User talk:Spangineer/archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is an archive. Do not post responses here; rather, copy the section to the current talk page and comment there.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between November 25, 2004 and June 9, 2005.

Archives: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10

Contents

[edit] NASDAQ/NYSE templates

Thanks. Actually, I was originally going to make an NYSE template, but NASDAQ's site was just easier to deal with (no frames, etc.), and I'm lazy. :) I may try one for NYSE once the "ooh, I made this and look how neat it is!" feeling wears off. —tregoweth 17:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Penn State move

I saw your note on User talk:Raul654. The best action in most cases of cut and paste page moves is to perform a history merge, which requires an admin (it involves deleting and undeleting the pages in a specific manner). I've performed such a history merge. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cyrius beat me to it :)
Long story short, to fix a page move (let's say Aaa was copy/paste moved to Bbb), you delete Bbb, move Aaa to Bbb, and then restore the old edits to Bbb. Aaa becomes a redirect, and the page histories are merged upon undeletion. You have to be an admin to do this. →Raul654 04:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, and welcome

Hi Spangineer, I just came across your biography of George Müller, a man I had never come across before. You've done a very good job there, and I hope you will enjoy contributing to Wikipedia also in the future. All the best, <KF> 09:58, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I Want To Hold Your Hand

I've tried to address your objections on FAC. Can you look over the article again please? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the week

Congratulations, the candidate you voted for, Underground Railroad, is this week's Collaboration of the Week. Please help edit the article to bring it up to feature standard.

[edit] thanks for ...

...support on "Christmas". I can't recall if it was me or someone earlier who moved the "Theories on ..." section to the end. I liked it at the end because it was pretty far out stuff, almost belonging in a footnote.Sfahey 20:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How did you make talk link?

I looked at your writing for COTW and noticed the infinite sign for your talk page. Is there a shortcut to make that besides writting out the whole thing? Respond in my talk page :)

posted by User:Chris Ducat --Spangineer ∞ 01:25, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How about this one...

Do you know how to count how many contributions you've made to wikipedia? I was curious about this when I saw a particular user's page (User:Premeditated Chaos) that displayed how many contribution's she had made. Its not so hard with 50 or so, but 1000?! No luck contacting her or finding it on wikipedia: there's so many things to learn!

posted by User:Chris Ducat --Spangineer ∞ 04:09, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Thanks for the info, that makes sense to me. bernlin2000 ∞ 20:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cerro de la Silla

Oooh, wow, that is really a major improvement I think. I did enjoy the main picture a lot though too, so I've given both photos my support but I think it looks really great with the cropping you've done to the modified version. In any case, great work getting us a photo for that because that is really a nice job you've done. Cheers, -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Also Cerro de la Silla

I agree with SocratesJedi, the new version is a major improvement. Good work! Worldtraveller 11:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS no probs about the wacky editing on my talk page, looked like the server problems might have been the cause - similar things have happened to me recently!

[edit] Pic of theDay

Hi Nathaniel,

Just to let you know that your Image:Cerro de la silla.ncs.2.jpg is up for Pic of the day on the 31st of Jan. You may like to check the image caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 31, 2005 -- Solipsist 22:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

I can't speak for the beliefs of most scientists, but most people who have spoken or published on the idea are funded by these far-right "think tanks". More than just being funded by these groups, they are for the most part formally affiliated with them. With regards to: since it seems to suggest that those scientists were bribed or something by creationist wackos who wanted some credibility for their theory I would say be inclined to agree with that statement except for the fact that much of the general public believes what these people have to say. I would say not disclosing the intimate association between the "politico-religous" groups and the scientists who are proponents of the theories would fail to be POV. Maybe not all of these scientists have direct financial connections to these groups, but most do.

I don't have specific information immediately accessible, and I suspect that it would take me several days to put it together. I think that the statement is misleading without the qualifiers. I will look into backing up my statement (or backing down on it a little, if it is an overly broad generalisation). Nonetheless, I don't think the former statement should stand without the qualifier; it is too misleading. Guettarda 21:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Funding for science is generally based on success in science. Scientists receive funding from agencies (e.g., the NSF) based on productivity in science. If you take money from interested parties, it hurts your credibility. If scientists involved in drug research took money from the makers of a drug and then produced results showing that the drug was effective when no one else did then their credibility would be undermined.
Scientific funding is supposed to be content neutral. It isn't the same as political funding, not by a long stretch. You produce results, they pass peer review, and you gain stature. People whose science is credible get funded (although not all of them, by any means). Much like scientists who take money from energy concerns and then claim that there is no such thing as global warming (a conclusion which is at variance with what almost all other scientists find) this sort of activity undermines your credibility.
Your statements: To me it seems cynical to suggest that good scientists rejected a strongly supported theory and made themselves the laughingstock of the scientific community because they wanted funding from a creationist think tank. and but it just seems unlikely that they would toss away scientific credibility to receive funding (that they could have gotten from another source without switching from evolution to creation), and not because they firmly believe in creationism
I am not arguing that they are discarding their own opinions for the money. Nothing of the sort. Science isn't about opinions or beliefs, it's about testing hypotheses. It's perfectly reasonable to advance the idea that there are organs that are "irreducibly complex" (as Michael Behe has done). But that doesn't prove anything except that Behe lacked imagination (most of his examples have been shown to be flawed). To conclude from these observations that "irreducible complexity" is a reality (and proof of design) is both logically flawed (since the world isn't just an either-or) and scientifically flawed (since the scientific cannot "prove" hypotheses). What they are doing is trying to support a religious agenda (pushed by these "think tanks") through activities that have the appearance of science. The big names are not evolutionary biologists in any case. The simplest conclusion is that they simply latched onto these ideas out of narrow religious interpretations.
John Kerry and George Bush didn't claim to be mere students of political thought. They each had an agenda, and they received money from groups who shared their agenda. No one would claim that they were making unbiased, unslanted statements. No one claimed that they were scientists. It isn't a fair comparison.

Proponents of ID do not claim (up front) to be reliant on God. Instead they say that life shows evidence of "design", and conclude that, if there is design there must be a designer. Now, givent he links between ID proponents and Christian organisations I would guess that most of them assume that this designer is God (though, of course, it could be any other supernatural force, be it the devil, aliens...) but many of them have kept away from openly saying so (e.g., Behe, if memory serves me).

Now, many creationists (and I suspect ID proponents) seem to purport a conspiracy theory of science - that the scientific community "knows" that there are all these flaws in evolution, but as secular humanists or atheists simply have a political agenda to push (the whole "evolution is a religion" meme). If you accept that, then the scientists who are proponents of ID are being "kept down". Unfortunately, almost all the examples of "design" have been shown to be tractable without invoking design. If they were doing good science and yet were pushed to the fringe because they were agaisnt the mainstream, I would have some sympathy for them. But they aren't publishing experiments, they aren't proposing testable hypotheses.

In the past (and present, and future) "voices in the wilderness", on the fringe of science, have made big changes. Big changes come not when existing theories collapse under their own weight of inconsistencies, but when someone looks at things differently. Of course, often these people were wrong, and yet by challenging the status quo, by pointing out the flaws, they were able to force the mainstream to examine their assumptions. If you are doing good science then you are doing good science. People can question your conclusions, but your results should be reproducible. Once people can reproduce your results then consensus will come your way eventually. If your hypotheses are untestable or your results irreproducible, then you have a problem. Guettarda 00:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Riot of 1879

Thank you for your comments on Peer Review. I'll have a look at them and amend the article in the next few days in the light of them. Kind regards, jguk 22:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intervarsity article

Thanks for your note on the Intervarsity article. I base my note on a story I read in this book. In addition, they are known as one of the more conservative on-campus christian groups. I feel confident having given them this category but if you can find something to contradict it I'm open. Alison9 01:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Based on your research I think you have a good point. Go ahead and remove the category. Alison9 06:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cerro de la Silla

Hi Spangineer,

I love your photo of Cerro de la Silla. I decided to push it to the Commons as Commons:Image:Cerro de la Silla.jpg. The main benefit of uploading to the Commons is that the image can now be used on other language editions of Wikipedia, and on the sister projects. For example, it might eventually find its way to es:Monterrey.

I notice you multi-license your contributions with Creative Commons licenses. Perhaps you could go to Commons:Image:Cerro de la Silla.jpg and add {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} there? (I just want to be absolutely sure you intend this picture to be multilicensed.)

Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 03:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

Hi Spangineer - I note that you've added a new stub category. Can I suggest that if you intend to add any more you check out Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria first? Quite a thorough debating process goes on before the creation of stub categories, to ensure that they fit in with current criteria. As it is, "Manufacturing stub" cuts across Corporation stub and Technology stub, and is likely not to fit into the hierarchy particularly well because of that. Grutness|hello? 02:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again - you wrote: Sorry about that! I didn't realize that there was a big process for that. What should be done now? I think the category as I visualized it would best fit in the technology category, but I see how it could potentially be construed to be related to corporations. Could I suggest the new category for debate? Let me know what you think; sorry to create a mess!

Well, it's largely a courtesy rather than compulsory, but it does help if people know what's there and why. I think it probably needs debating. I suspect that it will still work, possibly changing the name from Manufacturing though (perhaps to something like "industrial process stubs"?)

Looking over that page you linked to, perhaps the category could be split further? Perhaps a stub category for metalworking, etc.?

The rule of thumb is you need to be sure of at least 50 stubs in a category before it's worthwhile (some stub sorters suggest even more than that). See how many can be found for the original category first - if there look like there are going to be a couple of hundred of them, then think about splitting it! Grutness|hello? 03:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have a question for you related to your post regarding not having more than one stub category per page - what if the category was added manually, not with the stub template? That way, it shows up on multiple categories, but doesn't make the page look messy.

It makes the work a bit harder for the stub sorters (if you're editing 200 stubs a day, you use cut and paste a lot), and it tends to annoy some article editors (I got into an email argument with one about something that was both an Italy geography stub and a France geography stub - only the France-geo-stub template was on the page and the editor in question was Italian... you can probably work out the tone of his comments! :) As time goes on and "complex stubs" like US-politician-stub, which combine two types of stub, become more common, the number oif multiply stubbed pages will probably go down anyway. Grutness|hello? 03:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, where to post? Grutness is slowing down for his easter break so perhaps here.
I've been doing a few edits related to the metalworking side of things during my easter break (I've been ramping up during my break) and I saw you cruise through the watch list, now I know why you stopped.
I've been slowly working through the metalworking articles and converting any I've found that had a generic stub {{stub}} to the more relevant {{tool-stub}}. I've also been adding it to any I create, such as Fishtail-Center gauge. On all pages I've been working on I've placed [[Category:Tools]], [[Category:Metalworking]] and [[Category:Manufacturing]] as apropriate.
From my point of view the approach is fairly well targeted, as the plea for additions goes to the tool-stub followers, while the Metalworking, Manufacturing and Tooling category indexes all get populated accordingly. It seems the best of both worlds. I tend to agree that multiple stubs appear untidy, especially for extra small articles.
Following {{tech-stub}} through I don't see anything (except for the first paragraph) that points directly to manufacturing or metalworking fields — those pages are too high up the tree. Instead, following {{tool-stub}} gets to the heart of the matter, they are all tools, the first step in the process of manufacturing.
Ah, and from my point of view a lathe is a tool. ;-) — talk | Graibeard 09:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Following on from talk at graibeard. — In short, I agree.

Industrial processes category looks good, although I'll add that I didn't entirely disgaree with your {{Manufacturing-stub}}, just its scope.
I had actually tagged Molding (process) with your {{Manufacturing-stub}}, as not only was it appropriate but the {{tech-stub}} that it had was far from it. (Technology is the top of the tree, manufacturing is down a bit, processess are in the middle and tools almost near the roots. At least, that's the way I see it. ;-) So Die (manufacturing), which is the application of the molding process, would fall at the tooling level, thus the {{tool-stub}}. There will always be gray areas though (just look at Staff (stick) or Bathtub) but then, that's life I guess.

Let me know what the stub name is ? {{industrial processes-stub}} ? and when it's right to go, I'll then add it to any appropriate ones I find. I'll continue with the other Category allocations of course as they are the indexing mechanism and what the user sees. — talk | Graibeard 13:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again - there is now a new stub - {{Industry-stub}} for industry in general and industrial processes in particular. Manufacturing-stub remains as a soft redirect to it. The stubs end up in Category: Industry stubs. The wording on the Industrial processes category makes the difference between the processes and the tools quite clear, BTW - turning, welding, smelting, etc are processes - the things used to do those processes (lathes, cutters, crucibles) are tools. (I'll cc this info to Graibeard) Grutness|hello? 00:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, Help is needed

Hello, I'm currently working in some Peruvian Related Topics, but I find myself overwhelm with this article that I once tried to wikify and state a NPOV: Alberto Fujimori. Since I saw your name in a NPOV page and also that you are concern in Latin American Articles, I though that you could at least take a look and help me with it. Please take a look and write in my talk page if it is confusing, biased or it is the right way to state the article in that way for the former president. thanks ! Messhermit 00:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I really apreciate the opinion of someone who is not involve in the debate. As you already said, the debate in the talk page has not always been "civil" (Myself was under a RfC for a while). But at least my opinion (as far as I can say) is two points:
  • That the article is too long for being just a biography
Let's said that Economical and Human Rights debate must be mentionate (important stuff), but for a much more accurate debate they must get their own Article
  • It appears that there is an owner, that prevent any contribution that doesn't please its point of view.
If oyu have notice, several wikipedist did have a problem with some user that pratically nulify any contribution that didn't like it
Thanks for any advice that you could gave me. Unfortunately, the Alberto Fujimori article sometimes focus more on his mistakes rather than giving the former president a NPOV article. It would help a lot if you could point its weakness, so i can work in arrange them. Thanks and feel free to respond to in my talk page. Messhermit 15:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, did you mention Bolivar? The article needs a better picture and I added some info about him. please look and gime your opinion. thanks ! Messhermit 15:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advices on the talk page! I'm sure that this would lead to a much more accurate info about the former president. As you said, the man has negative things and good this, and only history will judge him in a nearby future. Anyways, if you need any help on Latin American Topics, Please let me known it on my talk page. I would galdly contribute. once again, Thanks ! Messhermit 17:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First Photograph

I just got a high-res version, and the image is public domain. Please support the high-res version. --brian0918™ 17:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Diagram drawing

I'm good at finding, cleaning up, and fixing photos, but not very good at drawing. You might try talking to User:SPUI who created Image:Chicago top down view.png. (I'm not sure if this is what you meant by a diagram, but he can probably suggest better software to use). --brian0918™ 03:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions given by SPUI and avar are: Inkscape, and Macromedia Freehand. --brian0918™ 03:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sand Casting

Hey, thanks for finding those pictures of castings flasks and core boxes. It's a very nice addition to the Sand Casting article.

Posted by User:17.203.20.170 --Spangineer ∞ 12:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't me, but I agree with you, those pictures are pretty nice. --Spangineer ∞ 20:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

Nice work on welding. I now support its FAC. --mav 01:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

History, Welding processes, Geometry, Quality, Unusual conditions, Safety issues, Costs and Trends (one section) does seem to be a more logical order and more in accordance with news style. But the current order is good as well. Thanks for your support on my FAC. :) --mav 01:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

What's this drawing you're looking for? I do CAD and might be able to help. Snapshots of CAD work can be exported as a simple JPEG or what not. Also I have photos of finished weld joints to add to that fantastic welding article. TTLightningRod 16:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost beats

Yes, I think you'd be welcome to help cover featured articles. Even if someone is already working on it (and our coverage there has been a little erratic), having more than one person on a beat is okay. Just make sure that you link to any drafts you have on the Newsroom page, so anyone else working that beat knows where to help out. --Michael Snow 18:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Directory

Thank you for your enthusiasm to help. I am a student in high school, so I really don't have much time to do major overhauls. If you take a look at the german directory, you don't even need to be able to read German to realize how much better their directory is than ours. They have portals and such down many more levels. The portals in ours only go to the categorical level, such as chemistry, and beyond that, it is merely a category page. The german pages are much more helpful. In addition, you can use babel fish from altavista to help with the translation. Thanks again for your enthusiasm, and maybe we can get to a project level. clarkefreak 20:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good start. I added the categories on the mainpage that are not already portals to the list of requested portals on Wikipedia:Wikiportal. We need to find more people who can contribute plenty of time to this project. Let's get this show on the road! clarkefreak 15:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, are you an admin? If not, it would probably help to get one involved to help us in this process. clarkefreak 16:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This is off topic, but how do you do the infinity sign talk link? clarkefreak 22:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caulfield FAC

You refered to poor wording and short paragraphs. I've responded to your critique, and would also be happy for you to have a go at rewording the problem areas. Thanks. Harro5 22:21, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi! You previously voted to object this FAC nomination, but the article has been significantly upgraded and improved since then. I would urge you to have a second look before leaving your final vote. Thanks. Harro5 08:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FPC promotions

Hey Spangineer,

Thanks for adding an extra pair of hands in closing FPC nominations. It can be a bit confusing the first couple of times you promote an FP image, but don't worry about making mistakes, I can check over the promotions.

I thought there was an guideline about avoiding closing one's own nominations (to avoid concerns about bias), but now that I look for it I can't find that instruction. -- Solipsist 19:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost

Hello, congrats on that article. My life hasn't allowed for signpost article writing lately and I was wondering if you would like to take over and write the new features and admins section for the next few weeks. Mgm|(talk) 08:44, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks! You might want to contact Michael Snow about it, so he knows who to talk to about these for the next few weeks. Blankfaze has filled in for me while I was away, maybe he wants to help you too. Mgm|(talk) 13:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cantos list

I see no great value in giving the same canto number twice in the one entry and am concerned that references must be given in numerical order so as to be of most use to someone reading the poem. Out of here now, back tomorrow. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Welding

Hello I fixed the oxy-acetylene link to point to the torch used. The gases are not mixed until they reach the nozzle - the result could be a disaster (flame propagating upstream).

I put a comment someplace about the danger of eye damage by UV when bystanders look at arc welding - maybe if you agree you will fix that up? Actual welders have safety masks (sometimes defeated by flaring that is too strong for even the mask lens, I believe) but bystanders such as people on a sidewalk or motoring by electric welding work could have retinal damage, I believe. Pdn 17:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I managed to put my reply to you latest comments on my own talk page, q.v. please. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdn) Sorry Pdn 18:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Popes

I am now papally satisfied. Thank you. --Theo (Talk) 18:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem - thanks for the help. Fortunately I had a few mins this evening! The monarchs are not going to be so lucky. -- ALoan (Talk)

[edit] Lists of lists and lists of wikipedia articles

I'm not sure what I think about lists like List of religious topics and List of lists of mathematical topics. They're really impossible to reference, since instead of being comprehensive, they are a list of topics that wikipedia covers. No external sources appear to have been used to verify that everything is there that should be. As such, anyone can add a semi-important religious figure to the List of religious topics and get away with it, I would think. Where does one draw the line? I don't think these types of lists can possibly be comprehensive, unless someone uses real references to generate the listing. If it's based on something more than "all the topics that wikipedians can currently think of", it might be ok. So I guess my opinion is that if a list doesn't have references, it shouldn't be featured. Other opinions? --Spangineer ∞ 11:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

This objection is absurd. How could a reference guarantee that all subjects are there?? It is impossible for all topics to be covered in any encyclopedia. And if there is some reason why a semi-important religious figure should not be listed, the same thing happens as when material that should not be there is put in any Wikipedia article. Why is Wikipedia less able to be "comprehensive" than any external source would be? Hundreds of mathematicians work on Wikipedia. Obviously they cannot make the list complete. A far smaller number of mathematicians work on the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which has a far less complete set of mathematical topics. And why would external references be any more important here than in any article, making sure everything is there that should be? And by the way, why shouldn't a semi-important religious figure be listed? Michael Hardy 00:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New admins on signpost article

When I was regularly updating Wikipedia:Goings-on with newly created administrators, I created a template the simplify the task of linking to both the user and their RfA, Template:Goa. The username and number of their request were the only two inputs (when a user requests adminship a second or third time, the common place to put it is at <username>2, etc.). Last week's list would then show up like this:

Following votes on Request for adminship, five users were made admins in the past two weeks—Clarkk (nom), Arcadian (nom), Wiglaf (nom), Evil Monkey (nom), and Oven Fresh (nom).

You are welcome to change the format of the template, or disregard the concept altogether. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Actual Substances

Hi You wrote: "" What if we simply said "acetylene gas" – that would eliminate the gas mixture thing, and since it should be generally known that hydrocarbons combust in air, we don't need to include oxygen. I'd prefer not to have it say "oxyacetylene torch" because for one thing, the torch isn't made out of oxyacetylene, things like "electric arc" and "ultrasonic" refer to the actual physical/chemical/whatever things that are providing the energy, not the equipment that directs the energy. So to be consistent, I think it's best to refer to the actual substance, not the tool used ""

I think your suggestion is not so good and I like the way I fixed the page, actually, and with all due respect. Points: (I) Wikipedia already has an entry for oxyacetylene torch and I do not think anybody could get confused on that. (II) a microwave oven is not made out of microwaves, a freshwater fish is not made out of freshwater, a loan shark is not made out of loans, etc. The term "oxyacetylene torch" is as American as "water faucet" (which is not made from water). (III) To leave out the "oxy" could be confusing, as the acetylene will not burn very clean and will probably not weld anything if ignited in air. In the latter case, not only would the dilution of the oxygen with nitrogen, CO2, and so on weaken the combustion efficiency, but the flame would only burn at the outside of the stream of acetylene. The intimate mixing of the two gases is essential. (IV) not to be picayune, I would not say an "electric arc" is made out of a substance called "electric" either. Even if it were, it seems reasonable to me to combine similar things without precisely parallel structure of word or phrase. Thus we could write of motor scooters and bicycles in one article about light weight transportation, without worrying about the use of the noun "motor" as an adjective. Hope we can leave this now. Peter Pdn 03:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen "torch welding" with LPG and you can also use natural gas. Looks like you know what to do here, so I leave it to you. Pdn 05:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost

I like to give credit where due. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portalspace

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. So far no developer has created a formal portalspace. If you know of one willing to do that, please persuade them! jguk 16:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US-geo-stubs

Hi Spangineer - I've started putting the list in here. I'll add the south and west when I get time (probably after the down-time's over). Grutness...wha? 00:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. How exactly did you get that listing? Not by manually checking each link I hope...

I'm afraid so... just call me obsessive. Actually a lot of them were obvious (especially those with state names). The annoying ones were the counterintuitive ones like Dakota Hogback (Colorado, IIRC), and Northwest Region (Pennsylvania). Learnt quite a bit about US geography I didn't know doing it, though, so it wasn't a wasted effort (I could've sworn Okeefenokee was in Florida!) Grutness...wha? 01:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good work on the northeast! And no, I certainly hadn't considered double-stubbing structures. Grutness...wha? 06:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FLC

I'm not sure what comments you're referring to :), but in any case, I can say that I'm still quite unconvinced that all lists are "inherently featurable". To me, the beauty of a list is that it imparts information and serves as a navigation tool at the same time, simply by virtue of its organizational pattern, and usually despite a lack of text. That's what makes them featurable, the creative and useful content of an organized list that can make it informative. These other list we've been seeing, like the religious topics, which are justs lists of links to WP content, though... To me, these seem unfeaturable because they are only a navigation tool, meanwhile, they convey no knowledge in themselves. They are inherently devoid of references and images, even a purposeful lead. So, while they may have good reasons for being a list and not a category, they are really only glorified categories in the form of lists because of the advantages of the article namespace. This does not "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" in my opinion. Wow, ramblemania! Hope this answers your question. --Dmcdevit 00:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not sure where I said that, could you point me to the discussion? In any case: "By saying that all objections must be actionable, you are saying that all lists are inherently featurable," that's where we differ, your premise. I'm pretty sure that it makes sense in most cases I can think of for objections to be actionable. But that doesn't make all lists inherently featurable, because an inactionable objection is inevitable for an invalid nomination. If I nominated a policy page, or a template, or a picture at FAC, it would be objected to, and I wouldn't be able to fix it. In a less extreme example, if someone nominate a list of lists, with no lead, references, images, or really, content even, it would be perfectly reasonable for me to make the (inactionable, I admit) objection, something like "Object, as this 'list' has no creative/useful content or organization, and therefore is rather more like a category than a list." Also, I actually think TUF-KAT's list could be comprehensive, because of its defined scope, and the possiblity to cover it with the list, but with that many red links, I might be forced to reluctantly object. It is a beautiful and well-organized list, though. --Dmcdevit 01:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, not really. I gave an extreme example with nominating a template on FAC, but even so, FAC doesn't cover all kinds of articles and FPC doesn't cover all kinds of pictures. Try nominating a logo, even an elegant one like, say, Pepsi, or a flag, even a well-designed one, and the FPC-ers will all object. And on the FAC there are some kinds of articlles that just wouldn't make it. The idea that there can be a "perfect stub" is, I think, really sort of a myth, even though its on style manual pages and the FAC criteria say basically length doesn't matter, only comprehensiveness. But if someone were to nominate a stub or a short article, they wouldn't have a chance. Or timelines and lists for that matter. My point is, just because its featured "lists" doesn't mean we have to make all lists eligible. --Dmcdevit 19:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I guess I'm not good at coming up with examples but the way FAC operates it seems impossible that they would tak anything besides its rigid many-screens-long prose. But real WP articles tend to be more varied than that. That's why FLC was created in the first place, because FAC wouldn't touch lists. So there's something that FAC invalidates just on the basis of the type of article it is. Remember what happened when that last one was nominated? But even disregarding the other "featured X" projects, it makes sense. Why couldn't we make our own rules even if they did disagree, (not that they really do). I mean, it's good to look to them for precedence, but improvement is better. --Dmcdevit 20:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These are basically just my (or our?) personal feelings. I didn't think there was a point in policy-izing them because 1) The nominations I would have objected to based on them seem to have been universally rejected, so I have no need to fear, and 2) I doubt I would get wide support in seemingly "banning" some kinds of lists from participation. I just have a feeling that even if people aren't going to feel like putting it into policy, they will object when these come up for just the reasons I mentioned. But of course, if anyone does bring the topic up, I'd certainly support them; do you think it is needed? --Dmcdevit 00:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost

Hi! I've included some text in your article on Signpost. It is regarding the new rules for removal candidates. Please make sure it stays as it is important. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the newsroom. I thought the village pump (news) was the source for news. You can add it next week, no probs here.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Updates to articles in the current issue aren't fundamentally prohibited, but you're right that most people probably read them once and don't come back. The choice of whether to add to a current article or save something for the next issue depends on the circumstances. If it's more information about a specific subject you might not be returning to next week, might as well add it in directly; if it's a new item entirely, holding off is probably better. By the way, I like the rewrite you did of this particular text before removing it, nicely done. --Michael Snow 16:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would it make a difference if I told you that it was my proposal to ammend the rules for FARC?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Humanbot update 08 June 2005

Version two-two released today includes in that green box a nice count of how many articles are left. This more or less co-incides with the event of hitting only 1000 articles remaining. Also, I have re-arranged the User:Humanbot page to make it easier to get to the right stuff. Progress charts, wikicookies, wikilove and a more thorough spelling check is promised when this is completed. (and also when the exam pressure eases off a little on me) r3m0t talk 17:37, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) Note: If you think this message was too trivial for a mailing, tell me and I'll stick to more important announcements on the list.

[edit] Total reorganization of the list of lists of mathematical topics

Since this list of lists has now been completely reorganized, could you express yourself at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates#List_of_lists_of_mathematical_topics as to whether or to what extent this addresses your concerns, and whether you would therefore change your vote. Michael Hardy 00:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The cantos list

Hi

Finally getting around to responding to you. On reflection, and as others voting on the list do not seem to share your concerns, I'd opt for leaving the organisation as it is, if that's OK with you? Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:31, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Re WP:FARC, nothing is ever that easy around here, is it? Filiocht | Blarneyman
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/User_talk%7ESpangineer_archive01_cb3d.html"