User talk:Jd2718/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comprehensive School Mathematics Program 2 Greek refugees 3 allegations page 4 Vafiadis 5 Welcome! 6 WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VIII (IV) - April 2007 7 Your evidence 8 Original research 9 WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue IX (V) - May 2007 10 Meetup 11 Please self revert 11.1 Apology 12 urban new england 13 I already did that 13.1 Looting vs. Lootings 14 Cleanup templates 15 Your note 16 Talk: New England 17 Babi Yar 18 response 19 The Bronx -- thonx 20 Your note 21 Talk Holocuast 22 You're welcome 23 Eastern 24 AoIA 25 Bronx Hispanic majority 26 Biodome mess 27 Honored 28 Comment 29 "Second place" map 30 To answer your deleted question 31 Pardon me but... 32 New England town center CDPs 33 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 34 Email for you 35 Question 36 Your questions

[edit] Comprehensive School Mathematics Program

It takes a person of character to withdraw a nomination for deletion after reading other user input. Unlike many who seem to have personal vandettas in this area, you showed and an openness and willingness to listen and consider. Based upon your actions, you deserve this positive accolade for all to see. Bbagot 15:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek refugees

Thanks about this. U are right. I had the Greek word 'ethnos' in mind (='ethnic group' or 'nation') and i did not think of the different meaning of the word nation in English. Hectorian 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I will write some stuff in the last stub section (In popular culture) and then i will reply to your questions in the talk page. Maybe there are some povish statements there (i do not claim infallibility:)...). Thanks for the interest, and i agree with u that the two references u mentioned are important. Also, at some point in the future, i think of adding eyewitness testimonies, with notes and all, so as to illustrate the impact of the event, as well as the way the refugees themselves saw it. Regards Hectorian 17:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as i am concerned, u are more than welcomed to fix pov issues:). just a note: i think we should deal with this from the scope of its significance for the refugees and for Greece herself, and of its nature (do not forget that it was the first compulsory exchange of population in human history-something that can highlight much of what is discussed in the article). i tend not to agree with modern political correctness, not saying that u do agree, but just expressing my own POV, in talk:). Hectorian 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have finished my work in this article for now. My main aim was some sections to stop being stubs. Soon, maybe later today, i will add some more info. Thanks for the interest, and if u have the time, take a look in the usage of English there. Not been a native English-speaker may be tricky sometimes:).Thanks and ciao. Hectorian 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] allegations page

• I'll use the preview button now, sorry.
• In regards to point 1, that was a formatting mistake
• In regards to point 2, Morris was specifically replying to Finkelsteins agreement with the "apartheid" claim.--Urthogie 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie is editing basically alone against a half-dozen editors of the opposing viewpoint, none of whom are particularly neutral, and some of whom are almost rabidly POV. It's not surprising it's a mess, and it doesn't really make sense to blame Urthogie. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming to me. I do have an interest in the article, but some of the editors are either wildly radical in their views or absurdly hostile towards other editors, or both, so it's a very uncomfortable place to try to make a positive contribution. What would you suggest? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vafiadis

You might consider asking Macrakis instead; I can't read Greek. Khoikhoi 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to the project! Happy to see you around! Enjoy!--Yannismarou 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VIII (IV) - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 19:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your evidence

I was surprized to see your evidence. It seems your interpretation of the events in that article is not full as respect to the edit-war that took place there. There are also many details from the talk page which point to a different interpretation of the events. Can you review your evidence again and make it more complete ? Thanks, Zeq 05:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Where did your translation come from? The one you removed was sourced to a highly reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:The_Holocaust#Translation_issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue IX (V) - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup

Dear Jd2718,

You have either attended or expressed interested in the previous NYC Meetup. I would like to invite you to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 14:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please self revert

what you do border on vandalism. If you want to expend the article, add other POV you are welcome. But those deltes of sourced content will not accepted. see talk and use talk but until there is a compromise don't delete content. thank you. Zeq 13:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am giving you an opportunity to re-write the section. This is a timely event. I know you are aware of it. should you just wait for the right moment to revert it again I will ask for you to be prevented from editing the article. Zeq 14:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

removal of well source info is inentional and border on vandalism. Vandalism means destruction: you took some else work and without proper reason deleted it. that is as close to vandalism as I can think about and it is uncivil as well. The best if you have objections to some text and considering such a big change is to discuss it on talk first. Zeq 21:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please understand the difference between vandalism and bordering on vandalism - this mean not crosssing the line but coming close. If you think the way to improve the project is by deleting sourced material than we should discuss how is this improving the article. I dis agree that this is an improvment and what you should do next time is use talk (first) to suggest such massive changes. Zeq 04:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

You know what, I re read the policy and I appologogize for describing your actions as "bordering on vandalis". You are right I was wrong, so i appologize. If you need I will post this appology on the talk page . best, Zeq 06:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] urban new england

Hi. What additional information would you prefer to be cited so as to be able to state why parts of Connecticut are included together with NYC in a combined statistical area? It really is a simple matter of summing up the percentage of employed residents of an MSA that commute to an adjacent MSA and the percentage of employment in an MSA composed of residents of adjacent MSAs (i.e. the degree of employment interchange between MSAs). If a threshold value is exceeded the MSAs are "combined". Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 19:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I already did that

You might check for the explanation before you edit. Deleting is out of line without a consensus. I'm changing it back. Work for consensus. Noroton 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looting vs. Lootings

Your edit was a stylistic abomination. If I didn't think so, I would have refrained from correcting it. I did see it after looking over your contributions, in part because, given the history of attempts to change that Fairfield history section, I have every reason to be extremely suspicious of anyone trying to delete it without consensus. I didn't change any other of your edits because I found no good reason to do so under Wikipedia policies or guidelines or purposes. In order to show that I'm not making an edit maliciously, however, I'm going to go overboard in this case and revert it, hoping that either someone else will correct it or you will look into it and change it yourself. I suggest you look further into Wikipedia rules and guidelines as well, and that might prevent edits such as trying to delete the Fairfield history section. Noroton 00:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. On looking at it again, I see I actually agreed with your edit on the Gaza article. I was tired. Apologies.Noroton

[edit] Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 09:09 17 June 2007 (GMT).

Hi, this edit is a "subst" of {{confusing}}. You may have cut and pasted the content, or used {{subst:confusing}} which has the same effect. Regards Rich Farmbrough, 12:38 17 June 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Your note

Hey, no problem - thanks for the note. Crum375 03:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: New England

Hi, I just read your comments on Loodog's Talk Page. You commented on his restoring of a racist comment, but you mentioned my removing of the IP users claims that Wikipedia is a fron for propaganda 1. I did this because I felt WP:SOAP prohibited wikipedia users (anonymous or registered) from using wikipedia as a front for unsubstantiated POV claims. I was wondering what your opinion of my removing this was?

Thanks

Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any policies that necessarily dictate that the more offensive stuff should stay or go. but I believe that if you keep the trolling comments, you should keep the offensive ones, though a disclaimer should be given stating that "Some readers may find these statements offensive, but they are preserved for the record, and do not represent the opinions of Wikipedia".

The main reason why the article may seem Boston-centric is that historically New England was very much tied to Boston, and many areas, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and eastern Connecticut still have ties to Boston (not sure about Vermont, but I'd say they still look at Boston as their 'capital'). However, no reliable sources can be (or have been) found to suggest that part of Western CT (or anywhere else in New England) no longer think of themselves as part of New England. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babi Yar

Are you able to read Russian and Ukrainian links provided at talk? FYI, I have lived in Kiev for decades and I know what I am talking about. Imagine someone trying to prove that the n-word or any other ethnic slur is not offensive. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not about the translator or "his dialect" but about a historical announcement/document published in Kiev. Since you do not seem to be familiar with the subject and do not speak the language, why do you think you are qualified to judge? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response

It's pretty obvious from the "history" feature who makes what edit, so accusing you wasn't really possible unless you run Anomebot2: [1]

See also: [2]

When I saw the history section without the Klan subsection, and when I saw the Klan section removed by something called Anomebot2 which talked about some geographic coordinates in the edit summary, I had reason to call it surreptitious. If a mistake, let the responsible editor explain it. Noroton 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did self-correct. I removed the duplicate section when I saw it. I was mistaken. Since I didn't accuse you of anything I certainly don't owe you an apology, if that's what you mean by "self correction". Noroton 17:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bronx -- thonx

Thanks for tightening even more what I had edited on the Bronx history stuff. I was just going to do a bit more tightening, when I saw you had done an even better job. What's your interest in the Bronx? Yours in Wikiediting. Bellagio99 ex-Bronxite.

Dear JD, I agree with your comments (on my Talk page) on the needs for the Bronx article. (I also just de-hyped part of the Bronx High School of Science article. I regret that I don't have the time to go through it systematically. Basically, I respond to whatever hits my writing alarm when i see something. It would be great to have a history or journalism class at Bronx Community College, or a strong high school class have a crack at it. But I live 500 miles away and have no such contacts, alas. Bellagio99 16:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi Jd2718, I am not sure why you think I have engaged in incivility or vandalism. If I have offended you in any way I apologize, but all I did was to revert to a version that I feel is better. My edit summary simply addressed the vandalism (not yours - check carefully), the photo and the d-day inclusion. Perhaps you misunderstood the vandalism comment that wasn't about your edit? Crum375 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you understand the vandalism bit. Regarding the rest, we really should discuss it on the Talk page. Crum375 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Holocuast

I have filed an RFC. If you think it is appropriate, please consider certifying or endorsing it. [3] Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, please state your proof for reverting "six million" in The Holocaust article. Thank you. Rhino666 14:36, 10 September 2007 (GMT+1)

[edit] You're welcome

Well, youguys - on the Holocaust talk page - sure bent over backwards to dialogue with this guy. I just hated to see him take advantage of our good will ... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern

One off error. Social Democrats of eastern Germany is not one long proper noun. Bot read it as such, and changed to Eastern. Not likely to occur elsewhere. Keep up the good work! Jd2718 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jd, I've made a note of it. Cheers, CmdrObot 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AoIA

Hi Jd2718. Thanks for your note. I've come to praise not to bury (aka revert) your addition to the Synthesis effort. So I didn't revert, though I do have one question for you about supporting evidence. Feel free to edit the Synthesis more. HG | Talk 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC) PS I'm a big fan of that Emerson quote.

[edit] Bronx Hispanic majority

Jd, I put the 2005 Hispanic census estimate in the Bronx text to anchor your reinserted category. I also tweaked demographics a bit. I am skeptical about Ghanaians being the 3rd highest group. I cleaned up awkward writing about this, but still wonder about accuracy. Could you check? Thx. Bellagio99 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jd, thanks for the thanks (on my web page). Your solution sounds good, altho be careful on how you spell Ghanaians. My alarm bell was also that such a small population of 3K would be the the third largest ethnic group, altho the wording of the previous draft was unclear as to what the numbers meant. BTW, I left the Bronx for college in 1959, btw, but still retain nostalgia. There's a nice website, "Back in the Bronx," for my generation. Cheers. Gotta get some real writing done. Bellagio99 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biodome mess

Not sure what you mean by mess, but if I understood you correctly, (1) you plan to illustrate multiplication of positive and negative numbers by way of the model of the introduction and removal of trees and mules and (2) you wish to know who came up with the model. Well, you're corresponding with its creator. You're welcome to use it, and I do appreciate your fastidiousness in giving scholarly credit. Regards... PaulTanenbaum 01:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if I might offer a bit of unsolicited counsel... I'd suggest that you maintain the units (e.g. liters/tree) throughout all the calculations. For one thing, it highlights for students the various subtly different things we mean by the signs of the numbers in this model—with the organisms in the Biodome, we're indicating their introduction or removal, but with the oxygen level, we're indicating whether the organism in question is a liberator or consumer of O₂. For another, this simple use of dimensional analysis makes clear the logic of just why we decided to multiply this particular number over here by that one over there, and it clarifies how to interpret the result.

Even further by the way, I heartily endorse dimensional analysis as an extremely useful tool with very broad applications, including figuring out how to convert from just about any units to any others. For instance, how do we express a speed of 52 kilometers per hour in units of feet per second? Proceed thus:

52 km/h × 1000 m/km × 100 cm/m × 1/2.54 in/cm × 1/12 ft/in × 1/60 h/min × 1/60 min/s

= 52×1000×100×(1/2.54)×(1/12)×(1/60)×(1/60) ft/s

≈ 47.4 ft/s

All you need do is manipulate the units like constants, imposing on them all the normal rules of algebra. In this case, almost all the units cancel from numerators and denominators, leaving ft/s. It's easy to figure out at each step what's a good next factor to tack onto our product. For instance, since at one point I had centimeters in the numerator but didn't want them to stay there permanently, I designed the next factor to have units with centimeters in the denominator. To do that, I thought about any simple conversion I could remember that involves centimeters, and I came up with the trivial equation 2.54 cm = 1 in. From that I concluded that (1 in)/(2.54 cm) = 1, and every student knows that if you multiply anything by 1, you don't change its value, so we're OK tacking on the factor 1/2.54 in/cm. When done, we know that the answer must be correct, because all we'd done is multiply our initial value (52 km/h) repeatedly by "another name for 1." That's how we know that the equal signs are valid. And we don't even have to remember for each conversion factor whether to multiply by it or divide by it: we multiply everything, merely constructing each factor from trivial equations like our good old 2.54 cm = 1 in or 1 h = 60 min.

Sorry for going off on that lengthy tangent!) PaulTanenbaum 02:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honored

Hi, Jd2718. I'm honored that you would support me for adminship if the occasion arises. Since we haven't interacted much, I'm a bit curious as to why you feel comfortable with me, esp if you aren't often involved with RfAs. In any case, I am interested in serving as an admin but would like to avoid a unsuccessful RfA, so I'm not sure when I would try. I welcome your advice and, in any case, thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. Take care, HG | Talk 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. Sorry for foolishly jumping the gun there a bit, and I've edited myself above, too. Look forward to running into you more often, all the best, HG | Talk 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Hi there, I was quite surprised to see what a storm in a teacup some (I thought) constructive feedback on SlimVirgin's talk page ended up producing. I think it strange that other people magically know to censor someone's talk page, so thankyou for at least adopting the "a user can manage their own talk page" approach. I didn't think it trolling (it appears you can either be a sycophant or else a troll), but it's a sensitive topic for some reason and nothing other than glowing praise can be acceptable. I think it speaks volumes that JzG/guy somehow determines at the end a rather strange "message" about what was the questionable behaviour. If SlimVirgin's talk page wasn't so constantly selectively purged of all but barnstars (and the history wiped to boot) perhaps there would be some context. Anyhow, I had thought my advice would have been some worth taking on board, I guess that would indicate an ability to learn from mistakes. So I think you were right in attempting to point out that it was a little strange. I certainly would hit the roof if someone decided they knew how best to manage my talk page and I think this censoring of what was intended to be constructive criticism is stupid. NathanLee 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Second place" map

Hi, could you please explain this edit of yours.. I do not see how it is inherently confusing... TIA, —dima/talk/ 23:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To answer your deleted question

WP:CSD #U1: because he asked for it to be deleted. —David Eppstein 07:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pardon me but...

Why is this tendentious or anything? Where is the revert, had he posted that before, and who reverted him and on what grounds? And what is the serious argumentation for any opposition in such an edit, that merely rewords what is already said (only better in my view)? Did you pick the wrong diff by accident? NikoSilver 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. Was that version ("nation's largest region") proposed before and turned down? I don't recall that, but I assure you that I would have agreed to it, exactly because it helps avoid mentioning "Greece" twice. If it is the capital "R", then by all means go and change it (although I'm not sure it is correct English), but I seriously doubt that any mere change in the wording is a disruptive edit, especially when nothing changes in the meaning. Anyway, thanks for your other comments, and should you find anything which is actually disruptive (be it for Kekrops or anyone else), I'll be there to support that it is. For example, I would argue that my stunt in leaving "Macedonia" un-disambiguated there so as to highlight that when the ethnic Macedonians do it they "self-identify", whereas when the Greeks do it they become jerks, marginally falls within the limits of WP:POINT. But I'm glad the "end" justified the "means" in that case, and I really couldn't think of a more productive way of doing so. I still can't. This is a tough issue in the real world, and it is frequently very difficult to explain what is meant (let alone to find a compromising solution after having explained). NikoSilver 11:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New England town center CDPs

Hi. I would like your opinion on a proposal of mine that seems to have some strong opposition. I'd just like to make sure I'm not doing anything too disruptive here. I have suggested merging town center CDPs articles into the town article. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont#Merging town center CDP articles into town articles and Talk:St. Johnsbury, Vermont#CDP change for details. I'd like to hear your comments about whether the town center and the town should be treated as two different places (and two different articles) or if merging is an appropriate solution. Please see St. Johnsbury, Vermont (my most recent version) for an example of my proposal. Thanks very much. --Polaron | Talk 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email for you

Thanks :)

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello JD:

I saw your question in the ArbCom election material: "Last year the community nominated what looked like a solid bunch of Arbitrators. Yet 10 months later it turns out that several had very spotty levels of ArbCom activity. Do you think that this was at all predictable? And if so, how?"

I would like to know how one can gauge levels of ArbCom activity. Are statistics kept (& if so, where can I see them?), or does it require reading case reports to see who was actively involved?

Any light you can throw on this would be appreciated. Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions

... You asked several questions at my candidates page. I'll try to wrap these up (or most of them) over the next couple of days; as there's several of them, they might need a couple or so days to do them justice and give good consideration. So I thought I'd drop you a courtesy note "in case" so you'd know :)

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - thanks for the clarification :)