User talk:Gnetwerker/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive1

Contents 1 i960 POV? 1.1 Historical Comments Archive 2 No problem! 3 Reed College page 4 Reed College talk page 5 Arbcom 6 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker 7 hi 8 Parker, Willard houses 9 No bot 10 On deletion of comments 11 Asian fetish rewrite 12 Adminship 13 Edwards 14 Vandalism in progress report 15 ENIAC 16 Bulbasaur crap 17 Request for investigation (80.138.183.244) 18 Paris Page 19 Intel 80386 20 Gibraltar 21 Intel 22 Falklands 23 Blanking of Comments pages 24 Paris intro 25 Hopkins School 26 Embrace and extend 27 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker 28 EEE 29 About the expression "movie synthesis". 30 Watershed 31 Poking at Hardouin 32 Moving On 33 Rue Monge 34 Personal details 35 Don't worry 36 Perfect Dark 37 WP:ARCHIVES 37.1 Asian fetish 38 Mediation 39 Invitation 40 Ardenn 41 New 'Large French Cities' Infobox Template proposition 42 Apology 43 Ems2 (talk • contribs) 43.1 Response 44 Windows Vista - The so-called NPOV statement 45 Request for arbitration regarding inclusion of Aqua UI similarities to Windows Aero in Windows Vista and Windows Aero articles 46 Personal Attacks 47 Edit warring on WP:RFAR 48 Accusations of Vandalism

[edit] i960 POV?

I'm curious why you deleted my comments on memory performance on the i432 as "POV"? If it's POV it's a widely held one, generally considered to be correct by all, and at worst it conspired with the poor compilers to cause the performance issues. The material, as written, was correct as far as I am aware.

I'm also curious about this statement, which I think you added:

In this implementation, however, all of the chip implementations where identical -- only the labelling was different.

This is unclear. Are you saying that the 960MC, KA and KB were in fact identical internally? Just the KA and KB? And what do the two uses of "implementation" refer to? Is the first one better replaced with "version"? -- Maury 14:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, I was one of the chief architects on the i960. Yes, the KA, KB, and MC were all the same, exact, precise die. The only difference with the MC was the packaging. The only difference between the MC and the BiiN chip was that the MC did not have the 33rd bit pinned-out.

I would also appreciate it if you would move the i432 commentary to the i432 page. Ask Justin Rattner -- the 432 was designed to support more than just Ada, and the primary reason it was so slow was the multi-chip implementation and the underlying ISA rather than the tagged memory suport, which was why the i960 ran so well, even though it had the tagged memory support. -- Gnetwerker

[edit] Historical Comments Archive

(Moved from main page - the first was probably made in early 2002) -- Gnetwerker 07:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm glad to see somebody with your special knowledge and skills contributing. Thank you! It is valuable to have additional information on the history of computing (hardware related and OS-wise) and general software concepts. For example there is not yet an entry on laser printer.

A hint: There is already an entry on Central Processing Unit. You may use the text you wrote on Processor there and do a #REDIRECT Central_Processing_Unit command from the Processor entry.

--HJH

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Policies and guidelines

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 03:03, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No problem!

Always here to help. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reed College page

I think you may be confused as to the definition of a wikivandal: this may help: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." [[1]] If you are convinced that I am, in fact, a vandal, you are obliged to report me to the proper entities. I think you would get little traction on this, however; threats to have users making legitimate edits (even if NPOV or bad faith -- which mine aren't) "banned" are frowned on here. As to making a "positive contribution," I quote you from the talk page (snideness excised for clarity): "IronDuke has chosen... to... re-write [the article] ... This is fine, and may be an improvement (ultimately)." IronDuke 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... you haven't exactly responded to any of my points above. That aside, I've actually been meaning to suggest to you that you accuse me of disruption rather than vandalism. It isn't true, of course, but at least you could say, in good faith, "In my, Gnetwerker's, opinion, IronDuke is being disruptive." That statement would not be as demonstrably false as your claims of vandalism, as it falls more into the realm of subjectivity. But let me say this, by way of an olive branch. It is my intention to keep editing the Reed page. I am going to profess myself amazed if you do not continue editing it as well (unless someone, somewhere, decides that officers of a corporation ought not to edit article about it). We can continue this method and manner of discussion, but I think you and I can agree that in the end, it will bear little fruit. So: let's, if we can, resolve to put any and all unpleasantness behind us, and work together on this article. I expect we will have disagreements, but I also expect we're both capable of remaining civil about them, and working together constructively to resolve them without personal attacks. Does all this seem logical/rational/good to you? IronDuke 00:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm taking that as a "no" on my peace offering. I'm sorry you feel that way (if I am indeed reading you correctly). Perhaps when a little time has passed you'll change your mind. I'm glad you feel the Reed page is mostly there. I was a bit worried you were going to try to revert my NPOV edits. (And as for my talk pages, I post there as well here not so much for you as for other people, so they can more easily follow our discussion (though one would have to be a bit of a masochist to do that, I think), and also so there's a record of what I'm saying on your page as well as mine). IronDuke 16:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reed College talk page

I'm very anxious that we not get into a revert war on this. There is no good reason to do what you are doing. The talk page is not overly long, and you've removed my commentary on my own recent edits, as well as commentary about an ongoing dispute you and I have, which is the appropriateness of your editing the page. I know that those comments irk you, but that doesn't mean you get to summarily remove them. IronDuke 06:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note this:

"Thank you very much both Gnetwerker and IronDuke. Being "on the other side" is very interesting, and I encourage you to try your hands at medcabal yourselves. It is definitely a learning experience. IronDuke, re: archived comments, I don't have a strong position on that sort of thing, and in general if someone objects to a talk page "refactoring", it's best to err on the side of not archiving stuff. Sdedeo (tips) 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)"

IronDuke 06:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom

As per our agreement, I am taking this to arbcom. IronDuke 16:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Hey Gnetwerker and IronDuke,

I got a talk page that you were going to an RfA.

I strongly suggest that you both do not do this and both ask that it not go through.

Instead, I suggest that you both unilaterally agree not to work on the Reed page. You both have a lot to contribute on wikipedia, and an RfA on this one issue would be a waste of time. Allow the article to stand at [2], the latest version, let the many other editors continue to improve it, and move on to work on some other part of wikipedia where you will not encounter each other.

A simple statement on the RfA page somewhere to the effect that "I won't edit if he won't edit" would resolve it.

(If you do go through with an RfA, I can predict the result: "Gnetwerker and IronDuke have ignored policies A, B and C. User 1 did it worse than User 2. Gnetwerker and IronDuke are enjoined from editing the Reed page for a period X." I've got five bucks on it.)

Good luck, Sdedeo (tips) 14:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo -- you are no doubt correct. However, I didn't start the RfA, and would never have started it. If IronDuke would like to withdraw the petition, that is fine with me. Again, thanks for your forebearance -- Gnetwerker 18:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parker, Willard houses

Are you sure that the Parker and Willard houses are as recent acquisitions as Birchwood is? I was under the impression that they had been owned by the College for a while prior... Matt Gies 18:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Parker house was just purchased last year. I don't know about Willard -- it may pre-date 2004. If so, it has recenlty been converted from faculty use to (a desire for) administrative use. I don't think the city has given a use permit for either one, so to the best of my knowledge, they are both actually unused at the moment. Feel free to adjust the article -- I have no pride of ownership in these details ;-) -- Gnetwerker 20:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No bot

I'm personally making the changes. Category:Jewish Americans has become way too large, so I'm re-categorizing everyone in it to the (for the most part) already-existing sub-categories, to make it easier to navigate. I made a mistake on Grove - you're right, he was never a politician. Vulturell 08:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're pretty quick edits, just essentially an addition of one word to a page. You mean a robot could have actually done all this for me? Technology is no fun... Vulturell 08:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On deletion of comments

The comments chosen for deletion were points that have already been made at least a dozen times not only in the discussion page in question, but also in other Wiki pages. The majority of editors seem to agree that these kinds of discussions are more than redundant and not conducive to the overall voting process; and that the situation is so extreme that such extreme measures are necessary. Moreover, two previous rounds of major deletions of comments in the voting process were made without objection. Nevertheless, if you would like to revert the deletions, we only ask that you first read Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_5 first, and take note that all sections after Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_5#From_the_criticisms_section are directly about the two sections being considered for deletion. --Wzhao553 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian fetish rewrite

I looked for it. The link went nowhere. Then I checked your contributions and could not find it there either. I hope you kept a copy of what you wrote on your own hard drive because it appears that it did not get saved. 金 (Kim) 07:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I was editing while you were looking look for it now: Asian fetish/rewrite -- Gnetwerker 07:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My own feeling is that the Asian fetish article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and that the anon in question shouldn't be anywhere. There'll come a point when he can be temporarily blocked, but I don't think that he's got there yet (being nauseating isn't a blockable offence in itself). At least he can't touch the article while it's semi-ptotected (as he's clearly not bright enough to realise that... but let's not give him ideas). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and sorry to have taken so long to reply. I've never tried a range block before (though once or twice I've looked at it and decided that it was best to leave it alone). I've tried it this time, hoping that I won't get jumped on for blocking 16,384 addresses in one fell swoop... I've blocked them for a week, as the person involved has been extremely persistent, and has ignored a series of blocks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi. I recently nominated myself for adminship. I would appreciate it if you voted and/or commented. Thanks! Infinity0 ^talk 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edwards

Thanks for the heads up; I remember hearing that said on NPR, so I just went and found a link. -- Texasmusician circa 06:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in progress report

Hello Gnetwerker. Due to the shared and dynamic nature of the anonymous users you reported, there is nothing we can do to stop them that will not have unacceptable collateral damage. As such, I've archived the report. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts for a more appropriate process; despite being a subpage, there is little relation to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. If you would like to copy and paste your report, I've copied it below.

// Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 16:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ENIAC

Hi there. I was interested in the source you added for ENIAC's priority. That § has since been edited, so I wonder if you could check that it is still true (there was previous haggling to make the intro adequately true...), and could answer my Q on Talk:ENIAC. Many thanks, JackyR 00:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbasaur crap

Hi Gnetwerker I read your comments on FA criteria discussion, didn't know that it existed. Anyways, I and quite a few other editors were involved in a heated debate of Bulbasaur, which, unfortunately, became FA on March 11th. I think we have a similar take on the problem. Anyways, just saying hi. Temporary account 01:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for investigation (80.138.183.244)

Hello Gnetwerker. Concerning your request for investigation, the best channel to request that 80.138.183.244's talk page be deleted is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Page

You plopped into the middle of a months-old conflict - but if you can help us sort this out I would be much obliged. To make things short, I have been stubbornly trying to make improvements (and shorten) the article, and another contributor has been just as stubbornly using any means at all to prevent this. Things had actually calmed down a bit for a while, but with last night's reverting they seemed to have fired up again. I hope you'll help us ride this out. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 10:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I've updated yesterday's roundabout answer to your 'issues' question on the Talk:Paris page, plus pointed out what you had actually done to the Paris article yesterday - reverted my revert to a revert. Thanks for your involvement, and I hope we can get things moving forward without too much fuss. THEPROMENADER 07:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I have your thoughts on the above? It would be unseemly of me to restore the improvements you re-reverted without word from you first. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 18:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'edit' you thought I had reverted was in fact a to-the-word re-pasting of text that I had edited at least a week before - or in other words, a revert. I thought I had made this clear in my messages to you and on the Paris talk page. There is only one person who ever reverts any attempt at progress in that article, and because (it seems) that you did not have a good look at the situation before stepping in you have inadvertently helped this. The reason the edit war is 'over' is that the 'old' text is now back in place where the reverter wants it to be - the article will stagnate until someone once again tries to edit anything more than a sentence. This has been going on for over half a year now - I suggest you read a bit further before coming to any judgement in this matter. Thanks. I will all the same take your 'bit by bit' advice, but I can't say that this isn't frustrating. THEPROMENADER 23:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the fact that you didn't go through the whole situation - I understand it would be exhausting to do so. This done, no need to apologise, either : ) Still, the story that concerned you is simpler: It's all in the Talk:Paris#Sloppy re-inserts message I posted a week before making new edits to the passage in question. I really can't see how you 'don't see the difference' - the edited version was much shorter (495 words from a former (again present) 968!). The 'missing statistical info' expounded by Hardouin is that either repeated in the table, or 'comparitve' information that had been eliminated months before by myself and other contributors on the consensus that such comparisons were not needed - yet these were re-inserted by Hardouin in the face of all previous talk and effort. Please see for yourself. THEPROMENADER 08:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: I'm not asking you to do anything, I just wrote the above to try to make things clearer for you. There's a lot of fog to cut through (meaning: a lot of reading) before any of this becomes clear to anyone new to it. You couldn't have known, I know. THEPROMENADER 10:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Paris touch-ups - right on the ball! I would still be careful of your sources though - #6 ('world gazeteer) is not at all what you would call referencable (it is 'inventive') - I'd go straight for the INSEE source where the statistics come from. No other organisation collects such info in France, and anything else is just speculation. You can trust me on this : )

Best regards,

THEPROMENADER 23:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course your edits are helpful - for now there are only two active 'major editors' (rather one editor, one rerveter : ) on the article so any new view is a fresh welcome and an improvement. There is all the same a tweak or two to make ('central Paris' for example) - should I outline why on the talk page? - but otherwise all is fine as the meaning and context of all is clear.

Editing an article such as Paris without the research is certainly no easy task - the Paris page arguments became such that doing so became unavoidable, and we have lost more than one potential editor because of all the detail things were taken to. I have been living here since over a decade, and it seems that Hardouin was born in the region, so for now there are only two main 'experts' on that particular subject. Were the resistance to article change be less tiring, there are also the article's original contributors as well, namely Olivier and Thbz who have helped and even encouraged change there, but as it stands few are resistant enough to suffer the headache of being reverted/trying to reason/reading the reams of talk page messages. I hope when editing practices become more 'normal', or when the article has enough contributors knowledgable about the subject to make a consensus and bring it to quality/reason, that the Paris article 'proprietary period' will end. THEPROMENADER 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only admire the skilfulness of ThePromenader at smearing people in their back. Funny to call me a reverter and for Promenader to call himself a contributor, when I have actually contributed about half of this article (the history page can attest), and all Promenader has done since he arrived here lat October was to delete all I wrote and revert most of my new edits. Hardouin 11:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, that's a lie. You have added almost nothing to the Paris page since my arrival there; you have simply reverted any edits not your own, and this is not what one can call 'new edits'. I can commend you though for finally admitting that over half of the article was your own work: you finally yourself make clear the reason for your protectionism. Yet instead of offering to help those seeking to improve upon your work, you have been nothing but a hinderance to anyone making even the slightest change. I have positively reams of examples of your bad behaviour to this protective and coutnterproductive end. If the article could not be improved upon such protectionism could be arguable (but even then, never enforced through means such as yours), but in looking at visitor comments, broken stars other-language articles sharing the same namespace as well as general article quality, one cannot find much excuse for such behaviour. If you do not want your work to be improved upon, the solution is simple: don't submit it.

Gnetwerker, apologies for posting the above here, but because of my earlier message here I saw it on my watchlist. Anyhow, were I to post to Hardouin's talk page my message would just be erased as 'flame' and 'accusations' like so many times in the past. My biggest regret in all this is the time wasted clearing away contibutor roadblocks thrown up for reasons that have nothing to do with article quality or improvement. THEPROMENADER 13:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intel 80386

It's not a single-sourcing that contributed to success of 80386. If there were some major architectural flaws (like in 80286), nothing would stop engineers from using Motorola MC680x0 and other 32-bit processors with paging and flat mode support. Increasing demands for 32-bit processors was obvious, while 16-bit PC's were popular only because their motherboards were relatively inexpensive and expandable. Yet, 8086/80286 PC was a 16-bit toy with not well thought-out architecture. Motorola would eventually win with Macs, Amigas, Ataris and so on when prices for their MC680x0 processors and boards were going down. Yet, Intel has made very properly designed architecture. You would say: Motorola architecture, especially instruction set, is much better, orthogonal, has autoincrements and so on. Theoretically that's true. But for a real market, Intel 80386 offered great compatibilty and speed in old 16-bit PC applications (in real and what's more important Virtual 8086 mode - remember that was firstly used for extended memory managers such as QEMM386) and DOS extenders - old versions of CAD programs, 32-bit 3d-games and so on. It also offered MMU which allowed to build 32-bit protected mode multitasking systems. The instruction set wasn't so nice, yet, the instruction set doesn't matter, especially because most of code in these systems is written in C. Also there wasn't real single sourcing since 386 has become to produced by AMD. Prices on 32-bit systems quickly dropped down and Amiga was going into trouble times since then (not occasionally, I believe!). 80386 has allowed smooth transition from a toy-like (a very popular toy!) 16-bit PC to true 32-bit multitasking workstation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuestPc (talk • contribs).

[edit] Gibraltar

Looking at your page, we have a few things in common, I started programing for a living in 1969 writing in machine code, and wrote an assembler to make life easier. Also a dissasembler to produce maintainable code from others ratsnests. Then moved to RPG2, MBASIC and Pascal, now learning Perl.

I'm not offended, but make the point I am a Gibraltarian and not A_Gibraltarian. If you watch a bullfight you will understand the tactics used on him by the Spaniards. The problems Gibraltar faces with Spain are real, and sadly some of its nationals feel they need to rewrite everything about Gibraltar 'their way' and engage in cyber ethnic cleansing. This enraged poor old G who charged at them and got stuck with the sword of ArbCom. They damn near managed to get the whole of Gibraltar locked out as a result, however its all sorted now, and I still have not met the guy as he seem reluctant to talk to me.

I think we have a consensus on the Falklands too. Really its up to the people who live there to lobby BSI to change to ISO designation and update those awful encyclopedias. But it was an interesting exercise.--Gibnews 18:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intel

Gave cites for that incident I mentioned. Considering the value of the secrets stolen in 1995 (approximately $15 million USD), I felt it appropriate to mention - hell, one could do an entire article on the size of various takes in computer-fraud cases. The Guillermo "Bill" Gaede case is just among the more prominent ones. 206.114.20.121 22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands

Yes, I prefer site as well. Somebody has put "battleground" in there now. TharkunColl 08:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of Comments pages

(blanking notice removed) Antonrojo 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, the comments were refactored. No blanking was involved. Please get a grip on your use of inapproprate templates. -- Gnetwerker 17:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker, the issue on the talk page seems to be an open discussion between you and IronDuke. The refactoring process you are using doesn't seem to agree with this policy: Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. At least, I would suggest a link to the archives at the top of the page, and erring on the side of not removing discussions from an article talk page, especially if the issue is still being discussed. Antonrojo 17:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you had taken the time to research the issue you would have discovered that: 1) There is a link to the archived page at the top of the Talk page; and 2) the dispute has been resolved by ArbCom with no finding that the refactoring was inappropriate. Finally, IronDuke has gone away. I would thank you to take the time to educate yourself on the issue if you choose to intervene further. -- Gnetwerker 18:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that this has been resolved by AbsCom. You might consider archiving sections 5 and 8 of the talk page also since they seem to be a closed issue. Antonrojo 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was doing when you reverted. -- Gnetwerker 18:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris intro

If you compare the intro before your edits, and after my edit, you'll see that I didn't "completely reverted" your changes. So I don't know what you mean by that. I grouped the fact that Paris is both capital of France and capital of IdF together. It's a bit strange to place one at the beginning of the intro, and the other one at the end of the intro. Also I re-added the years for population estimates, because population figures without the year of reference are quite meaningless. Hardouin 18:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Check Rome or Madrid. Administrative infos are always grouped at the beginning of the intro. Hardouin 18:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of Rome article reads: "Rome (Italian and Latin: Roma) is the capital of Italy and of its Latium region." The first sentence of my introduction edit reads: "Paris is the capital of France and of its Île-de-France région, also known as the Paris Region..." How exactly is it not the same? You also deleted the reference to Paris as one of the four alpha world cities. Why? All rankings on world importance of cities put Paris in the top four, and the article linked to explains everything in detail, so this is not "unsourced". Finally, I notice that not only you reverted all my changes, but you also re-added Hitle's picture. In what way exactly is Hitler representative of Paris history? This photo would be very offensive to the more than 300,000 Jews who live in Paris if they come across this article. Hardouin 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I had no intention of re-adding the Hilter photo -- if I did it inadvertently, I will remove it. While your edit may be consistent with Rome, because of the complexity of the Paris nomenclature, it confuses the opening sentences of the lead. Besides, WP:LEAD is the guide here, not Rome. The ranking, as you point out, is in the body, so doesn't need to be run in the lead, which already says Paris is a leading city. -- Gnetwerker 19:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then why do NYC, London, and Tokyo articles refer to their global city status in the introduction? and now only Paris doesn't. With your deletion of this you are (unwillingly I hope) siding with those trying to belitle Paris, and there are many of them on Wikipedia (cf. all the vandalism on Paris page in the past months). So be consistent and either delete the refence to global city in all other articles, or add it again to Paris article. Also, you have again deleted the dates for population figures, which make them of very little informative value. Hardouin 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hopkins School

I've replied to your message on Hopkins' FAC, and I really hope some resolution can be reached as I'd love to see the article featured. Thanks for your comments, no matter how this turns out, as I can tell you're just trying to improve Wikipedia. Staxringold 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied again, thanks. Staxringold 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up with this. I've replied again, and continue to hope I can sway you to alter your vote. However, as Alabamaboy points out, the ArbCom ruling applies only to you, and I've proposed archival material use on RFC, and the results have been very positive for their use. Staxringold 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All use of information from the unpublished manuscript has now been removed from Hopkins School pending an actual policy change (so that Hopkins' isn't persecuted for being unnecessarily groundbreaking). If your only opposition was to the unpublished materials, I hope you will consider changing your vote. Staxringold 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Embrace and extend

So you're opposing a move based on my characterization of the article's previous content? Gazpacho 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a POV. But I won't reject something that's verifiably sourced. Gazpacho 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker

A final decision has been made in the above Arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EEE

Hi Gnetworker - thanks for sourcing the stuff on EEE. Remember me from the US vs. MS page? Anyway thanks for sending me the court documents, I'm still running through them in my spare time. I think we did a lot of good on that page. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 07:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the expression "movie synthesis".

For your information, "movie synthesis" is a technical expression that means a process of integration of different components into a movie. It is often used in the context of texture movies (waterfall, etc.), but it could refer to any kind of synthesis of components into a movie. In general, the term "synthesis" means the integration of different components into a whole. The synthesis of a single movie makes no sense because we need many components to do a synthesis. See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&pwst=1&q=+%22movie+synthesis%22&spell=1 . You will notice that almost all usages of the expression "movie synthesis" correspond to the integration of many components into a movie. You should have written that the analysis, interpretation or evaluation of a movie is prohibited, not its synthesis. -Lumière 02:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You have replied to me in my user talk pagethere, so I replied to your reply overthere. -Lumière 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Webster's New World Dictionary: synthesis: 4. in philosophy, deductive reasoning, from the simple elements of thought into the complex whole, from cause to effect, from a principle to its application, etc -- Gnetwerker 21:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watershed

Hi Gnetwerker,

Just thought I'd let you know I've put in an official request on WP:RM for the Watershed article (now merged with your drainage basin article) to be moved to Drainage basin. The process requires a list of Support or Oppose votes, so if you want to repeat the vote you made at Talk:Drainage basin, you can do so at Talk:Watershed#Requested Move. Cheers — SteveRwanda 12:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poking at Hardouin

I am easily provoked, and the girl knows it. Note that I stick to facts and acts though - and all are verifiable. Yes, I must hold back some - I'll do my best. Say, can you change the title of that Paris talk page section? My ears are still ringing. THEPROMENADER 20:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving On

I hope you won't be too disappointed to find out I have not "gone away." Other than removing one unsourced sentence in the drug use section (and I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess you wouldn't object to that edit), I have no immediate plans to edit the Reed College article further, although I will, of course, be watching it. I know we have had disagreements in the past, but my sincere hope is that we can move past that and work together, should the need arise (and here's hoping it won't). IronDuke 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I just knew I could count on you to have a sense of humor about this. You forgot to throw in a remark about my low quality, tendentious addition to antibody opsonization. And hey, while we're on it, keep up the good work on Asian fetish. I'd wade in there myself, but I bow to your undoubted expertise in the field. IronDuke 06:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rue Monge

Lord, did you know I live right next door to you? Not 50 m away. Small world : ) THEPROMENADER 19:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had absolutely NO time to work on anything this past week, but I would appreciate a second opinion on that 'demographics' map and table - I think I will make the border and number colours a little more visible - but I think you get the idea. Tried to keep it as 'calm and clear' as I could. Take care. THEPROMENADER 23:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly you should be 'round here' about now. Please feel free to contact me - I'll finally be having some time to myself in the weeks ahead : )

Hope to hear from you soon, take care,

THEPROMENADER 20:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Lord, you're quick. End of May - I may be in Tunesia. I have yet to know for certain though, the shoot might still be here. How long do you intend to stay? THEPROMENADER 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal details

Hi Gnetworker, there was a complaint that you've posted another user's personal details to your user subspace, so I've removed them. Please don't post users' personal information anywhere on the site unless they've done it themselves. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Prodego ^talk 23:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

We're not allowed to post users' details on the site, Gentworker, unless they've done it themselves. Posting such details is a blockable offense, and in fact can attract indefinite blocks because it's almost always part of an attempt to harass someone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been "targeted." You posted a user's details, and a complaint was made, so the material has been removed and you've been asked not to do it again. If there are other details elsewhere you feel should be removed, by all means let me know, and I'll delete them too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you give me specific diffs, I'll see what I can do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you post or link to any more personal details, you'll be blocked from editing. This has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The diffs you sent me are from January. I can go into the pages and remove the direct references to that college (but you can do that yourself), but for technical reasons I can't delete them from the history after such a long time on pages with so many edits to them, particulary as there are no actual personal details posted. In future, if something is posted that you feel may identify you, contact an admin as soon as you see it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a double standard. There are technical reasons, which I'm not prepared to go into. I'll take a look again later, but I don't think any of these can be deleted. If you want to send me the ones that you think ID you the most, I'll look at those first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a genuine technical reason that makes that edit very hard to delete. I don't want to explain it, because the explanation involves the kind of technical information that trolls could later use to their advantage (and I'm not referring to you, but to anyone else who might read this page). I have removed (removed, not deleted) the section you linked to, but in passing, please note that you more or less confirmed the information yourself in a post to that same section. At least now it won't show up in a Google search. As for asking you first about your subpage, we don't ask permission to remove personal details. When it's technically possible, we just go ahead and do it, because there's never any legitimate reason for the information to be on the website against the wishes of the subject, especially not on a user subpage. If there is any other post you want me to remove, let me know. As for your disgreement with ID, I suggest you stay away from each other for awhile until the situation has cooled a little. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't worry

Hi Gnetwerker. Don't worry, your comment wasn't rude at all. I just decided to distance myself from the article before some other user came down on me for real. Thanks for your note. I appreciate it. Andres C. 00:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect Dark

Hey, thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Perfect Dark. I've now added a substantial weight of references to the sections you suggested. Soo 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I too hold pop culture articles to a high standard. I don't have much of a history of editing this kind of articles, and I'm quite surprised that this has turned out to be the first one I've taken to an FA debate. But, that's how things turn out, I guess. Feel free to have another look over the article when you have time, constructive criticism is always appreciated. Soo 19:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ARCHIVES

Hi again! Given the opinion you gave at the request for comment on archives I thought you might be interested to know the issue has now been put to a straw poll and could use your vote! Staxringold 00:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have reworded the Synthesis paragraph to try to bring clarity to the issue, and address points you made about it. I would welcome any input or help in addressing concerns at NOR, thanks. --Northmeister 01:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian fetish

Thanks, the pointer is appreciated, Gnetwerker. I hope the revision, with Omura's name put in, helps. Natsume Soseki 20:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker, your playing hand-maiden to Wzhao553 at Asian fetish only enables his arrogant and opinionated behavior. You act like NPOV is somehow being attained, while he acts as if he owns the article, puts in opinion and sources them with opinion pieces, then shouts down anyone that contradicts him. It seems as if you and the other editors on the article are going along with his tactic of pretending to present NPOV, while clearly tolerating only his own POV.

I added only one sentence presenting a contrary opinion, and sourced by a person who held that opinion, proving that I didn't just pull the opinion out of my hat. No one objected to this one balancing sentence for a month. Yet even that was too much for Wzhao553 to tolerate. Amazingly, no one else raises a voice in the defense of a balancing POV, any hopes for NPOV apparently having been long since abandoned at the article.

When I came here, I had hoped Wikipedia would be a project worth participating in on the Net. My experience at Asian fetish has shown me otherwise. Obviously here, as at most other places on the Net, the only loudest, rudest and most arrogant voices prevail. My experience here leads me to the conclusion that Wikipedia's authority on any subject, much less a controversial one, is dubious at best. So much for an honest quest for knowledge online. Natsume Soseki 05:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the pointer, Gnetwerker. Sorry if I was a bit emotional before. I realize my rants against Wzhao will do little good, but dealing with him, and thereby letting him push his POV bit by bit isn't much better. My experiences with racists of both the anonymous German's and Wzhao's variety leaves me to believe we should either completely delete their rantings (at Wikipedia, I believe this is the correct course), or give them free reign to show how extreme and ridiculous their views are. Watering them down to make them look acceptable is dangerous.

It looks like I botched the AfD anyway. I commend you on your perseverance in the face of Wzhao's POV-pushing and insulting behavior, and I wish you good luck on getting the article into something somewhat non-embarrassing, though I really can't see how that can be done. Natsume Soseki 17:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I've put in a request for mediation here. Ardenn 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a GUY please don't insult me again. Ardenn 03:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Fasten 11:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ardenn

Thanks for posting such a nice summary over at the mediation, but I was also just about to post the same thing! Argh, oh well. ~MDD4696 01:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel the exact same way you do about this... so much time for such a petty argument. ~MDD4696 01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

{{RFMF}} Ardenn 05:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New 'Large French Cities' Infobox Template proposition

Hello Gnetwerker - how are you? I've left the following comment on all of the 'French City' aricles using the 'Large French Cities' template - if you can help please do:

I'd like to bring your attention to a new - or other - version of the "Large French Cities" infobox presently at use in a few French cities pages. The present version is much too large, partly because it consecrates too much space to information having little importance to French demography and an only distant and indirect relevence to the city itself. Instead I propose to follow a less cumbersome model closer to that used by the New York City article - you can view the new version in the Paris talk page here. Please view and comment. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the message I left on every talkpage containing the 'Large French Cities' infobox:

As a result of some discussion over the past weeks, there is an updated template available for perusal in its 'published ' form (filled with data) here - all comments welcome. -- THEPROMENADER 07:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I owe you an apology for overreacting to the terminology you used. I'm sorry. I hope we can work together better in the future. Ardenn 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ems2 (talk • contribs)

Regarding this edit, and this one; please leave other users' talk page archives alone.

Regarding this comment, please remember to remain civil when interacting with other users. Your current behaviour towards Ems2 (talk • contribs) smacks of harassment to me. Rob Church (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

It was my understanding that blanking other user's comments from talk pages was considered anti-social. I know that blanking warnings from one's talk page is prohibited.

False. It's controversial, but not prohibited.

And Ems2 didn't archive the comment, he simply removed it.

That's his prerogative. You are not entitled to mess about with other people's talk archives; surely you must realise how irritating it is?

And regarding harrassment, I would say you are being over-sensitive. When a user proposes merging a Wikipedia page and his personal page, that is either a waste of time or something more sinister.

Or a joke.

User:Ems2 also has a long history of masquerading as another user, User:Ems, and has repeatedly asked administrators to enable him to take over that user's account.

He signs as he wishes. It's not unreasonable to remove numbers, etc. from one's nickname in the signature. Please provide evidence of direct "masquerading". That he has asked bureaucrats whether or not the other account might be freed is irrelevant. Rob Church (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vista - The so-called NPOV statement

Hi, saw that you re-inserted the text which PC World calls "strikingly similar to Mac OS X", back into the Windows Vista article, saying it was NPOV. But I am afraid the quote is not what PCWorld.com has made. The PCWorld article says "The striking similarity to Mac OS X is purely coincidental, we're sure" (last line, page 1). Please do not add mis-attributed quotes to articles. --soUmyaSch 16:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote is properly used. I am not taking a position about whether the similarity is intended or coincidental (though the statement is sarcasm, intended to convey the opposite of its apparent meaning), only that PC World (and many, many other reviewers) find the Aero interface strikingly similar to Aqua. BTW, you are alleging use "out of context", not misattribution. But in any case, the quote is used correctly. -- Gnetwerker 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I put my response here. Please check it out. --soUmyaSch 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition a similar discussion is on the Aero Talk Page. Paul Cyr 01:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration regarding inclusion of Aqua UI similarities to Windows Aero in Windows Vista and Windows Aero articles

Given your persistence against consensus regarding comments about Aero's similarities to Aqua, I have forwarded the dispute to the arbitration committee and am notifying you as an involved party as required. Paul Cyr 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

When you first made the comment "you will not like the result of the exposure of your tightly-controlled Microsoft fan pages" I reminded you of Wikipedia's polcies against personal attacks. Now that you have continued by including me as one of the "three editors who take a consistent pro-Microsoft positions and edit primarily Microsoft "fan" articles" I am placing a warning on your talk page. Disagreeing on articles is one thing, but posting remarks that users are zealots or fanboys is uncalled for. If you continue I will report you to the Personal attack intervention noticeboard who I'm sure will be far less open minded as the ArbCom.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Paul Cyr 01:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying someone is saying fanboyish stuff is not a personal attack. Obviously you did not read the link I gave you. Paul Cyr 03:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. Paul Cyr 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting that you say it's not even remotely a personal attack, yet it is almost identical to the example WP:NPA makes: "Jane is a bad editor". You don't see any similarity to "Jane is a bad editor" and "these editors are opposed to credible third party sources" (paraphrased)? Paul Cyr 18:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on WP:RFAR

Please don't edit war on the requests for arbitration page. --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of Vandalism

Before erroneously accusing people of vandalism for a third time. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not Paul Cyr 03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)