User talk:Autarch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I await your comments!

Autarch 18:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Leprechaun 2 God 3 Gifted education 4 Welcome 5 B&ICO history 6 F1 portal featured article 7 Sorry 8 Aegean Park Press 9 Selected articles on Portal:F1 10 FYI Mega Society Judgement 11 bots 12 Crypto 13 Herman Rubin 14 rply to msg 15 Sutton 16 Set in Darkness 17 Computational electromagnetics 18 Saint Fintans' Church, Sutton 19 Welcome!

[edit] Leprechaun

Hey, I've been working on the leprechaun page and was wondering if you had anything you'd like to add, or maybe some more comments? (I got your name from the talk page). - FrancisTyers 17:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... afraid I haven't anything to add!

Autarch 17:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God

Autarch, what is your problem with God? Metaphysicist 17:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have one - just as I don't have a problem with any other entity I don't believe in. Some followers on the other hand... Now what's your problem with TCD? Autarch 18:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe some entity provided for our Universe/Reality? Metaphysicist 17:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. Autarch 20:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gifted education

Thanks for your work on the gifted education article. I had some questions: see Talk:Gifted education#Split by Autarch. Thanks. --Christopherlin 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Autarch, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Oh, and I didn't see a welcome message in the history of your talk page. It's got helpful links, so here you go. --Christopherlin 20:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I was wondering where some links were! Autarch 21:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B&ICO history

You've made an honest effort to set down the history, but there are some definite errors. I've made some corrections.--GwydionM 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I'd come across them and tried to stick to the facts.Autarch 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F1 portal featured article

The F1 portal (in which I assume you have some degree of interest, as your name is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One) is intended to have a regular rotation of a 'featured article'. I've swapped a few in and out over the last couple of months, but I think it would be better if there were more of a community attempt at deciding this, proposals, votes, that kind of thing. So - why not pop over to Portal_talk:Formula_One#Suggestions_for_Featured_Article: and make a suggestion. Ta. 4u1e 00:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Yes in retrospect that was kind of pre-emptive. Thanks for changing it. Fluffy999 20:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit bewildered as to what you're referring. Autarch 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I realised it was the Martin Ingram article you were referring to - I changed it partly because of the inaccuracy and partly because I felt it was POV. Autarch 18:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

--Bhadani 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aegean Park Press

Thanks for updating the entry - guess one person can't know all the stubs and categories! Autarch 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially when publish-company-stub is brand new! I'm resorting the publishing stubs after two new stub types were created. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selected articles on Portal:F1

Hello again.

I dropped notes round a while back to those who have listed themselves at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One to ask for suggestions for selected articles on portal:Formula One. There was a pretty good response, both in terms of how it might work and of articles suggested. Damon Hill came out with the most support and was brought up to Good Article standard after a lot of work by Skully Collins before going on as the F1 portal selected article a couple of weeks ago. It is now at Featured Article Candidates as a Featured Article candidate (why not drop by and see if you can help polish it further?).

Several people who responded to the original request suggested that a monthly or bi-weekly 'Selected Article' could act as a catalyst for an improvement drive to get more articles up to a higher standard. Although it wasn't quite what I had in mind when I started, this seemed to work pretty well for the Damon Hill article, so I've drafted up a process for doing this more regularly. See Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management_of_selected_articles for details. Essentially the suggestion is that we vote for an article to improve every couple of weeks and at the end of the improvement process the article goes on the portal as the new 'Selected Article'. I'd be grateful for any comments on how this might work - I'm sure some of you are more familiar with things 'Wiki' than me - as well as your votes for the next candidate (by 16 July).

You may also want to help with the article Gilles Villeneuve, which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! 4u1e 15:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI Mega Society Judgement

As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:

• Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles! There are plenty of articles that need attention.
• It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
• When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.

The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:

Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.

The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

.... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bots

Hi, thanks for the kind comment, as for running/making a bot the only information I have is on WP:BOT#Software_which_may_be_useful_for_making_bots, basically, people who have made bots, like myself have done so from scratch, but now there is plenty of open source material to use. Martin 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crypto

Noticed that you've joined with the rest of folks who want to take over the world by telling everyone about cryptography. Welcome aboard.

I notice that you've contributed to some of the history and ancillary topics (eg, Military Cryptanalytics); perhaps you'd also like to chyme in (from an Eire perspective?) on the Teapot Tempest (cy v ci, a category on the Project talk page). Not too long ago, the crypto-corner was up to one per-mille of all en.Wikipedia articles. We may not manage that again, but Onward into the breach dear cryptiacs! Onward! ww 15:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The "teapot tempest' can be found at a link on the main Wikiproject page, under heading discussions, IIRC. Rather Swiftian really, but there was strong feeling, and perhaps some remains. There's also a bit of it at talk:cryptography in one of the (the earliest, I think) archives. There are a couple of pointers to some other short discussions there as well. ww 13:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herman Rubin

This article was a non-notable biography according to the criteria set out in WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the bio, but I'd seen his contribute to USENET quite a few times over the years, so I decided to add him. I guess I hadn't added enough for even a stub. Autarch 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! You are correct the biography of the subject as it stood was not enough to assert their notability. The guidelines for a notable biography can be found at WP:BIO, linked in my original communication. If you feel that you have a subject that is sufficiently notable to pass these guidelines then I suggest that you a) gather together reliable sources; b) create a user sub-page to develop your article and c) have another editor review your work before publication in order to improve it. Regards, (aeropagitica) 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rply to msg

The Teapot Tempest papers may be found on the WikiProject Cryptography page under cipher v cypher. Like letters to the Times (London), much noise and little illumination... English is really a language most ready to embrace chaos -- of vocabulary, spelling vs pronounciation, borrowed words, ... Uniquely so, I haven't any idea, but it's fascinating. ww 10:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sutton

Hi Autarch,

By coincidence I revisited the English version of the in title mentioned article.
Found just within a year your Irish translation.
It has been a hobby of me to find Irish words since I noticed that there are Gaelic words derived from my mothertongue i.e. Dutch.
I'd like to thank you for this valuable and interesting contribution which of caused an edit in the Dutch Wikipedia.
Patio 07:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Set in Darkness

[1] Do you have a source for that? --Guinnog 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I was curious as I read the book fairly recently and didn't remember that as the source. Then again, I quite often skip over title pages, dedications and so on without really reading them. --Guinnog 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the article. I often read books too quickly and then have to read them again to find out what they were actually about! We are all different I suppose... --Guinnog 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computational electromagnetics

Hi, just read you invitation to contribute: haven't read my talk page for ages. Thanks, if you still have contributions to suggest, I may be able to contribute. The pace may be slow - my actual job hogs so much of my time from healthy hobbies like this...

--Saku 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Fintans' Church, Sutton

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Saint Fintans' Church, Sutton, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. EnsRedShirt 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)