physics

Thanks for pointing out about the CMP template test. I did mean to have the User: prefix on it, and, when I made the page into a regular template without moving it, I forgot about the fact that it left a blank page. Thanks for putting up the delete template. WilliamDParker 15:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Einstein-matura.jpg

Schutz, You have uploaded Image:Einstein-matura.jpg with fair use tag and by explaining that it could not be replaced by a free alternative. Then you might have uploaded the same image on commons with free license. Please either correct the tag on wikipedia image or make a request the deletion of the image on commons. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 12:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, one of these should be deleted, but it is actually the image on en: that should go (I have just asked for speedy deletion under CSD I8). The upload under fair use was done only while a copyright examination was underway; the image on common is free. Thanks, Schutz 13:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
CSD I8 would not be applied as the information on the commons page is differnet from the en wikipedia page. So please provide common information. It would be helpful if you could provide a link for public domain license. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 13:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying the licence on en: should first be the same than the licence on commons before it can be deleted ? Surely not, since this would be a waste of time (updating text that will be deleted immediately afterwards), and is exactly what I am trying to avoid. Given that the licence on en: is not free, while the one on commons: is free, there should be no problem. Or is something else missing ? Otherwise, I can request speedy deletion under CSD G7 (deletion requested by only author) if it helps (but the page was not really "mistakenly created"). Thanks for your help, Schutz 13:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide a source from where you get the image. It could be useful to delete the image from en wikipedia. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 14:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I don't have the reference with me but I'll add it ASAP. Schutz 14:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I am still not sure about what the problem is. Are you saying that the source is missing in commons ? This should not be a problem, since the image is in the public domain anyway, right ? Are you saying that the source is missing in en: ? Sure, but there is no point to take time to add it if the image will be deleted immediately afterwards, no ? If the fair use claim is bogus because the source is missing, it's just one more reason to delete the image. And given that the exact same image is available on commons with a better licence (i.e. free), and that all other information (uploader, subject, etc) is provided there, I see no reason why this deletion could not be speedied per CSD I8. Could you please have another look ? Thanks in advance, Schutz 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Please make ensure the image on commons is in public domain. Commons is the place for free media files with proper source information. I am afraid of deletion of the image on commons as well if the source has not been provide. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 15:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The template on commons indicates that the image is a public Swiss official document, and by law, it is not protected by copyright. The fact that it is indeed a Swiss official document is indicated in the heading of the document, where it is written that it was issued by the Canton of Aargau. This was discussed on User talk:Sandstein, if you need a more detailed reference and a discussion. More than this, I can not do, unfortunately. As for the actual source, the image was scanned from a recent book, but it is not the original source and even though I can provide the name of the book, it would not really help. In any case, the source is important for documents under fair use, or to prove that they are under a free licence; for documents which are public domains (and where this fact can be inferred from the document itself), this is probably much less relevant; as such, I doubt that the image will be deleted on commons, but I hope it will be deleted from en :-) Hope this helps, Schutz 15:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing information and having long discussion about the image. If the book source does not claim any copyrights then please mention about that book. It could be useful, it is not necessary that the source should be online but make sure to check the license. If you provide a source, it would be sufficient to assume the the image was published in Switzerland and it has the same copyrights according to Switzerland law. Sorry for being bothered you, but that is the right way to upload an image on commons. Commons have strict laws regarding uploading of image files. Shyam (T/C) 16:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll doublecheck the book to see if any credit is given about the image (the book itself is certainly not free, but it contains mainly reproduction of original material). It is still my feeling that the current version of the upload on commons is 100% correct, because publication has probably no influence on the copyright status of this particular document. However, I have asked for confirmation there (see Commons:Commons talk:Licensing). Thanks, Schutz 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added the source for completeness, and changed the tag of the image on en: so that deletion can proceed. Schutz 07:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well done, I suppose it is fixed now. The image could be deleted at en wikipedia. I will take care of it. Thanks for fixing. Shyam (T/C) 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks ! Schutz 08:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Albert Einstein

Hi,

Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I thought that the information was synomous with the 'Infobox Scientist' at the top of the page 16px‎.

Thanks for fixing it, too...

Best wishes,

Yuser31415 talk|contribs 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortpages user

You wanted a message from users of the bot-parsed list. I am one, though not a constant one. Every couple of weeks I get the urge to go on shortpages patrol for a while, and I have found the parsed list to be far, far superiour to the basic list for such work. - TexasAndroid 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

New templates to have the bot recognize: (I'll add more as I make my current pass through)
{{surname}} - Basically a disambig for names.
{{TLA-disambig}} - Another specialized disambig template
- TexasAndroid 14:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added both (and {{drv}} at the same time); it should work starting from tomorrow's run (although I am hoping that Special:Shortpages will be regenerated because there is not much interesting to do on the current page). Thanks, Schutz 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Which brings up an interesting point. Would it be possible to have more than 1,000 articles listed? Especially once we start to get a few days out from the source material being regenerated? More articles would let more things be looked over effectively. And if the bot was able to tell how many days had passed since generation, it could start with 1,000 on the first couple of days, then maybe go to 2,000 after the source was a couple of days stale, then 3,000 once it's even more stale, etc. Just a thought. :) - TexasAndroid 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a limitation of Special:Shortpages, which does not return more than 1000 pages. Maybe we could ask for more (do you know who to ask ?) Schutz 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Wish I did. I have no idea who is responsible for it. But if it only gives 1000, then that's what we are limited to. - TexasAndroid 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been using the list for a while as well. I am not much of an original contributor; I mainly engage in reversal of vandalism, and various other minor cleanup. I find the list quite useful; these features might make it even better:

  • It might recognize whether or not an article has a stub notice (so that I can add one - and possibly make other evaluation of the article - if not) - finding the string "stub}}" would probably be enough;
  • Recently, I have substituted some of the {{deleted}} templates so that the articles don't appear in the Special:Shortpages list. However, it takes some time before a new report of short pages appears; does the bot recognize the template in the meanwhile, even if it's substituted?
  • And - just an idea: Could the bot be made to detect that an article has been nominated for deletion via WP:PROD or WP:AFD? Or am I stretching it too far?

Regards, and thanks for your work. - Mike Rosoft 23:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

These are all good ideas. Stubs, Prods and AFDs should be easy to detect based on regular expression. As for deleted pages, I'll have to doublecheck the exact messages; if it is not done yet, we can always add an HTML comment with the original name of the template, as is done with the {{test}} templates. I'll look into it. Cheers, Schutz 07:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
All these should be done now ! The subst'ed deleted template contains an HTML comment which I can look for, so it should work, but I have not found any page in the list to test it so far. Let me know if there is any problem. Schutz 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein's religion

You mentioned a month ago on the Talk:Albert Einstein page that you would prefer seeing a reference to a secondary source, e.g. a biography where it is shown that this "religious belief" was more or less consistently (and several times !) expressed. I think this book may help you: Einstein and Religion (1999) by Max Jammer, Princeton U. Press, ISBN 0-691-00699-7. Jammer was a colleague of Einstein, and provides extensive documentation of E's religious views. It is correct that Spinoza was Einstein's philosophical model from at least 1920 through the rest of his life (p. 43, p. 85–6). Not only did S influence E's pantheistic, non-personal concept of God, he also prompted E's deterministic belief (p. 74), which made it so difficult for him to accept quantum theory. --Blainster 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks very interesting; I'll see if I can find it in a library nearby, thanks for the pointer ! Schutz 08:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandstein

You may wish to co-nominate our mutual friend here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sandstein Guy (Help!) 13:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job on convincing him to accept the 'job' ! It was a pleasure to co-nominate him; thanks for mentioning it to me. Schutz 13:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortpages again

Got another disambig template. {{disamb}} Appears to just be a variant name of the main one. - TexasAndroid 16:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many of these... I'll add this one ASAP. Schutz 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And I have discovered a bug - the bot incorrectly considers Wincarnis to be a Wiktionary link. No surprise - it's a {{wine-stub}}. - Mike Rosoft 10:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Should be solved. Schutz 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortpages

I've been happily using User:Zorglbot/Shortpages and am leaving a note per your request. I also have a question/request of my own. Would it be possible to set up a system to force bot updates when the WP servers update Special:Shortpages? I realize they don't do this on a regular schedule, but perhaps there is a way to manually force a bot update.--Kchase T 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're reading my mind ;-) Yesterday, I was thinking of running the bot every hour to check if the page had been updated; if the update happenend OR the parsed page has not been regenerated in the past 24 hours, then a complete re-run would follow; otherwise, just do nothing until the next hour. Would that answer your question ? Cheers, Schutz 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That'd be great.--Kchase T 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too - crz crztalk 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: TfD

OK - thanks for telling me :) I won't put it back in future. Martinp23 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] x v.s &times;

Hi,

Regarding your change, I understand what you're trying to do. But are you ready to actually implement that to all instances? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does not have to be done at once, and it is something that a bot can take care of easily in the future. Better start having some pages done right now ("x" looks almost ok with a standard font, but awful if you start using some other fonts) than continue using the wrong typography. Schutz 13:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest putting the real multiplication sign itself × instead of &times;. × is readily available in the toolbox below when you edit. And also a space before and after the ×. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This is all fine with me; I actually looked for the symbol in the toolbox, but missed it the first time I looked for it (which is the reason why I picked the HTML code instead); I will update the Banknotes of Switzerland to start with. Thanks, Schutz 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the short FAQ you added on this topic is excellent. Schutz 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 50 11 December 2006 About the Signpost
From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The external link, a link to a journal article, you added to Correlation was not accessible and was therefore deemed useless. If a user has to have an account or pay to view the page, it is rather useless in an open encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:External links for more information. — Chris53516 (Talk) 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not put the link back before discussion, but for now let me indicate that I strongly disagree with you. First of all, note that I did not add an external link just for the sake of it; it was only an addition to a reference article. As such, the link is no less useful than the reference itself: even if the original article is not free, we still reference it, even though readers have to either buy the article or go to a library to get it. Exact same thing with the link. If we cite a Nature article, it is logical to link to the article's webpage even if the article is not free. In this case, it may be slightly special because the article is on JStore rather than on the original publisher's website, but I do not think that it is the same thing as a "pure" external link. Schutz 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think arguing semantics will get us anywhere. External links are external links. If it goes outside of http://en.wikipedia.org, it's an external link. Adding such a link provides nothing to the non-subscriber and it only promotes a commercial endeavor, that is, the sale of the article. Further, the page you linked to was an error page that said that "you do not have access to this" or something like that. A better link would have been one without an error message. In my opinion, if someone wants to find the article, they can easily search for it on the web or find the journal at a university library. On a web search, they will most likely hit the page you found anyway. To demonstrate my point, here's a Google search on the article title: Search. — Chris53516 (Talk) 18:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is a question of semantics. Have a look at Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, in particular the example given in note 7 – exactly what I have done in Correlation. I am happy to move this discussion somewhere else, either Wikipedia:External links or Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines if needed. Schutz 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a detail that I just noticed: we I do the Google search, the first hit is not the article cited. Schutz 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref conv

Sorry for the downtime. References converter is now back up and running. About a week ago the hard drive in my server crashed. Luckily it stayed together long enough to allow me to pull all the data off onto a new hard drive, but I still had to go through the process of installing Linux on the new hard drive, installing all the necessary programs, and loading in all of the old data from the server. I got all of my essential services up within two days (CVS, Apache, Wiki), but I kind of forgot about web scripts, which I finally got around to fixing today. Everything should be fully functional again. If you see any bugs, just send me a message. You are receiving this message because you are on the spamlist. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, simply remove your name. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/h/User_talk%7ESchutz_a167.html"