User talk:Frodet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Frodet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 10:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Thanks for contributing to Girl! 2 Floptical revert 3 3D Monster Maze 3.1   3.2 resubmitted as a FAC! 4 Over-categorization 5 italicised title 6 Kjetil r as admin on commons 7 Unspecified source for Image:Yamaha-MDR1.png 8 Motorhead 9 ZX Spectrum 10 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 11 Formatting Issues on WoS_game template 12 Starglider 13 Autograph Book 14 ZX Spectrum models 14.1 March 2007 15 Uridium

[edit] Thanks for contributing to Girl!

		An Award
		For your contributions to the CotW focusing on Girl in September, 2005, I, Mamawrites, award you, Frodet, this THANK YOU.

[edit] Floptical revert

Could you please explain your removal of all my work in Floptica? All of the drives I added were definitely flopticals, and referred to as such. For instance, google "LS-120 floptical". You seem to think the content should not be in this article because the drive was called a Floptical, but considering there is no other article to put the content in, nor was that the official name of the product (it was I325), I can't think of any other place to put it.

Maury 13:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Floptical" is/was a registred trademkark of Insite. Your first submission was a bit unclear about the difference between an Insite Floptical versus any floptical-like system. The LS-120 uses similar technology to the Floptical, but it's not a Floptical. That's why I reverted some of your work. Some use "floptical" as an adjective and I tried to describe that in the last sentence in my edit.

However, your current edit looks much better, BTW.

Frodet 14:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused about the history here. If I read it correctly, Jim left Shugart and started work on the floptical at Insite -- is that correct, or was Insite really a part of 3M at this point? Anyway they released their drive and a number of companies licensed it, including Iomega. Iomega gave up on their version and sold the technology back to 3M, who then released it as the LS-120 before spinning it off as Imation. Right? So then if this is basically correct, who are OR Technology and Caleb? They both appear to be related to the Iomega project as well. Maury 13:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot all about this one. :( AFAIK 3M founded half (together with Maxell) of Insite. And it was Jim Adkisson (not Shugart) who started it all. I'm also confused about the Iomega/Imation/3M/LS-120 connection. It might well be that Iomega licenced the original techonology from Insite and then improved it to become LS-120 which they sold off due to financial difficulties. ORT and Caleb were even less successfull startups from the same time and were competitors to Insite. I have tried to get hold of Jim Adkisson to get him to comment and elaborate on the facts of the article, but without success. --Frodet 20:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Monster Maze

I've moved our exchange here over to Talk:3D_Monster_Maze#1981_vs_1982 for everyone to see and participate... --BACbKA 09:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  

I was wondering why you actively use & nbsp; in articles - notably before and after numbers? I'm not aware that there is such a typographics convention in English. I see that you recently updated 3D Monster Maze with one and the article also has many more previously added by you. In my oppinion & nbsp; can be used when there are specific textual elements which should be grouped together on one line, eg. formulas. For ordinary paragraph text & nbsp; should not be used since people have different sized screens, different resolution, read articles with different sized fonts (eg. visual impairment), etc. --Frodet 19:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

While there is no supporting material I can easily find on the WP:MoS, I find it a good idea to use the non-breakable space wherever a line break would look really ugly, as taught by Donald Knuth's The T_EXbook. One of these cases is when you have a single variable or number right before a punctuation sign (because in the beginning of a line, a number followed by a punctuation sign (esp. a period) looks ugly. BTW, in the last brackets, you may have noticed another  , coming to prevent a perception from a contraction to look like a sentence end (and to prevent some styles to interpret it like one (e.g., if the thing is dumped to a Wikireader through a typesetting process that, as per the English typography rules, puts extra spaces at the end of a sentence)).

--BACbKA 20:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of Knuth's teachings on this subject, and personally I dissagree with the number/puncutation "rule". I do see your last point, however. I'm not sure if I agree with you/them, though. However, when something is written once (hopefully) and ready many times (again, hopefully) the author is obliged to put some extra effort into making it easily readable. Do you have examples or further readings? -- Frodet 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No furhter readings off the top of my head. However, to strengthen the case with the number before the punctuation, just think how this can be visually perceived (incorrectly) as a beginning of a list item if starting a line! Before the comma it is less critical than before a period or a closing paren. BTW, you might be interested in the MoS talk on Uses of  , —, etc?. --BACbKA 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] resubmitted as a FAC!

I've resubmitted 3DMAZE as a FAC. You're welcome to comment/vote on its FAC page!.. --BACbKA 18:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over-categorization

Hello and happy anniversary on your first year of contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you included Robert Cailliau into many categories. Although he deserves credit for his seminal work on the World Wide Web with Tim Berners-Lee, I don't believe he should be listed with Tim everywhere notable computer pioneers are mentioned. If you read his own comments on his page history, he would probably agree. This is why I'll take the liberty of removing some of the category listings you added. I believe that Wikipedia categories are more useful when they are very focused. Of course, they may eventually grow so large that we will need super-categories ;-) -- JFG 16:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

After taking a close look at all categories, I couldn't decide which should be removed, because the rationale for removing one tends to lead into removing most, which I think would be unfair to Robert. So I left them all in place. Sorry! -- JFG 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. Robert is a modest person, and while I agree that some articles are overcategorized, he is still a knowledgeable person and deserve much credit. And while he shares some categories with Tim, others he don't - and vice versa. ;-) The categoriezation, as you sort of discerned, are not completely unfounded. The one category I'm a bit uncertain about is Category:Computer knowledge engineers - not a very helpfull category in general. Firstly it would probably include any practicing engineer today (depending on the definition of "computer knowledge"). Secondly, I tried to make sense of that category and it's parent categories without really comprehending the connection - but that might be just me. :-)

If you have questions about specific categories, I might be able to clarify my position.

-- Frodet 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took a deeper look; let me share my opinion with you. Robert is definitely an Internet pioneer. However, given the definition of Category:Computer pioneers, he shouldn't be here (whereas Tim deserves it along with Vint Cerf). Note that several prominent Internet pioneers are not included in Computer pioneers, for example Marc Andreesen and Paul Mockapetris.

Now, Category:Programmers is a thorny one: many people have programmed significant stuff, but how many should be notable programmers as per category definition? There are currently 187 people in this list, and a casual glance tells me that by my standard of notable, there should be no more than half this number. Can anyone compare Andy Hertzfeld with Hideya Kawahara? So I wouldn't add Robert there, although he probably did more notable work than some people who are currently listed. Maybe we should suggest renaming this category to "Notable programmers" (as if it weren't obvious in an encyclopedia) :-)

All right, I totally agree with you that Category:Computer knowledge engineers is ill-defined at best, because it starts with an irrelevant POV that the Semantic Web is a continuation of AI, and it fails to even define what a CKE is supposed to be. So this should go away and we should ask for clarification on the category's talk page, or directly to its sole author, User:Gorgonzilla.

Category:Technology writers is OK to me, although purists would argue that writing one book does not qualify somebody as a writer. IMHO, such purists should try and write a book by themselves first to realize the amount of work that is needed! Robert and his colleague James Gillies did write an outstanding book.

Category:Belgian people and Category:Belgian inventors are fine too, although a [Category:Belgian computer scientists] would perhaps be more appropriate if it existed. By the way, you should read about another fascinating Belgian called Paul Otlet who envisioned the Wikipedia in 1903.

Looking forward to reading your opinion and reaching consensus... -- JFG 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Phew! I'll try to be short. :-)

Category:Computer pioneers - well, I put him there on his merits compared to the other people already there. If he should be removed, so should several others, including Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Jarkko Oikarinen and Linus Torvalds to mention a few. I'm not even sure Tim should be there. However, seeing as Category:Internet pioneers is a sub-category to Category:Computer pioneers, I don't object to removing that category, since article shouldn't normally be in both a category and it's sub-category.

I wasn't aware of this policy. Sounds good!

I updated Tim as well. Not sure if I am prepared to wade through the rest of the "computer pioneers". :-)

Category:Programmers: Notable - isn't being included in Wikipedia notable in itself? :-)

OK for Robert compared to many other people there. But just wait until a million programmers get listed... 8-D

Category:Computer knowledge engineers - what about {Cfd}?

Absolutely!

Category:Technology writers - indeed it is a excellent book, and he has written several papers as well.

Actually, Category:Belgian people is redundant as Category:Belgian inventors is a sub-category.

All right.

You have put a lot of effort into this, rather than just editing the article. Do you show equal vigilance towards other articles? :-)

I do have attention to detail ;-) especially on subjects for which I have first-hand knowledge. Whenever possible I'd rather strive for consensus than start an edit war. In this case, I chose to contact you directly because you had added a whole bunch of categories in one shot, so I thought it would be more efficient to discuss the matter with you before editing the page.

I appreciate the initative. Just curious - what's your connection to Robert since you claim first-hand knowledge? :-)

We worked together with Tim at CERN. -- JFG 06:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose to remove Category:Computer pioneers and Category:Belgian people and {Cfd} Category:Computer knowledge engineers. Let me know and I'll edit the article and nominate the {Cfd}.

-- Frodet 18:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for volunteering to go through the CfD process, which looks time-consuming. I'll go vote when this CfD is ready.

Consensus reached! -- JFG 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything in place at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 7.

-- Frodet 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a Cfd-article on Tim's page so this CfD gets some attention. -- JFG 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Frodet! As the CfD vote has closed, I have emptied the category and moved it to the Delete Me section, until an admin takes care of killing it. -- JFG 15:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] italicised title

I've just noticed the italicised title you put into the 3DMAZE and Trashman articles. Thanks, I learnt smth new from the WP manual of style; before that, I somehow had been under impression that double emphasis was discouraged... --BACbKA 11:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kjetil r as admin on commons

Hi! The norwegians have put foreward an admin request on commons, commons:Template:Administrators/Requests and votes/Kjetil r. It would be nice to have your votes! — John Erling Blad (no) 21:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Yamaha-MDR1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Yamaha-MDR1.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motorhead

I reverted back to the disambiguation page. Please think of the people who come to Wikipedia looking for information about the band. It is a very, very notable band, and the average user doesn't put umlauts in search engine windows. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZX Spectrum

Hej, jag såg att du till slut gav upp din tappra kamp, rörande en viss lista, på diskussionsidan. Frågan är hur den sortens besserwissrar, mer intresserade av form än av innehåll, egentligen skall tacklas, vilka argument biter? Man blir ju lite orolig att han skall ge sig på fler artiklar!

(hoppas du ursäktar lite skandinaviska)

/HenkeB 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeg har inte givit upp - gikk bare å la meg. :) Men det er jo klart at dess fler som sejer i från, dess bettre.

Skandinaviska er lungt. :)

--Frodet 11:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] Formatting Issues on WoS_game template

What formatting issues were caused by the ticks used to italicsize the game titles in the WoS game template? Thanks for the great job of re-linking the titles BTW! :-) --Frodet 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The formatting issues seemed to occur because there were the two quotes in the template and then also two quotes in the link on the page so seemed to end up with four quotes and it looked like 'This'. Might just need to remove the quotes from all the places where the template is used rather than from the template. --WOSlinker 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starglider

I'm curious on what grounds you are adding for this article to be on High importance. This is not anything really against it, I just want to know why a lesser known game should be on high priority. William Pembroke 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

These ratings are always very subjective. When I rated Starglider it was one of many games I rated in the same period and was based on my "feel" of how I remembered the game. There are also several objective reasons:

• It was considered a killer application for the Atari ST.
• It was (one of) the first games to be included as an integral part (and on a regular basis) of a (UK) TV-show.
• The 3D vector graphics was very advanced for the time, using multiple colours.

Of course, the article should be expanded uppon and references located. It's on my to-do list.

--Frodet 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autograph Book

Can you please sign my autograph book, Frodet? --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZX Spectrum models

You got me convinced, I hadn't figured out they were model names. Sorry about messing with the pages. --SLi 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NP. :) --Frodet 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Hello, Frodet! Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia, which you did in Tim Berners-Lee. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thanks! — zero » 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uridium

So how does that one fall under original research?--Marhawkman 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you find any references to support that "it may be a misspelling of Iridium"? --Frodet 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy who wrote the game Uridium said that he used the name because he thought there was an element named that. Iridium is a real element with a name that could be pronounced the same way.--Marhawkman 10:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It was Robert Orchard who "invented" that name, and who thought '... it really existed'. There is no source which claims that it was a misspelling. Iridium and Uridium is as closly pronounced as I and you. --Frodet 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Either name could be pronounced using a schwa sound for the first vowel. Granted the correct pronunciations would be somewhat different. Iridium is prperly pronounced using a "short i" for the first two "i"s. Based on spelling alone, Uridium could be pronounced "er" without being phonetically incorrect. The actual pronunciation is unknown(to us) as it's a word Robert Orchard made up.--Marhawkman 18:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that it is a misspelling of Iridium, could be a mixup with Uranium as well. Could be anything. --Frodet 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. For all we know he could have mixed the two elements up.--Marhawkman 20:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)