User talk:EdC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Welcome to EdC's talk page.
Fragmented discussions are a Bad Thing.
  • If you leave a comment for me, I will most likely respond to it in here, in this same page, on my talk page, as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place, rather replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to.
  • By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, always feel free to respond to it there, on your talk page. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, EdC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for joining us, and I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — TheKMantalk 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Musicology

I saw the changes that you made on the article on Chinese Musicology, and the demand for changes inserted at the top of the article. I am rather unhappy with some of your changes because you made something that was correct into something that sounds more like what one might expect from Western musicology but is incorrect. Also, just demanding that somebody "get an expert" to fix something is not helpful. If you would like specific additions of information, please indicate what you would like on the discussion page for that article. If you will check the full article on my own website that is linked into the Wikipedia article you will see that there is a very great deal that can be said, much more than could fit into the theoretical 32k article size limit. If people want more detail in a specific area I will be happy to either copy it over or edit to fit.

I restored the diagram to full size because when reduced to postage stamp size it is totally unhelpful to readers, and when expanded one looses the text meant to explain it. If the reader will keep the idea of the simple scale that we learn to sing in primary school, along with the fact that "do" etc. are relative values, not absolute values, and then look at the chart, it will be clear that several different selections of notes out of the total gamut have been indicated.

I appreciate your trying to help. I have found that addressing a perceived problem in the discussion page of an article is often a more productive first step when there are conceptual difficulties involved and not just typographical errors, etc.

I guess I should mention that I wrote all of my extensive article on my own website before somebody provided me with a copy of the article in Chinese. The article in Chinese happened to say almost exactly what I have in my English text, and the author is an academic musicologist. So I do not think there are likely to be substantial problems with the accuracy of what I have written. P0M 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resistor image

Hi, I would like to use your image of resistor as we draw it in Europe for the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Could you upload the file in Commons instead of English Wiki, as it would help everyone to use it. Many thanks in advance. Greetings, Goldie (tell me) 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You've done it just perfect! Many thanks for your good work. Greetings, Goldie (tell me) 12:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] posix signals

Hi EdC, Thanks for filling in some of the blanks on POSIX signals, it's great to see no red links on the signal pages! -- taviso 12:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TinyURL

Some time ago you added a link to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics involving a tinyurl.com address. Just to let you know that it's now Wikipedia policy to prevent editing to pages that includes "spam" inducing websites. The effect of the spam filter was actually felt by one user (see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk) who was prevented from adding his question. Please do not use tinyurl links or any links on the blacklist from now on. Thank you. ----★Ukdragon37★talk 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Sorry about that; I had no idea. (I was using the tinyurl URI as a ROT13 equivalent; I'll use another method.) Thanks for telling me! EdC 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange redirects

Hi. I noticed you are creating unusual redirects; ⚒, ⚓, ⚠ and more even as I write, to articles that have seemingly no relevance to question marks. Can you explain this? This looks an awful lot like vandalism and the creation of useless redirects. ~ Matticus78 10:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, never mind - my machine's not displaying unicode correctly, for some reason. Sorry! ~ Matticus78 10:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I'm just fixing redlinks in one of the Unicode tables. You wouldn't happen to know if we have an article on the classic (and wrong; the one with electron orbits) atom symbol, would you?
Isn't that the Rutherford model? Or is it the Bohr model? It's been a while since GCSE physics! ~ Matticus78 10:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is the Rutherford model; thanks! I was thinking of it in terms of the symbol itself, not the physical model it represented.

[edit] License tagging for Image:Xpdf-screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Xpdf-screenshot.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Phoenician alphabet

Thank you for pointing this out. This is indeed a bug in AWB because our bots are just AWB run in automatic mode. I will contact the people working on AWB. And sorry for any damaged the bots caused.--Konstable 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Hope you manage to fix it; thanks for all the great work you and your bots have been doing. EdC 05:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foot Column on List of Islands by Highest Point

the only reason there is a metric column on this page is because someone in the UK started the page (a child who, as a child, would not have the cognizance to think of it). However, I went to the page for information - not with the intention of editing it. I only edited the information because as it currently is, it is essentially useless. If I need to build my own table, rather than acquiring it easily through an encyclopedia, than why would I use an encyclopedia? As it stands now, this table, has no immediate use without a conversion. If you were to actually remove the metric column as well, then this table would still have as much value as it does now.

If the idea of an encyclopedia is to engender more work for the user or reader, than you have the right idea. Stevenmitchell 06:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I reread the MoS and it seems that non-SI units are permissible even in non-US articles, as long as they are in parentheses. If you recreate the feet column and fill it, I won't remove it again. I would still worry about who's going to keep it in sync with the metres column.
Not sure what you mean by a child starting the page (most readers of this page will use or at least understand metres; not so with feet), or by the information being essentially useless; is it really so difficult to convert from metres to feet? (Multiply by 10 and divide by 3). The reason a height column is useful is that it enables contributors to emplace new entries at the correct point. Source data are invariably in metres. EdC 14:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: pastime → passtime: huh?

Edit to Culture of the United States: [1] wikt:pastime→wikt:passtime. This is incorrect, surely. EdC 00:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! That is indeed a mistake. I got the misspelt and correct strings the wrong way around for that entry in my spell list. I'll go back through the previous miscorrections I made and fix them up. Cheers, CmdrObot 19:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wireshark

Thanks for the pointer to Wireshark. Sorry, but I can't figure out how to run in on my Mac - the downloads & instructions seem to refer to Windows only. Any advice? Not a dog 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. EdC 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Not a dog 14:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] uk.rec.sheds => UK.rec.sheds

In this edit you changed "uk.rec.sheds" to "UK.rec.sheds". Clearly when "uk" is the Usenet heirarchy component it should not be capitalised. Good-o on the other edits, though. EdC 22:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I was catching the incorrect capitalization of UK in domain names, but I didn't think of the Usenet hierarchy. I've modified the bot to avoid those situations. Cheers, CmdrObot 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.--Dylan Lake 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circle

Lets practice you spanish: Si a la gente no le importa malentenderse allá ellos pero la labor de los matemáticos es hacer que los conceptos matemátcos sean precisos. Nadie se opondrá a que se corrija esta situación entonces... saludos --kiddo 19:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Me gustaría mucho ejercer mi español, pero éste es el Wikipedia inglés, y no sería considerado conversar en una lengua que los otros redactores no pueden entender... pero muchas gracias por el oferta. (y necesito mucho lo ejercer...) Anyway, I don't agree; precision in mathematical terminology is only necessary when there is danger of confusion; no-one considering the "area of a circle" would suppose that the area sought is that of the circumferential line itself. Insisting that a circle means solely the circumferential line and not the enclosed disk is sufficiently at odds with established usage to increase confusion, not reduce it. When requiring absolute precision, a mathematician will just talk about S¹ and D² anyway. -- EdC 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box Hill

Hello! Sorry about the confusion on the Box Hill article. Do you know who was buried at Burfoot slope? And also, isn't someone buried unsidedown at Leith Hill? I was there reciently and the national trust shop keeper at Leith Hill Tower said that there was, but I thought it was just at Box Hill. Seams strange that two people would have the same ideas on the different hills. Think outside the box 12:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. Try reading [2] (the first page should be readable without subscription). It seems Labellière was the first (in England, at least) and the others are either copycat burials or apocrypha. EdC 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
And see Burial#Inverted burial. The story that Richard Hull was buried upside down on Leith Hill appears in many places, but I've yet to see a reliable source. –EdC 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Unicode breaks in Cruise control

Hi - sorry about that, and yes I know. It's not that my editor is broken, it's Wikipedia that is! Pages glitch in Mac OS 10.2 intermittently with IE, Safari, and Mozilla. Usually I notice when one of my edits stuffs up and open another browser program to fix it, but sometimes it glitches on the second one as well. I've spoken about this before several times on both the Village Pump and in Bugzilla and each time I've been assured that it's being or has been fixed... but it's been happening on and off for several months now. I've decided it's not worth reporting it any more since it's clear that nothing's going to be done about it, and just have to keep my eyes open to make sure I spot when it happens. Unfortunately sometimes I don't notice, as with the Cruise control edit. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think I've fixed it now... Grutness...wha? 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Octothorp

Dear User:EdC: Why the prejudice against my Octothorp?

  • Before the Unicode, and yes even before ASCII, the Octothorp existed - nameless, perhaps, and called by many bastardly names, it was known merely discriptively, by one of its many uses, as in the case of number sign. But now - why resist its poetic coinage, nay, its Christening?
Yours truly,--Ludvikus 22:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it lacks common currency or adoption as standard usage. Whatever you think of its poesy (and I used to think it was reasonably cute, but you're doing a good job of inducing me to reassess that opinion) it is not a standard or well-known term. --EdC 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification about your edits to the endianness entry

Hi,

just a quick note about this edit. I have to modify it anyway, as there's a double redirect, so I thought to ask and make one edit: do you feel that the links are relevant to the context? I do not; and it is hard to believe that anyone reading an article about endianness would need to follow a link to "date" or "mail address". —Gennaro Prota•Talk 04:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Endianness as a general concept is used to distinguish the various date formats. Someone interested in the general concept would be interested in endianness in mail addresses. I've amended the links to point to the relevant sections of the articles. Besides, it's not as if that paragraph is over-linked. --EdC 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
So are you claiming that I need to go to the mail address article to understand that someone uses the term endianness to mean the ordering of its components? That's beyond me. (And there's certainly a misunderstanding: "endianness" is somehow a jargon term… it does mean "ordering of the composing parts", yes, but is not used everywhere the former could appear —that's typical of jargon: a term has a meaning which is already associated to a common word, but only used in certain contexts) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It's more specific than that; endianness means something like ordering of components of an identifier in terms of the size of entities the values those components take represent. Or something. And there's certainly no non-jargon term as succinct as big-endian for describing big-endian systems. And yes, one does need to understand the possibilities for mail addresses to see how a mail addressing system can be described as having endianness. --EdC 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
One more point: the American date system is widely described as middle-endian. Anyone seeking an explanation of that term will appreciate the link. --EdC 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you don't read what I write, either in articles and in talk pages, so there's no point in continuing. And to "agree" further I didn't even bother tagging the reply with a suitable edit summary. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 02:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry? Did I miss something you wrote? Not sure what you meant about edit summaries; I'd prefer to reach consensus on this if you're willing to work towards it. –EdC 03:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel that you missed my point, yes. I spelled out in the article that some *non-idiomatic* usages reduce the meaning of endianness to ordering of sub-units/components (this is not literally the phrase in the article, but we might tweak it if that's the issue) and in this talk page that many jargon expressions have common-language "synonyms" but they are used in much narrower contexts that their synonymic alternatives. I can't find the English translation for this one, but there's an Italian term, escutere (perhaps to excute in English?), which just means "to interrogate" but is *only* use for witnesses in law trials; now just imagine if tv hosts began to use the term as well, to mean "interviewing": would you then link to television?

About edit summaries, I meant that you don't use them, making all of us waste quite a lot of time in exchange of very little time/energy saving on your part. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, I would, preferably to a more focussed article or section (e.g. on adversarial interviewing styles among chat show hosts). A reader may be interested to see how and which TV hosts compare their own style to judicial cross-examination (is that an appropriate translation?); an encyclopedia should support various reading styles.
Certainly in English, jargon arises where common language does not have sufficiently precise terms; if the jargon term then gains common currency it is because it is advantageous over previous near-synonymic terms. Perhaps the Italian language operates differently?
I do try to use edit summaries where appropriate; on an example contributions page[3] I used edit summaries on all non-minor edits in the encyclopedia namespace. If there are occasions where I have been lax I can only apologise. –EdC 08:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued (or maybe not) at Talk:Endianness#Links to clarify endianness in date formats and mail addresses. –EdC 00:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Hey. I've made a new version of C POSIX library on the temporary page Talk:C POSIX library/Temp. The page was almost an exact copy, a bit careless on my part. I hope the new version can be fixed up more to replace the current version. Fresheneesz 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot?

What in the world? I do not own nor operate any bot? Was the message you left a mistake?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. Take a look at User:Solitaire190. Seems I've been played. Hope you didn't find the message too rude.
No worries EdC, vandals will do anything these days :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exponentiation

Thanks for re-labelling the curves in Exponentiation. The graph that is most problematic, however, is a different one: Image:Root_graphs.png. If you get a chance to update that one too it would be great. —Steven G. Johnson 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. –EdC 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional monarchy

Hi, I happened to notice that a link correction I made on 15 Dec had been reverted, and found that you had reverted Constitutional monarchy to a version before my contribution and other valid changes. I've now put it back as I think you and I would both intend, but perhaps you would care to check my work. Fayenatic london 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. Sorry I had to revert back so far; there had been some very dubious additions and changes and I felt reverting back to an OK version was better than attempting to fix the current version. I had intended to go back and fix up the valid edits, but probably wouldn't have got round to it for a while; thanks for doing that for me. –EdC 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. If our paths cross again, I'll give you time to finish your work in future! Maybe you might leave a note on the Talk page or in the edit summary to say you'll be back to do more later. Fayenatic london 14:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice; I'll bear that in mind. All the best. –EdC 14:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] commons:User:EnEdC

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:EnEdC. –EdC 20:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] piphilology#Japanese

Done. What do you think? Patrick Schwemmer 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The links

Is that function new? I don't notice that until you told me. :)--Fitzwilliam 15:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done a test and understand it well. Thanks :)--Fitzwilliam 15:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your efforts

Kudos! Great job on moving ALL the mnemonics to wikiquote (despite it being on the verge of deletion). Well, you kind of... continued my job and finished it at a go. I was a frequent editor for mnemonic article but i slacked then stopped editing later on. Once again, thank you for what you have done there :D — Yurei-eggtart 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It is rather unfortunate that there isn't a good place for that sort of content, but the truth is that once even a few examples get into an article it quickly turns into a tidal wave of cruft as people feel the need to validate their own educational experience. Human nature, I guess. –EdC 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What did I do?

Hi, I'm not sure if this is where I should post this, but I got a message from you saying I had been flagged for vandalism. To my knoweldge I've not done anything to warrant this and was wondering what I'd done. (if I have I'd like to know so I can avoid it in future). Thanks. 203.118.159.54 11:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything; in fact you acted correctly in removing vandalism by another user. Unfortunately I misread the history log of the page and thought it was you that was the vandal; I'm very sorry for making such a mistake. –EdC 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Hull

EdC - can you help me? Perhaps I tried to add Richard Hull incorrectly - but the note I read was that I shouldn't be adding articles about myself? I'm not Richard - but his work on semantic ontology and the fact that he is one of the world's leaders on natural language search systems, employed by NASA, Department of Defense, Merck, etc lead me to believe he should certainly be included on Wikipedia. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- David

Responded at User talk:Dexterpopwall. –EdC 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/c/User_talk%7EEdC_181e.html"