User talk:Smyth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
If I left a message on your talk page,
please reply there, not here.

Contents

[edit] Article Linux distribution feedback

I'm afraid I had to do the same thing with Linux distribution. I'm sure you mean well, but when 9 out of 10 of your changes make an article worse than it was before, perhaps working on existing, well-established articles is not a good idea until your English improves.

However, there are still ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. You could research and create new articles which do not yet exist or which have almost no content. Here is a list of sub-stubs -- articles that are not much more than dictionary definitions. And here is a list of wanted pages which have links pointing to them but do not exist.

Of course, before creating or expanding one of these pages, check that another page with about the same thing but with a different name does not already exist, and if it does, create a redirect instead. And if creating a new page, make sure that it is worth creating, and investigate the pages that link to it to see the context in which the page is mentioned.

– Smyth\talk 12:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a new wikipedian, however I should note that MOST articles are poorly written.

1-Read the discussion page on Linux Distribution 2-Revise the page you reverted again 3-Revise it again and read it outloud 4-Get back to me and apologize

You really are not reading the article carefully like every good wikipedian should. For a fact, THERE IS NOT GNU OPERATING SYSTEM. For another fact, an application RESIDES on an OPERATING SYSTEM.

Here's even an excerpt right here to clarify things more switfly, no offense - you really don't understand enough to edit this article.

"A Linux distribution or GNU/Linux distribution (or a distro) is a Unix-like operating system plus application software comprising the Linux kernel, the GNU operating system, assorted free software and sometimes proprietary software, all created by individuals, groups or organizations from around the world."

Taking this segment "is a Unix-like operating system plus application software" suggests that an "xxx operating system plus application software" are not referring to the same question as "What is the Operating System"? because "application software" is also derived from GNU developers. Now if you don't grasp to understand what I just said, then it can be explained by the fact that Operating Systems are terms used to define the set of another Operating System contained within it; now does that yet make any sense? No, I didn't think so. And if you just said no, then maybe you have at least 1 brain cell still alive.

Now bringing your fattied American brain away from the tv and try pulling a few more braincells back to life, you have the possibility of realizing that the previous paragraph is quoting that xxx Operating System is containing another within itself. Now go back to the article and read the entirety the way I left it and then speak. But before you do read the following.

Having used Linux for 5 Years I mention that ALIEN is EVIL. There should be no Inter-Crap Section..This is totally irrelevant to the case that anyone at all whatsoever has a good reason not to RTFM like he should so he shouldn't have to break his system. What is the relevancy then? That there should be no recommendation to something which isn't good in the first place? Well stupid! that's what the reverted changes you made suggests..That just tells you just how much tv you've been watching. Alien is known to be BAD and I also have judged it from my own experience- not only me but many other experts as well coming from debian circles. Of course Articles I write are professional indeed, and there are probably 1 per 30,000 articles on Wikipedia that I would class as professionally crafted..and not from American writers, that's for sure!

You will not read the article like a Canadian would.. American. You big chunk of fatass nimslim braincell tv-culture society are possibly the worst english writers I've ever seen on the face of this planet..You're all fat, dumb and lazy and don't even know how to write even the simplest forms of definitions for what any Operating System actually means..because you can't think and only think about killing the world world and having on display your dirty Entertainment Retardness of genital camera-lens slaping laughing comedy all year-round- something that is all what you folks down there take for the main source of intellectual classes for improvising your literary art! Now go watch you're fun killing innocent people around the world and your Entertainment TV along with your potatoe chips! and try reading the article again you lard..It's no wonder that even people I know in University shy away from the english wikipedia.org..You're simply put, Americans- a whole dam nation who don't know how to read, write nor even understand what the fuck they have even actually written.. You folks shouldn't even deserve to have access to Wikipedia.org, you're all shit cummingload of retards in comparison to say, well not only us Canadians, but to the rest of the world. Time to say "Go home Yankee" or Come to this country and denounce your international war-crimes- perhaps if you do you're mind may come back to life away from your perversive past of American atrocities exercised all over the dam world. The least you lards can do is say you're "sorry" and accept the fact that tv is destroying your ability to actually read and write like an average world-wide English literate can. Americans..hmmphmm, they scale more physically than they do mentally..not surprised..and then they don't understand the rest of the world because they're not able to think anymore..hmmphmm..I will turn on my tv when I hear about another 911 and shoudn't surprised either..you all deserve it for the international war crimes you've been committing..and don't even read alternate sources about it on the net and are all rather brain-washed with your Shit national news which never admits half the truth anyways..May you all burn in hell!

  1. I have no problems with the factual content of what you wrote, just that your English was so bad that it overwhelmed any factual improvements that you might have made.
  2. I'm Scottish.

– Smyth\talk 15:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gender of IEC cord

I think we're in disagreement on a point relating to the gender of the equipment (ie monitor etc) end of the IEC power cord. By your recent addition to Gender of connectors and fasteners I take it that you consider both ends to be male. I quite firmly believe that the monitor end is female, based on the current-carrying contacts being recessed, despite the overall fitting being meant to slide into a recess. This would be consistent with the paragraph "The gender of a connector is determined by the structure of its primary functional components...". Now, I wrote that paragraph, so I'm citing it not as independent authority, but as content that stands in conflict. If you can point me to an authoritative source which considers the monitor end to be male, please do so. (If this is the case then other parts of the article will need to be revised.)

I am willing to grant that here is a case of the female end being considered a plug, at least in some literature. This would also warrant revision of other parts of the article.

Sharkford 15:21, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

You may well be right. I only made the change because the previous wording seemed to rather clumsily imply that both ends were entirely male. Feel free to make any changes you want. – Smyth\talk 15:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Java AP Exam

Exactly why is the fact that an AP exam is given in Java un-notable? -CunningLinguist 03:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact itself isn't un-notable, but as an isolated reference dropped into the middle of discussion of the language itself, it was out of place. It would be more appropriate to have a section called, say, "Education", which discusses the general trend in education all over the world to change from Pascal/C/C++ to Java, and cites the AP exam as an example. – Smyth\talk 10:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 8 = 1/8th

ok now i'm confused... i think you are right. but i can't think of this clearly anymore.  :-) see Talk:Kilobit_per_second - Omegatron 14:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabia

Hi Malcolm, it's unlocked now. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hemp

he article contains many verifiable facts, but that doesn't mean it's not a ridiculous rant. Certainly hemp is a very versatile plant, and there was a lot of misinformation being circulated around the time it was banned. Indeed, a lot of the things mentioned in the article are also covered in Marijuana#History. But it's not magic, it won't singleplantedly solve world hunger, or replace crude oil, and for God's sake it's not extraterrestrial. Having this article cited as a reference does the encyclopedia no favors at all. – Smyth\talk 30 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it's a little over the top near the end... maybe let's replace it with the "alt.hemp.faq" instead? [1] [2] --Thoric 30 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Mockingbird

Thanks for the reversion, seems a strange choice of bird to target! jimfbleak 9 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I was thinking about our recent discussion on Talk:Terrorism.

Would you perhaps be interested in working with me to identify and nominate for simultaneous deletion all of the Insert Adjective Here Terrorism articles? It's difficult for me to imagine any of these articles being accorded an entry in The Columbia Encyclopedia or any similarly reputable publication. Current news events will likely increase partisan chaos on all or nearly all of these pages, increase vandalism, and make them even less useful than they already are, which is saying something.

What do you think? BrandonYusufToropov 14:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. Let me look at those articles (I've always tended to avoid them in the past) and I'll answer properly tomorrow. – Smyth\talk 21:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Having looked at them, it seems that their content is fairly unobjectionable. Zionist terrorism and Palestinian terrorism, in particular, both use the word "militant" throughout. Perhaps a better solution would be to push for a "terrorism" → "militancy" renaming? See Category:Terrorism, and especially Category:Terrorists, which has a definition of its own but virtually no members, and its talk page, where it was nominated for deletion. – Smyth\talk 21:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Militancy actually says something, whereas "terrorism" is the "no YOU are" word of the moment. This seems like much the better approach. BrandonYusufToropov 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM

I have made some format changes to your entry on WP:RM. Please read the guidelines on WP:RM

to make sure that all the steps needed for a requested move have been completed. Philip Baird Shearer 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] applications indeed have not criteria

check out my newest version. Kzzl 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vanunu

I was content to have "abduction", ideally with the Wiktionary definition Wiktionary:abduct. The reason for my last edit was that someone was trying to remove all reference to the illegality of what happened, even that it happened at all! But yes, the compromise is somewhere in the middle. --Red King 17:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

User:Zephram Stark contends that he has achieved consensus for his new version of the introduction, because, in his view, he introduced it to the Talk: page 3 days ago, and "no-one objected". He's now insisting that he can insert it, and any changes to the introduction must be approved in Talk: with him first. I have pointed out that he inserted his new intro into the middle of a huge Talk: page, and that I didn't even notice it until he edited the article to insert it. I've also pointed out that it is full of neologisms and other original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy, and have at least removed that. Did you, in fact, agree to this new introduction? Could you comment further at Talk:Terrorism? Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vanunu

(moved to Talk:Mordechai Vanunu)

[edit] User:Go Cowboys

Thank you for your concern. However, my user page was mentioned on Wikipedia:Help desk#Experienced user, so why can't I find out how to do things? as an example of how some users create their own "Tool" page, or a collection of tools on their user page. So assume good faith concerning those edits to that page. But of course, that user cannot hide from his/her contributions... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb against Zephram Stark

I've requested arbitration against Zephram Stark. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 19:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Engineering Wiki

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. I invite you to join this wiki.

[edit] Zephram

Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision#Focus_of_dispute, where it is currently being voted on. It says:

"The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism."

I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop#Focus_of_dispute. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Concepts in science

You comment that this page must be deleted seem to be rather hasty. One needs to discuss rather then just pass a judgment on someone' efforts. Charlie 11:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If asking for a fair discussion is making trouble, then I am very sorry that I am in the company of rather uncivilized persons. I still believe it is not so. Charlie 11:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Since you have previously taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. Thanks. bobblewik 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another date links proposal

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write of Terrorism

Hey Smyth, it's been a while. Hope things are well with you. The reason I'm dropping this note here is that someone is attempting a massive POV re-write of Terrorism; would you mind taking a look? Much appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qana shelling

Hey, nice to see you on a Talk: page again, haven't seen you in a while. :-) Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I see the most recent comment on your Talk: page is from me 2 months ago, and says much the same thing. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over-illumination

Uh-oh -- you're trying to introduce science, thought, and reality into the over-illumination article. Good try, but don't be surprised if it doesn't work. ;-)

Atlant 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10 Downing Street article - Pictures

Sorry, this is being sent twice as I didn't add the == the first time to make this a separate entry. DTH

Hi - I notice that you have been editing the article on 10 Downing Street. I am wondering if you can help in another way. I have been trying with no luck to obtain more pictures for the article. So far all I have found are copyrighted ones. I have emailed the official 10 Downing Street site to ask permission to use some of their pictures. So far they have not replied (not surprising ha ha). Specifically, I think we need all or some of the following pictures:

1. Plan of the older section of No 10 by C Wren c 1677

2. Ground plan for the reconstruction of No 10 by W Kent c 1735

3. Downing Street cul-de-sac c 1827

4. Pictures of the interior during the late 19th century preferably with either Disraeli and or Gladstone in them as this would fit with the narrative

5. Plans for the reconstruction of 10 Downing Street c 1960-64

6. Various pictures of the interior as it is today such as Soane's State Dining Room and the Cabinet Room (preferably a picture with M Thatcher sitting with her Cabinet and the painting of Walpole above her, as this would fit nicely with the narrative)

I have seen all of the above in books and websites but as I said have not had any luck finding electronic versions that are not copyrighted. Please help if you can.

Thanks

David Hill

[edit] Yesha Council

He, Guy, kept deleting my justified and backed-with-facts addition. Then why do you give me that message about reverting and why did you delete that particular statement?

The three revert rule is extremely well-established, and intended to encourage people to discuss disagreements rather than just mindlessly reverting each other in a war that nobody can win. Guy has been blocked for this in the past, and if you break it again then you will certainly be too.

Your comment in that thread seems to biased as you say Israel is doing a good job. How is that relevant?

I have never made such a comment. Be more careful about copying and pasting replies you made to other people. :)

That statement has been issued, it is relevant and people have the right to know it. It has been agreed that council is well known in Israel and has much influence. See the thread. Please put it back. 62.163.161.226 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the thread, and it has neither been agreed that the council is notable nor that the quoted statement was a response to Qana. – Smyth\talk 12:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WP:RM

You closed a request for Sea of Fertility tetralogy. In what way was this request "malformed"? – Smyth\talk 16:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See step three at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Steps_for_requesting_a_page_move. -- tariqabjotu 19:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a trivially obvious move with no possibility of controversy, which I would have done without asking if the target was unobstructed. The template was posted on the talk page and attracted no comments. What is the benefit in discarding such a request because of a tiny procedural deviation, especially when it is already 12 days old? – Smyth\talk 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to contact an admin (via Wikipedia:List of administrators or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) if you feel the move should be done immediately. -- tariqabjotu 21:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buttocks

if u seem do remember i removed the reference to bible quotes from the buttocks article as it was completly irrelevant.. However people keep re-instating it. Would you agree this is now vandalism? DARReNTALK 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fastifex keeps reinstating it, but I don't think it falls under the definition of vandalism, just being a prat. See also his actions on Mooning. – Smyth\talk 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be making a series of misguided and unhelpful comments and i suspect these edits are not made in good will. Also his obbession with all things faecal (fecal if ur american) is quite disturbing. i have warned him anyway for his actions. DARReNTALK 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TWiki topic

Thanks for the concise edit of the first paragraph of the TWiki article! -- PeterThoeny

[edit] learn some manners

do not break up other users comments as u did on Talk:Qana_airstrike#Survey. it can become very confusing to read and acertain who said what & when you insert anything into another users talk you shld clearly note u have done so. also if you can't be bothered using a dictionary, read the article you refered me to. the term is factually descriptive, regardless of wether or not it fits w/ your biases.  ⇒ bsnowball  11:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for splitting your comment, you had used two bullets and I didn't realise they were supposed to be together.
But I stand by what I said about the word "massacre". It is not a purely factual description, as is shown by your own definition "the killing of a number of people in cold blood". Israel claims that it did not deliberately kill the people who died in the airstrike, because it was targetting Hezbollah (who were engaged in combat with them and were therefore, according to the current version of Massacre, ineligible to be massacred). Whether you or I believe them or not is not important here, the point is that the article should not make such a judgement.
You also asked me to use a dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/massacre uses such words as "savage", "cruel", "wanton" and "excessive". Again, whether you or I think that the attack could be described like this is not relevant; the point is that if the word "massacre" suggests these clearly non-neutral things, then it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to use it about anyone. – Smyth\talk 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Hudood Ordinance

Good day Mr. Smyth!

I will be obliged if you can please explain the rationale of removing my article, Lies & Distortions by the Media about Hudood Ordinance, from the article named Hudood Ordinance in this encyclopedia. The article was posted by someone else before and it remained there successfully, for atleast 20-25 days--and no one objected to it. I was surprised to see that it was removed after 3 weeks and I tried to put the article back up there, but, it was removed again.
I hope you will soon explain the rationale of removing my article; I am keenly waiting for your reply. Actually, the article is very relevant to the issue and is very informative too. It is based on months of my research on the issue; I had studied legal documents, deicisions of courts, annual reports, even discussed with legal experts and judges. Only after this investment of time & energy that I have furnished this article. That's why I am so keen to know about the cause of its removal.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Best regards,
Abdul Rehman.



Mr. Smyth!
Please respond to my previous message. Several days have passed by since I sent you my previous message, but, I have received no reply from your side. Please respond soon, so that we can settle this issue of editing. I have not tried to post the link again, because, it would have been arrogance and haste on my part.
So, I hope you will soon come up with an encouraging, soft and cooperative reply.

With best regards,
Abdul Rehman.

Sorry for taking so long to respond, and thank you for contacting me first. Your article is very good, but the issue is not its content but its reliability (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). You do not appear to be a professional in an appropriate field, but just an interested person who has done a lot of research and posted it on his own website. Anyone could do this, and that is why such websites are not acceptable as Wikipedia sources. You will observe that in my subsequent edit to the article I removed, with the same justification, another reference from someone with the opposite viewpoint to your own. So I hope you agree that I am being objective here.
However, you can still contribute your research. If you are careful about the neutrality of your writing, you could even insert excerpts of your article, along with references to the supporting sources which I can see you have plenty of which meet Wikipedia's requirements. – Smyth\talk 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to see your response, Mr. Smyth!
All your points are completely valid and candidly, I agree to them. Thank you for referring me to the relevant Wikipedia policy pages. Since, this is the first time I am trying to contribute something to Wikipedia, that is why I was ignorant of all these rules. My article is clearing against the Wikipedia policies as it is OR (original research) and moreover, not verifiable too.
I think that your second proposal of adding neutral content to the original article, with reference to reliable sources, is suitable in this case. I will soon post my proposed amendments in the talk page as this will eradicate the chances of any disputes arising in the future.
Last, but not the least, thank you for praising my article and calling it good. Your comments are precious for me.

Thanking you for your support,

Best regards,
Abdul Rehman.talk

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/m/y/User_talk%7ESmyth_c017.html"