User talk:Pol098

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi Pol098! You've been here as a registered user since July of last year, and no-one has ever officially welcomed you. That's terrible!

So, on behalf of the Wikipedia Welcoming Committee: Welcome! and sorry we've taken our time!

This is the standard stuff we say to everyone who's new... which you aren't, so the following is somewhat patronising. Nevertheless...!

Welcome!

Hello, Pol098, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place 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! 

And non-standard stuff resumes:

Let me know on my talk page if you need any help or advice or just a listening ear (I'm a member of Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association dedicated to strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community, so I'm always happy to be there for a fellow Wikipedian).

Thanks for the recent excellent contributions to the BBC article and its talk page, by the way.

See you around! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Tawkerbot2 11:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistent units

Hello, Po1098. I'm sorry to give you more grief on the subject of units on measurement, but I am currently working on the HMS Hood (51) article (amongst others) and I would like to explain my reasons for not using consistent units. I believe that, in compiling an article from exisint sources, primacy should be given to the units used in the source. For example, if a source tells me that a ship had a 12-inch armoured belt, I think it wrong to transcribe this as "this ship had a 305mm armoured belt": this is certainly not what the source says, and there is always the risk that it is not what is means either; the actual thickness of the belt might well have been, say, 302mm or 307mm. The practice of changing everything to metric, without comment, is especially risky when the figure quoted in the source is given to only one or two significant figures. Where I do agree with you is that, where not metric units are quoted, metric equivalents should always be given, even if the editor has to work them out for his or her self. Is there really a problem with saying in the same article "the Hood was armed with 15-inch (381mm) guns" and "the Bismarck was armed with 38cm guns"?

I am happy to discuss this further; I will add this page to my watchlist so that I will know if you or anyone else puts a post here. Altetrnatively, you can post to my user page.

Sincere regards,

John Moore 309 13:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message John. As it's on your watchlist, I'll reply here and keep the correspondence in one place. My comment on units came at a time the article had things like 'the deck armour was 7" (178 mm) thick ... the whatever was protected by 210 mm armour plate ... the whatsit had a 12" belt'. In other words, inconsistent units for the same function, often without conversion into the other units. I changed this to make it consistent; someone then reverted, which is when I made an exasperated comment. So long as some thought is given to this point, the article is likely to read sanely. In your particular example, "the Hood was armed with 15-inch (381mm) guns" and (elsewhere in the article) "the Bismarck was armed with 38cm guns" you'd likely read "the Hood had 15" guns (with some blah figure in mm in parentheses)", then have to go back to compare it with 38 cm; the Bismarck should be 38 cm (15") or even 380 mm (15"), but not, I think, 380 mm (14 31/32") or (14.96"); (about 15") if you insist. If anyone is inhibited by my comment from making sensible changes, it wasn't my intention. (I use " here, but in or inches is fine).
Thanks for the courtesy of your message, and best wishes, Pol098 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Point taken. I see that you prefer to give metric-to-imperial conversions as well as vice-versa. On reflection, I think this makes sense, particularly in a naval historical context, where so much of the Engish-language literature uses imperial measure. I agree also that levels of precision that are natural where measuring in millimetres look a little absurd when rendered in feet and inches; it seems better to quote an approximate equivalent, as yuo suggest. Thanks for responding so promptly.
John Moore 309 20:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tawkerbot2

Essnetially what happeend is although the only content on the page was nonesense your process removed the content and didn't replace it with anything. If you come across another page like that a {{db|nonesense}} would be best, that won't trigger the bot and it will remove the nonesense. Sorry about that, not much we can do to prevent that one -- Tawker 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Leakage

Yes, I'm sorry that I added back the redundant introductory sentence on chemistry. My final decision is, combine everyday usage and chemistry into one single sentence in the introduction, and keep the chemistry section. Feel free editing! Deryck C. 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exponentiation and Metric

You refer to the introductory tying the article on exponents to the metric system as pointless. I don't believe in reverts in general, so let me state my reasoning on hopes of achieving a conversion by thou heathen sinner <G>:

  • If you would be so kind as to consider that these articles are tied into others by links, you will quickly realize the numbers of articles dealing with measurements (which have a generally pragmatic utility to the lay reader) far outnumber the articles that are simply dry math. Since these articles tie into this topic by exactly that corespondence I addressed the tie in the intro as an appitizer of sorts for people linking in that manner. Burying the information way down in the body makes no sense... they are reading about measurements for their own purposes, and not interested in a sub-topic of math as a general topic... unless perhaps my little sentence wets their interest thus making your article experience much more traffic. Wouldn't that be a good outcome?
  • Now I cannot say that the quick and dirty post was worded perfectly, I was nested deep within six to seven related edits at the time, and there are others that will always fiddle with sentence structure... but I do object to arbitrary removal of material that is certainly not off point or topic. You extended that so as to misconstrue it to multiples of other integers, so why not just reword it to qualify it better to the set of 1 X 10^x form.
  • I think you should revert and revise if you like to incorporate the sentence under the principle of the most utility to the most people. If we aren't striving for that, why are we bothering to donate our time when the media is so perfect for such a cross-link of knowledge.

Moreover, WP:MOS wants introductions to articles to recap a sense of the article as a whole. This phrase did that, though obviously, the whole article needs such a recap so the whole is more reader friendly. That is a expansion that is worthy of your time, not chopping down the seedling of knowledge I planted. It is afterall for the benefit of the housewife, child, or businessman that we write, not solely for the someones with a technical background like an engineer such as myself, or whatever field gainfully employs you. If you are writing for a technical audience alone, I submit you need a professional journal, not this venue. FrankB 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2) Looking over your evolution of [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metric_system&diff=prev&oldid=46287122 metric system ] I am struck by the thought that your familiarity to the SI has blinded you to the need to properly introduce a topic and in particular to remember at the forefront of your mind the audience for whom you are supposed to be writing. Don't get me wrong, what you did is good writing– perhaps even great prose, but I think the prior introductory start was more appropriate and also more in line with the WP:MOS. I suggest you take a week away from the article (a good trick this aiding dispassionate reconsideration) and then comeback to compare the two styles of intro with an editors eyes rather than that of an author. You may find that others have reverted you in the iterim.

  • I find your explanation to be superior -- just misplaced so far at the top as it introduces the topic with not comprehensible historic phrases gradually building to the technical, but by squarely hitting the lay reader in the eye with yet another incomprehensible bit of technical jargon — the [SI]. Give it some thought and consider rearranging once again to give your fuller clearer explainations more at the end of the intro, not at the top.
  • In the future, please try to clearly indicate in the summary when you are making such a 'major reordering' and rewording. This change took some hunting in the historypage to see where the revolution in the article occured. Thanks from all of us tracking.

Best wishes, FrankB 18:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your post: Pol098 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure No Problem. I try to imagine myself as a 9-10 year old when evaluating the opening sentence or two. If the new arrangement meets that lack of experience, then my consciencious is clear, and so should yours be. I'd like something related to the naturalness of the metric system and the powers of ten, but I'm not going to revert anyone over such pettiness. Give it some thought, I'll leave it in your obviously caring hands. I added a post to one of those two talks, and did in fact, fail to get back to revert and re-revert to draw attention to the sudden change in the lead para, so you ought to look at that as there was more. Best wishes, FrankB 05:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

btw: If you're into good fiction, and familiar with SF/Alternative-history series 1632, I can use a hand over there 1632 series / talk: 1632 series and follow the links (3rd TOC entry) FrankB

    • I've seen your last, I'll check it out tomarrow (See This on responding to your prior prompt! Like above note, with grins.). I'm at 04:00 am and need beauty rest VERY BADLY! (Ask anyone)FrankB

[edit] If I can trouble you for a little feedback

I got sidetracked into this 'gem' (Ahem) and we haven't touched base for a while. It's not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I just ripped this off my talk cleaning up for a WikiDayOff tomarrow, and realized you weren't an invitee on the above. Apologies. I've gotten some good input, but can use more. Bear in mind to go to the talk section link first for the brief, then the article. The issue is really how to design an article covering the topic. This 'draft' just sort of 'happened', as is explained. (btw- if you don't like history, don't bother! But looks like you might- your contribs range near as widely as mine! <G>)

Best! FrankB 06:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In order to keep message threads together and page clutter down...

Xposed fm my talk FrankB
In response to your suggestions at the top of the page: I don't do a great deal of messaging on Wiki, so maybe what I've to say is either wrong or thoroughly known. To communicate with all the dialogue in one place, not in 2 or 3 (user A, user B, an article), without emailing or dropping messages "see my Talk page" etc., someone who communicates with me has told me to post in my own Talk page, which he has put in his watchlist, presumably for a few days. This seems a good idea for an active dialogue, and the page can be delisted after a few days. Pol098 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what you are asking or saying, as the context seems to be with my requests on talk page posting in my Header Box. Let me address that, and you straighten me out if I missed the target!
  1. There is no set convention on wiki User Talk pages usage. Some of the longest experienced folks follow the convention that they will watch for a message, which I do myself -- once or twice a week, but if so, I'm generally looking at article and 'debates' changes first, then policy talks, and user page talks hardly ever. These in particular have too much 'traffic'.
  2. I have no idea how they can see something addressed to them, nor how I am supposed to know when they've made a counterpoint, save they must look at their watch list (and REFRESH it) an awful lot. I'm generally far too deep in chains of edits to be bothered.
  3. I do use it to monitor policy, proposal, and article talk pages etc. but only as a general alarm that some change has occured. I don't and can't possibly work WikiP everyday—the only people who seem to be able to do that are in acedemia, normally as a student.
  4. Since there is nearly always a significant delay, I can then go examine the relavant history page and determine whether more action is needed.
  5. Having said that, it does work well if and when you are both on line and working the same time as you are conversing. I've only had that experience a few times— and most of the time it's been with a guy that posts answers back to my talk, and expects my points on his. The only other time, was on my talks about two weeks back with BDAbrahamson, generated by my email to him.
  6. Given typical unpredictable delays with getting most answers, I find that method less than efficatious. Keeping the thread in one place is to be prefered, IMHO. I will frequently counter post as on this occasion so we can all refer to the same material.
  7. In the final analysis, the only really important thing is that you communicate if there is a need. I dislike the 'you posted to me, so I'll answer here school' mostly because it places the initiator into a position as a supplicant; It also requires him to keep tabs on the matter when there may be 200 edits before said party gets back to the matter, etcetera.
    1. I can see some merit in it from the standpoint of "If it's important enough to ask about, then you can see whether I've answered", but in general, it strikes me as arrogant.
  8. At least a courtesy post like: "I've responded in the thread on my talk" sets off the "You've got a message banner", and hardly takes much extra time.
  9. Thus I champion that as an elementary courtesy. By the same token, if I make a counterpoint on an article talk, or post an new section with something that another may have from the previous messages an adverse view on, I will usually go an post a note to see the talk as a courtesy.

Hope that helps, FrankB 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits at Scientology

You reverted an edit at Scientology in order to re-add a single line of text that you added. In the process of doing so, you also erased the edits of other people that were made since your edit. If you want to re-add your 2 lines, which I feel is innappropriate, then just reinsert them in the current page instead of reverting all the way back to your own version (which had a number of problems on it that were fixed). Before you do so, you might try to see what other people on the talk page think about that particular edit, since I for one would object because it sticks out like a sore thumb. The SP episode is linked at the bottom of the page, plus the information about the acceptability of linking is innappropriate in the article itself. If you want to add that material, then add it in the meta-data of the article or discuss it on the talk page. We shouldn't explain in the articles themselves why its okay to link to things on the web. Vivaldi (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 July 2005 London bombings

Hi, you reverted some of my edits because you know who the bombers were - how do you know? Where is the proof that it was those 4 famous guys? Or failing that, what court has found them guilty? (Note from pol098: unsigned message 21:22, 19 April 2006 Simontrumpet)

[edit] ============

Thanks for your message.

> Hi, you reverted some of my edits because you know who the bombers were - how do you know?

It's been published.

> Where is the proof that it was those 4 famous guys?

In police hands, and mortuaries, I suppose. Infamous rather than famous I fear. Dead bodies, rucksacks with remains of explosives, bomb-making equipment found in homes which were found by going to addresses found on the bodies, a typical pre-suicide-bombing videotape recording, and so on.

> Or failing that, what court has found them guilty?

We're not failing that; but if we were, no court is ever going to find anyone guilty of perpetrating the bombings (accomplices, maybe).

You didn't sign your message; I'll put this both on your talk page and mine.

Best wishes, Pol098 23:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H5N1

Hi, I just took a quick look at talk there, but I think you were basically on target that using As of 2006 is a good idea. The precise placement of it in this article might be tricky but you are right that "currently" and "recently" are not great terms for the encyclopedia. Kaisershatner 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artillery

Hi Pol098, I have made several changes to the artillery page (ammo) and as you have made a few previous changes yourself, I would appreciate your evaluation and review. Thanks in advance,

Motorfix 03:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical imbalance

I proposed that chemical imbalance theory be moved to chemical imbalance yesterday. If you look at the "What links here" [1] [2], you'll see that (currently) these pages are only referred to by pages relating to psychiatric issues. Chemical imbalance is not used on either diabetes or ketoacidosis, and as far as I'm aware Type I diabetes is usually referred to as an "deficiency", rather than an "imbalance". I'm not a great fan of chemical imbalance theory as it stands, but at the very least, I think referring to it as a theory gives it more weight than it is due. Anyway, you should make up your own mind on this matter. There is a vote at Talk:Chemical imbalance theory, and you may choose to Merge or Oppose, but I thought I'd let you know about this. --Limegreen 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My concern is more about not losing the general term in favour of the specifically neuroscience usage.
From my perspective, your entirely welcome to the term! The page as it originally existed, was pretty much a beat-up on psychiatry [3], and various people have been trying to inject a little science back into it. However, part of the problem is that I'm not sure 'chemical imbalance' is useful as a label/explanation. There is no useage of it in neuroscience, and the only time it creeps into the scientific literature is usually in the discussion of advertising.
And yes, I'd happily bet on a two-way interaction as well. Maybe the best way forward would be too make 'chemical imbalance' have a general definition with a large-ish section on its use in advertising and consumer literature in psychiatry. Essentially a merge, and try to pare it down a little as well. To preserve the edit history, it might be better to move the 'theory' page, and then resume editing from there?--Limegreen 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concentration camp

Nice work! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

Good work on your cleanup of this article. Someone should give you a barnstar soon, you've clearly been a good contributor. --Iriseyes 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your considerations, but "XYZ is [position]" is consistently used in every Wikipedia article about people holding a particular position at the moment (see incumbent and Lists of office-holders). Or is there a consensus to change that? - Mike Rosoft 10:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, Mike Rosoft. I read this as saying "many Wikipedia articles are not written in a suitable way for a reference work, so let's keep this one incorrect too". It's certainly untrue that the present tense is used in every Wikipedia article about people: in cases where I have found this, I have changed it, without objections until now. If you can suggest an appropriate place for this discussion, please let me know: it is too general to go in the Bush article discussion. I have asked in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia#Work_of_reference:_inappropriate_to_have_time-dependent_information and also in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Work_of_reference:_inappropriate_to_have_time-dependent_information Have a look there to see why the present tense is inappropriate.

I have had a comment from my question at the village pump: the policy exists (it is just ignored):

"This is already a guideline, please see Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly".

Pol098 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pol, good intentions I'm sure, but please mind the WP:3RR. I know first hand that it is enforced. -- AuburnPilottalk 18:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a comment about this. George W. Bush will always be the 43rd President of the United States. His position will never change, even if he dies. Do we say that George Washington was the 1st President or is the 1st President? We would say "is", because no one else replaced him as the 1st President of the US. Likewise, George Bush will remain the 43rd President in history.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll answer here, and let you know it's here. To be quite direct, your argument is simply wrong:we say that GW was the first POTUS, etc. I will pick a few presidents at random and quote from their Wikipedia entries (why am I getting into this timewasting?)
Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American politician who was elected the 16th President of the United States (serving from 1861 to 1865), and was the first president from the Republican Party.
George Washington (February 22, 1732–December 14, 1799)... was later elected the first President of the United States.
James Earl Carter, Jr. (born October 1, 1924) was the 39th President of the United States
William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) was the 42nd President of the United States
If you think these entries are all wrong, edit them to say "is". If you are right, nobody will complain.
Best wishes, Pol098 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, you've made your point. Nonetheless, we wouldn't want to say "George W. Bush was the 43rd President...", so a different wording on his article should be added.-Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The wording I had used, and which caused such consternation, was "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) was inaugurated on January 20, 2001 as the 43rd President of the United States" Pol098 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted in your favor. I must ask: Which guideline stresses the timing of articles?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good to hear that. Not in my favor, please; in favor of Wikipedia. Pol098 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind that, I saw the guideline.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fixing my talk page

That guy was getting back at me for warning him about putting the same message on Moeron's user page. Thanks for reverting it so quickly! --Iriseyes 13:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arnolfini Portrait

I would take a break now - I am going to revert some of your changes anyway. Have you read any of the references? It is difficult to play around with the wording & make improvements if not.

Yes carpets were usually on tables. Johnbod 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/User_talk%7EPol098_064c.html"