User talk:Gazpacho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I don't actively edit Wikipedia any more, aside from defending accuracy of a few specific articles.


This page was archived June 15, 2005 January 30, 2006 July 18, 2006 October 24, 2006

Contents

[edit] My support

I totally agree with your statement on the user page, and I'm doing exactly what you're doing. Good luck. P.S.: Have you ever seen www.wikitruth.info ? --necronudist 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for so gracefully resolving the conflict on Waterboarding. I'd have done it myself but I don't write as well as you. However, I adamantly disagree with your statement that you "don't actively edit Wikipedia any more." I'd say making 9 edits just today counts as pretty active. Nathanm mn 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting comments on link in Evergreen article

As a previous contributor to the article on Evergreen International Aviation, could I request your input on the talk page on whether it should contain a link to the corresponding SourceWatch article? With thanks, --Neoconned 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Gates

Thanks for the note. I do not doubt you have a stronger knowledge of the exact circumstances. Gabrielthursday 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work on reverting all the nonsense. Jay(Reply) 04:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COntact me

Dear Gaz, regarding this map you have made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CommunistSplit.png

I'd like to know how you have created it. Please contact me, preferable by email. Address on my user page. - Peter Bjørn Perlsø 22:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secform4.com link at Bill Gates

I went through a whole dispute with User:Vicn12 over this link, which he was adding at Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and several more appropriate articles such as Form 4 and Option. Vicn12 is affiliated with the site, as he admits at Talk:Warren_Buffett#I_need_some_inputs.2C_please, so his adding the link to any page definitely counts as spam. He has already used one obvious sock puppet, so I wouldn't be surprised if User:207.47.130.88, who re-added the link at Bill Gates, was a sock-- this is the link that I removed as spam that you reverted. Even he's not a sock, I would be leary of allowing a link to this site to stand for any one investor article, because it would justify adding it to every trader who has an article here. Granted, there is nothing wrong with the site as an external link per se, but I would hate to see it added to scores of articles. So I'm going to revert your reversion, but if you re-add, I'll leave it alone (though I hope you won't!). Thanks, -- Mwanner | Talk 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your deletion of section at OK Corral gunfight

Please carefully read WP:BOLD on the subject of deletions. Section deletion is for vandals and vandal-reverters. Simply deleting sections which aren't NPOV-enough is generally an act of laziness. This leads to edit wars. You know that. So stop, think, and then edit a problem section to make it more NPOV. Few sections have nothing to offer. They are there for a reason. In this case, there are questions here, as in any assassination or shooting, and there have been later investigations. These need discussion. If you don't like the quality of that discussion, then fix it WP:SOFIXIT. Deletion with rude comments is not fixing. If you can't bring youself to do the work, then just leave the matter entirely alone. If you have problems with Wikipedia (as most of us do) don't take it out on the articles. Go the WP:PUMP and complain there. SBHarris 16:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I removed it because the whole section was someone's personal opinion of a TV program and how it "shoulda" been made. Gazpacho 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If so, you were in error, since the "whole section" was no such thing. SBHarris 09:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American Revolutionary War

You've been putting it into the uncategorized categories list. -- ProveIt (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re:Bill Gates, Microsoft, etc.

I got your message about more usful information about Bill Gates and Microsoft, but I don't know any more information. I did however think that replacing chairman with chairperson for Bill Gates would avoid more controversy. Chairperson means chairman, but I think people will take less offense in chairperson.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Arbcom vote

What's objectionable on my userpage? Your reason was 'oppose, based on userpage'. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 13:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam by IPspammer, NOT you

Nope, it's not me. There are quite a few people in this company. Block the IP if you have to, I have no basis to complain. Gazpacho

Dude, no one was ACCUSING YOU of spam. Just that IP. You made an unsigned comment on the page, I tagged it with {{unsigned}}, and that's all. Blanking user comments/warning (like MINE) is vandalism; don't do that, okay? End of line. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IBM PC Technical Reference Manual

Adding references as I find them. Yes, they did. I was an Apple ][ and Mac guy, but every PC guy I knew had a copy of the IBM PC Technical Reference manual and I've seen the listing. None of them were commercial developers and none had signed NDAs or anything like that. I incorrectly remembered it as being part of the documentation packaged with the machine, but I was wrong about that. I also remember (correctly or incorrectly!) that despite the semimythology of "openness," the BIOS listing had copyright notices and, I believe, other warnings about its being IBM's intellectual property. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words, yes, it was the "Purple Book" but no NDA was required... or at least none of the web references I've found by Googling indicates anything of the sort. As I say I knew several guys that had them and I was in a research/academic environment at the time with no corporate connection to IBM. One of the web references says he recalls it as costing $60.

I know these aren't fantastically good references... but Googling on "IBM PC Technical Reference Manual" and "IBM" "Purple book" and the like yield lots and lots of them all saying more or less the same thing. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summarys are a Good Thing

Please remember to put something in the Edit Summary box when you're updating articles. I noticed that you made several changes to Bill Gates without any summaries. Why is it needed? Well, most vandals DON'T use an edit summary, so legit changes look otherwise without a summary. TIA, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Gates Respected/Criticized

I have to be honest, I don't know how I missed it, but I didn't see the sentence that says "He is widely respected for his foresight and ambition." (Which is why I thought we wouldn't be implying everyone loves him by omission.) I realize there is a lot of criticism of Gates and am not trying to protect him from it, I merely question the sources listed: the Nader letter is criticism from only one person, and I didn't read the entire Senate transcript but it doesn't seem like it is direct criticism, but rather evidence of controversy. I think the best option would maybe be to rearrange and reword both of these sentences, and add a better reference for the criticism. Something like this...

He has been praised for his foresight and ambition,[1][2] and been the subject of controversy and criticism amid claims that he built Microsoft through unfair or unlawful business practices. [3][4]

What do you think? -- Renesis (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded it and replaced those sources with one that is more direct. Just to clarify, Nader's letter was in the context of a conference that he staged in late 1997 with generous support from Microsoft's competitors. It was part of the PR push that led to both the Senate testimony and the antitrust lawsuit. Gazpacho 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bram Cohen's AS

Hi, you replied to my ip 72.94.11.57 - this is my screenname if you want to communicate further. While Cohen is self-diagnosed, his asperger's is generally accepted (one of the most out-spoken exceptions being his brother). Wrong Planet recognizes him as having AS and most interviews/articles pertaining to Cohen mention his AS (whether or not they mention that it is self-diagnosed varies). If you still think that his AS diagnosis is not legitimate, that's fine and I won't edit it in again, but I think that it's accepted enough to make it a legit diagnosis The freddinator 16:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Only a psychiatrist can legitimize the diagnosis. Cohen has gotten a lot of publicity mileage from his self-diagnosis but that does not change what it is. Gazpacho 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nero

I see what you are trying to say, and I think there is some truth in the increasing demonization of Nero over time. However, the section is POV b/c it is presenting a specific thesis -- that Nero's biographies became more insane as time progressed. Please provide a citation for this, otherwise it is original research. (Please see WP:NOR.)

We have an entire section describing Nero's historians in detail, including timelines. People can make up their own mind concerning how fantastic each description of Nero is without inserting our own commentaries.

Best regards,

Djma12 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph doesn't say the biographers were insane, it says they cast Nero as insane. I don't see anything in the section that substantiates that, so maybe that particular claim should go. I would say that the historiography section does have NPOV issues WRT how it groups writers (why is Tacitus considered critical? Why is Josephus considered a defender?), and how it poisons the well at the beginning of each group section. Having an introductory paragraph that summarizes the sourced info that follows does not seem like a problem to me, just good style. Gazpacho 03:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


BTW, how do you feel about linking the entire Historiography out to another article? It's large enough for that purpose, and it will help declutter the article. Djma12 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Gates on fr.

Hello,

I tried to find a sentence that would agree every body on fr about Bill Gates. I mentionned the fact that some software already have been sold under their binary forms (Même si des logiciels avaient déjà été vendus sous leur forme compilée), and I changed the sentence Before this letter (Avant cette lettre) with At the times of this letter (A l'époque de cette lettre).

I hope you'll agree with my modifications :)

fr:Elfi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.230.128.1 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] KBE

I see you've been removing "KBE" from biographies: Alan Greenspan, Steven Spielberg, Lou Gerstner

Why is this? Why do you feel that this honor should not be on biography pages?

--Crocodile Punter 10:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't removed the honor. These articles are still in the relevant category. The suffix shouldn't be used, because these people are not commonwealth citizens and don't use the suffix in their own country. This is the recommended practice in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Gazpacho 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that convention... thank you! --Crocodile Punter 02:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove howto templates

Please explain your removal of the "howto" template from Windsor and Half-Windsor knots. Dddstone 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the section is unencyclopedic, as explained on the Windsor article's talk page. Gazpacho 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to your viewpoint. Please see my comments at Talk:Knot#"How to" tie knots. I merely added the "howto" warning template instead of deleting the content. Dddstone 02:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bill Gate's current wealth

Hi Gazpacho, I found a site more up to date on Bill Gate's wealth than Forbes, which I already added the link to on the discussion on Bill Gate's page, but since you seem to edit Bill Gate's a lot, I decided to talk to you about it. I still remember your message to me about making more useful edits to these articles, and that's why I'm talking, well, writing, technically about my edit first. One reason I edit Bill Gates is because I'm a fan of his, but I plan to make my edits acceptable with Wikipedia and other Wikipedian users, including you. The site I found is called Bill Gate's Personal Wealth Clock. Here is the link. Would this be a leginamate and accurrate source, such as Forbes?

[1]

Wikipedier-Wikipedier(talk)

No it would not. Gazpacho 07:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


On January 13, I undid my revison to Steve Ballmer, coming accross your edit summary about you frowning upon my edit. I aim to make a revison that will be valued by other Wikipedians. Wikipedier


[edit] Controlled demo

Hi Gazpacho, I think your edits are going to have a good influence on the CD article. But I really don't understand your insistence on those numbered lists. You are not adding anything essential to the article and it makes the tension between the NIST version and the CDH difficult to follow. Also, I know the pancake theory has a long history of being ridiculed by controlled demolitionists. But they were doing that before NIST changed the story. The current statements of the hypothesis that the article is based on make nothing of it. Looking forward to seeing how it works out. Happy editing, --Thomas Basboll 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversion of edits to Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

Greetings - I reverted your reversion because the edit summary you gave (reverted bot) was erroneous in that the edit being reverted was not a bot edit. I explained this in the edit summary of my reversion. It's not about my view of the content you add or remove to the article. It's that, if I see an edit claiming to be reverting a bot edit, then, if it isn't a bot edit that's being reverted, I'm liable to conclude that the reversion was made in error. I'd suggest that, whatever content differences exist between yourself and Where are best handled by discussion instead of deletion and reversion. Thanks for improving the article. --Ssbohio 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators

Since you don't wish to become an administrator, wouldn't it be a good idea to add that category to your user page? I notice that on other user pages. Wikipedier

[edit] working on "Conflict of Interest" guidelines

Dear WLD, Doc0tis, hAl, Gazpacho and BCube --

I've been following (and partially contributing) to the discussion of the whole "Microsoft edits" issue on Talk:OpenDocument. My own experience with editors who have "conflicts of interest" (on very different topics: FIRE and John Templeton Foundation) is that while such folks can be tedious at times and definitely need to be "educated" on things like WP:NPOV and WP:CITE, that they are capable of valid, good faith edits and that it would be a net detriment to wikipedia if such editors were banned from editing and forced to simply post suggestions on a talk page.

(In the case of Microsoft vs. Open Source pages I think the problem is particularly acute because by definition "one side" of the story is unpaid and thus does not fall under the COI guidelines -- if we were to ban employees, say, from editing pages, we would end up with a net POV slanted towards open source.)

I went to the WP:COI page (a guideline I'd never noticed before in years of editing) and tried to make some edits to make this clear. These were quickly reverted, but there is now at least a discussion of sorts on the talk page. The basic problem is that the editors on that page believe pretty much that such editors should be banned, should be forced to seek permission from other editors, or something of the sort.

My sense from your contributions to the Open Documents discussion is that you have similar feelings to mine. I think it would be a good idea for you to contribute your views at the WP:COI page if you have the time. I don't usually like to "recruit" people, but the essential problem is that the editors currently feel that "consensus" is on their side.

Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bill Gates on Comedy Central

Hi Gazpacho, I wanted to know what you would think about adding a Refrerence to the Bill Gates article that he was on Comedy Central, introducing the Windows Vista, if that wasn't noted somehow in the article already. I watched it.--Wikipedier 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw the interview, but have not considered adding it to the article. Gates is in the public eye all the time. Gazpacho 09:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Using Chairperson, instead of Chairman

Hi Gazpacho, you have replaced Chairperson with Chairman here. The reason why I'm concerned that's not a good idea, is because using Chairman may still be considered a sexist term, with the word man. Chairperson refers to Chairman, but would be gender neutral, with the word person. I haven't changed anything. I'm just making a suggestion. You can feel free to ignore it, if you don't think it matters.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Where the position is in fact held by a man, it doesn't matter how the term is considered. Gazpacho 06:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. If Chairwomen is used equally on the opposite cases, I don't see what the problem could be. That's a considerably big if, though. I suppose that if in the case that it's a female, and her title is Chair, Board Chair, Chairperson, etc., as opposed to Chairman, I see no problem.(Anthere would fit this example. She is a woman, and her title is Chair of the Wikimedia, Board of Trustees.)--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kildall blanking

Hello, Gazpacho. User:Wikid77 here. Welcome to Wikipedia! I realize that there is a lot to learn about WP, and the guidelines are changing each month. However, the most important aspect to understand is that blanking or removal of well-structured text is NOT acceptable just because one person doesn't like it. Please realize that WP is a forum depending on cooperation, rather than competition. Years from now, all that will be left is the core information that proves notable, long-term, to future WP editors. Someone who persists in pushing one-man views of subjects will eventually be erased from articles, like faces etched off Egyptian obelisks.
Certainly, many trivial articles will eventually be removed as unreferenced or not-notable, or at least archived, to reduce the index structure of the WP databases. A WP index gets updated when each article is saved, to store bracketed-links as cross references for "What links here" and will consume storage resources, even for nonsense articles. For that reason, trivial articles are destined for long-term deletion, to reduce overall WP index size. The future is undeniable: unless the WP index structure is truncated, trivial articles will be purged by deletions, or non-indexed ("offline") archiving. The more historical, referenced articles will compete for space, and win.
However, important inventors or businessmen should be documented with proper WP sections, including: See also, Notes, References and External links (read Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout). The "Notes" section is similar to traditional footnotes, which can also contain simple explanatory notes, not just page numbers of related books; however, the "References" section now is equivalent to a bibliography. Is is just as in formal journals, listing reference sources, in alphabetical order by author or organization, where "References" omit clarification notes but repeat book titles, in sorted order. Lastly, "External links" are connections outside WP, and those links are typically only webpages not listed in other sections; however, it would be proper to include all related website encyclopedias in the "External links" section. Notice how a traditional book index or concordance is not needed by WP, since each article has "What links here" to show the indexed topics. I hope that helps clarify the formal sections and explains what the "References" mean for the Gary Kildall article. Well-documented articles are more likely to survive the pop-culture purge (or avoid a total re-write). -Wikid77 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/z/User_talk%7EGazpacho_fa56.html"