User talk:Dforest/2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

[edit] Aluminium & Google

Hi - I've copied the relevant section from Google test:

Idiosyncratic usage. The English language often has multiple terms for a single concept, particularly given regional dialects. A series of searches for different forms of a name reveals some approximation of their relative popularity. For a quick comparison of relative usage try googlefight, e.g. comparing deoxyribose nucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid. Note that there are cases where this googletest can be overruled, such as when an international standard has been set, as in the case of aluminium.

Please note the last sentence. Also note that I'm a chemistry teacher in the US and use and prefer aluminum, but this is an international encyclopedia and IUPAC rules here in chemical articles. Thanks, Vsmith 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your argument, but I believe that passage refers primarily to Wikipedia naming conventions. I do not contest that the article should remain at "aluminium". I just think it is relevant to show popular usage as well, at least in a footnote. Yes, an international standard has been set--by scientists, not by linguists. I don't think it is fair for scientists to claim complete ownership over chemical articles. The article name is one thing, but popular usage is worthy of a footnote, is it not? In my opinion, a good reference work shows popular usage as well as what is considered the "standard". If anything, I think the mention of the google test above makes it more relevant to footnote in the article. Also note that I am an American EFL teacher teaching high school abroad. I find it contentious when people use International English as a euphemism for Commonwealth English. Both British and American-derived English are learned and spoken in various countries. Dforest 04:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The spelling section notes the usage at the top and then the spelling history. A Google search simply shows that the web is largely written by Americans, that's why it is rather irrelevant as well as redundant in the section. Vsmith 04:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is primarily a web-based reference, it is indeed relevant if the majority of web users prefer one form over the other. I am not the only one who thinks it is relevant, it's been contested before and that should be mentioned. If it's worthy of note at the top of the Google test page, it's worthy of a footnote in the article. Please realize I am not contesting the correctness of "aluminium", I agree that it is the consensus standard here. But to contrast that with a measure of common usage is a worthwhile point. Dforest 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The users who come to the article are interested in relevant information, not in internal Wikipedia processes (which the note reverals). Pavel Vozenilek 01:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General spelling in the 'Aluminium' article

Articles should be consistent in the use of spelling. The title of the article uses the British English spelling and so British English should be used throughout the article. Please do not revert this again. BTW your comments about the Googletest are not useful or helpful. Google exists in the rarified world of the American dominated Internet. This is an international encyclopaedia. In the words of Jimbo Wales. The Wikipedia is not an Internet encyclopedia. It is an encyclopedia that happens to be on the Internet. In the future, editions of the encyclopaedia will be distributed to the poor in places where cheap acces to the Internet is not possible. Good day. Jooler 10:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The title of the article was chosen because it is the IUPAC preferred spelling. It does not mean the article is written in British English, and according to the guidelines you shouldn't change the spelling willy-nilly or without due cause.
Regarding the Google test comment, which you call "not useful or helpful", I respectfully disagree. Of course Google is biased toward popular usage. The article is biased toward the IUPAC spelling, because it is a chemical article. It is worthy to note that that spelling does not appear to reflect popular usage. It is a linguistic curiosity that may not be interesting to you, but it may well be useful for others. Let's try to compromise. Dforest 16:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
What you term 'popular usage' is no such thing. It is common American usage, and because considerably more than half of the English language web pages on the Internet are of American origin, the web pages cached by Google reflect this usage. It does not reflect the usage in the rest of the world was is much more poorly represented on the Internet than it is in print etc. The reason for using British spelling is not relevant, what is relevant is that consistent spelling should be used throughout. Please do not revert again. Good day. Jooler 21:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
By popular, I mean 'preferred by a majority'. If it is true that 'considerably more than half of the English language web pages on the Internet are of American origin', it does not negate that 'Aluminum' is the popular usage on the Internet, which if you read the comment, was the point I was trying to illustrate. What you term 'British spelling' is misleading. 'Aluminium' was chosen because it is the IUPAC spelling. Cheers, Dforest 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Again what you say "preferred by the majority" - you mean by the American majority of the systemically biased Internet and just because something is "popular" on the Internet (like the mispelling "medevil" or the word "pr0n") means nothing with regards to how things should be described in an Encyclopaedia that has a life outside of the rarefied Geek filled, pornography obsessed, Amerco-centric Internet. What I term British spelling is what it is. The fact that it is used by the IUPAC is the reason for the choice of spelling for the article, but again it is Wikipedia policy that spellings should be consistent. Jooler 08:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
That is certainly not what I mean by "preferred by a majority". If it is the case that that majority (of citings of 'aluminum' on Google vs 'aluminium') is predominately American, so be it. I am not defending it as right or wrong. Regarding popularity, let me re-emphasize that I never suggested the article should change its spelling to "aluminum". The word, "pr0n", you mention, is decidedly relevant to the article on pornography, and I do note that it is mentioned in that article. Likewise, a mention of the Google test is relevant as a footnote in the section of an article specifically concerning the spelling of "aluminium" vs. "aluminum". It do believe it is fair enough to mention it, note its bias, and leave it up to the reader to interpret. Dforest 09:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daikon

Hi. Thanks for your edits on Daikon. I was redirecting Raphanus Sativus to Daikon, but then noticed that Raphanus sativus (lowercase s) redirects to Radish. Are Radish and Daikon the same plants, or is one of them taxed incorrectly? Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 12:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, daikon is a type of radish. They are the same genus and species. Interesting that the Daikon article is longer than Radish, isn't it? BTW, I corrected the capitalization of Raphanus Sativus. Thanks. Dforest 15:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I redirected Raphanus Sativus to Radish, which seems to fit better. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 17:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] flavor profile

I did a google on "flavor profile" -- it returned nothing but "wine-speak" examples, as in "the new 2003 Oak Ridge Chardonnay has a flavor profile of old leathers, unwashed cat fur, etc. etc." I think it's a pretentious way of saying "tastes" and is out of place in an encyl. article about mayo unless you somehow qualify it so that only this phrase can be used. In any case, I have some rice vinegar at home -- I might trying using it the next time. But I still don't see why it would do anything more than merely make the mayo taste slightly different from one made with cider vinegar. After all, we're not Robert Parker here writing for the $300 a bottle crowd.... Cheers, Hayford Peirce 16:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Haha, "unwashed cat fur"... yeah I totally understand. It's a foodie term, I can see why it seems pretentious. You're probably right that simple is better here. Though note that I was comparing it to commercial mayo made with distilled vinegar. mmmm $300 mayo... hehe Dforest 16:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll bet if we whipped up some mayo at home, using some recondite ingredient such as lemongrass juice and peelings from that smelly SEasian fruit (durian? and other weird stuff, then peddled it around at pretentious places we could find someone who would pay $300 a bottle for it.... Hayford Peirce 18:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Brilliant. Durian--I like it! But let's keep it hush hush, shall we? Dforest 09:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tofu

Your probrably right about the simmering... as for the flattening, i'm specifically thinking about the stuff that one finds in instant soup. Right out of the package, it is hard as a rock, and looks like a cracker crumb, then expands nearly 4 times its size when dropped in boiling water or broth becoming spongelike, soaking up all the broth and flavoring... (yummy). You can sometimes find it in instant ramen, though you can hardly call that "food" persay, even though I live off of it sometimes. I AM a college student afterall... HAHAHA. Thanks, and Peace. CoolFox 03:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flatbread

My pleasure. – You can tell from my "article" that I know very little about the subject. I just wanted a place to pull together all the various related articles I had come across. Thanks for expanding it. Rl 06:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, (notice I didn't start a new headline). I'm glad someone actually reads the discussions. I also didn't know 'aluminum' was more widely used on google etc, than 'aluminium'. Although the data points to 'aluminum' being used, I don't really care what is used, just that everyone will be able to edit the page if they want. Thanks, Spawn Man 12:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

MMMMMmmmmm....flatbread.....or flattebread in France's Norsic region...I think I'll do a Google search to see which is more widely used.... Spawn Man 01:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Hehehe... Dforest 03:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad you see my humour...Spawn Man 05:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three disc kagami mochi

Sorry, I can't find the images you mention on Google images. Have left a note on kagami mochi talk page.--DannyWilde 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth are you thinking about?

Your edits to the Japanese beer article are plain stupid. Please stop reediting out my corrections of your mistakes. --DannyWilde 06:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

My edits are in good faith, so I would appreciate if you didn't call them stupid. I am not sure what mistakes you are referring to. Ranking by production volume is not a mistake. Comparing Japanese and German beer regulations is not a mistake. Please see Talk:Japanese beer.--Dforest 07:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfM...

Hello, User:Maprovonsha172 filed an RfM here. Please comment there, whether it be acceptance or rejecting. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I accept. Dforest 09:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Teasers:

Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... Spawn Man 05:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it. Thanks. Dforest 05:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
No Problemo...Spawn Man

[edit] Pocky sticks

Given the vast number of them I've consumed in my life you'd think I'd know how to spell the name properly.

Yeah, an overall Japanese snack article makes a hell of a lot more sense than a hundreds of ludicrously detailed stubs about individual brand names. Why DannyWilde has this peculiar obsession or why Kappa believes every tiny granular speck of knowledge warrants an article completely escapes me. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not Google2. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hardest Questions In The World Section:

Congratulations, you are currently tied 3rd on the Hardest Questions In The World Section's score board with 1 correct answer. You are 2 points away from the score board's leader. Spawn Man 07:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now 1st on the score board with 5 correct answers. Spawn Man 02:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You have now lost your lead. You have 5 correct answers & are 1 point away from the scoreboard leader. Spawn Man 21:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oh no!

I've noticed your edit of Okara and it seems like you know a lot about the subject. You used the term soymilk maker, but it looks like there's no Tofu maker or Soymilk maker article in the whole wide en.wikipedia.org! I own one of those things (Korean "Soylove" – gives tofu, soy milk, okara, tea and whatnot) so methinks we could fill the gap some time. Wikipeditor 09:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I had assumed you knew those well. I'm a bit busy now anyway, so I'll try and tackle the topic when I have more time. Have fun! Wikipeditor 02:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Emergency department

Thank you for your useful edits to the above article. At the moment this article has been nominated for Article improvement drive. I wonder if you would consider clicking on the above link to vote for it to be further improved. Again, thanks.--File Éireann 11:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] negi

My edits to the negi page were based on the discussion in the talk page of welsh onion. Can you please respond there to the comment made that "negi" covers various species. After the unpleasant mess you made in the kagami mochi page, I'll be applying verification criteria to your edits as in WP:V. For the time being, rather than reediting the pages, I request you to comment at the above talk page. --DannyWilde 13:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kagami mochi

I missed your most recent edit of this page. Please read WP:V and provide verification to the standards required before adding the word "three" to the article again. --DannyWilde 14:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to sum it up, links to some blogs saying "three" aren't adequate. Also, you need to read WP:RS and find a reliable source for your edits. It might be worth your bearing in mind that your "three layers" stuff was added at the same time as you introduced three other mistakes into the article. I only had to remove your other mistakes two or three times. I don't know why you're fighting for the three layers. I've had to remove it eight times I think now. Anyway, verify it. --DannyWilde 14:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Please give it a rest. Neither Gishi [1] nor the Tokyo Gas Japanese Culture page [2] are blogs. The Gishi site is about as reliable a source as you can get, as it has a picture of the three-layer type for sale, with a caption clearly describing it as a three-layer kagamimochi. In fact it is the same company website that you previously cited in External links. The Tokyo Gas page explains the various uses of the three-layer type. I'm not sure which "mistakes" you are referring to--is it about the daidai being relatively scarce? Certainly in Japanese fruit markets daidai are far scarcer than mikans. And regardless of tradition, there is no doubt many Japanese use mikans instead of daidai on kagamimochi. Your subsequent edit confirmed this: "A mikan or a plastic daidai are often substituted for the daidai. " I'm just trying to help and I would appreciate your cooperation. Dforest 04:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you trying to help? Oh, thanks. I suppose that was why you sent my article for deletion. Thanks for the help. Great. You can help me a whole lot by never editing this or any other article I am involved in again, and stick to editing "I heart huckabees" or something. I would appreciate your cooperation. --DannyWilde 07:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ben, please accept my sincere apology if you were offended by having your articles listed on AFD. I had considered discussing it with you beforehand, but I feared that you would disagree. It is my contention that we do not need a separate article in en:Wikipedia for every regional snack food whose article barely merits a half-paragraph of description. The products in question, Kyabetsu Taro and Don Tacos, are virtually unknown internationally. I realize we have some differences of opinion here. I consider you a valuable contributor in Japan articles, so I hope we can reconcile those differences and work together to improve Wikipedia. But how dare you suggest that I never edit any article you are involved with? That is not helpful, and completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a community based on collaboration. I have never put you down nor questioned the good faith of your edits. In contrast, you have referred to my edits as stupid, nonsense, barmy, vandalism, mistakes, etc. I would appreciate some civility. In addition, you continually mark your reversions as minor edits, in flagrant violation of Help:Minor edit. Only truly minor edits or reversions of vandalism should be marked as minor. Thanks, Dforest 09:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency department

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Emergency department was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Many thanks for your support!--File Éireann 18:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting?

Hi, may I make a request? could you please vote for my FAC, Dinosaur here:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dinosaur? It would mean so much to me & I would definitely return the favour if you need anything voted on. I've come so far, but I just want to make sure as voting can turn sour at any moment? Don't feel pressured, but thanks anyway... Spawn Man 02:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)