User talk:JulesH/Archive Jul 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Marky48's warning to me

Please refrain from leaving accusations of bias an inaccuracy on my talk page. These are attacks on my work and my character and thus personal, and in violation of the policy.Marky48 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JulesH" Posted in the wrong spot by accident.Marky48 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, discussion of the content you have posted to wikipedia is not a personal attack. Inaccurate and biased content is inaccurate and biased content, regardless of who added it to the article. JulesH 10:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the article was innacurate except for your conflict of interest with the players in the piece and the fact that it's a vendetta for your friends.Marky48 02:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please see my talk

- CrazyRussian talk/email 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Different to/from

Thanks for your message. The edit summary I've been leaving is actually slightly misleading - I've only been changing "different than" (which is always incorrect). I agree with you that "different to" is wholly acceptable, and I haven't (nor will I be) changed any of those. I'll change the edit summary in future. Waggers 20:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That Word

I Googled "bifrication," and it apparently is a word, used (among other things) to mean the fallacy of "only two possible outcomes." (It has other meanings in engineering and cardiology.) I keep wanting to quote Inigo Montoya at him: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Honestly, though, I've having a hard time deriving any coherent argument from certain recent remarks, so I can't tell whether the word is used correctly or not. Karen 09:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected! :) I thought of "bifurcation" from the first, but when I saw the Google hits I wrongly concluded that the other spelling was legitimate also. But I still don't think it means what he thinks it means. I'll be shutting up now. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

English words can mean what users say they do online. It's the nature of the contrarian society we live in. My useage of "Bifurcation" is correct. Get more ammo because my assertions are true. Marky48 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disemvoweling

You might want to go over to Disemvoweling and check out Marky48's latest tomfoolery. He's edit-warring over the history of the term -- and he's reached his limit of three per day. --Calton | Talk 04:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for enhancing disemvowel at Wiktionary! I've done part of what you suggested, and explained there why I'm leaving out the rest. – SAJordan talkcontribs 09:07, 8 Nov 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Barbara Bauer

Sorry... I missed the prior deletion notice on the talk page since it was hidden under the other boxes. :( It's not at all clear to me as a random reader, while reading the intro or really the rest of it.. why the subject is interesting. Could it perhaps be made more clear? It would make more sense to me if we had an article on the company rather than the person... is there a reason that our article is about her rather than her company? --Gmaxwell 15:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look in the history, you'll see there was quite a bit more information about Bauer and her habit of making spurious legal threats against people who quote her name in relation to the Writer Beware list of worst agents. It's currently not in there because the only sources we have for it are self-published (although at least one meets the description of acceptable self-published sources on WP:V), and previous editors have taken exception to that. It'll be back in shortly. JulesH 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks for stepping in. I really shouldn't have taken Marky48's bait. I let his last slam against me stand, and I shouldn't have responded last night while I was tired. Oh, and a hearty "what you said." (grin) On a similar topic, there is some information about a judgment against an someone on the 20 Worst Agents list. I'm watching this to see if it is indeed true. No use opening another can o' worms until there's a chance the lid can be put back on. St jb 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Update - Look here [1]. This links to court dockets, and uses a blog source that has been approved. Is that enough to revive at least one of the 20 worst?

[edit] Redirect on Event Driven Architecture page

I don't think Event Driven Programming is necessarily the same as Event Driven Architecture - unless you believe that IT architecture is not a valid discipline. Architecture defines the framework and concepts, while programming realises and implements them. I don't think a preemptive redirect on the Event Driven Architecture page is appropriate. It would be better to flag this on the dicussion page for the article prior to making this change. Peter Campbell Talk! 23:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the article as it stands doesn't really make a lot of sense, whereas the Event-driven programming article describes exactly what it seemed to be talking about, and does define the "framework and concepts" of event-driven systems in general. The merge was proposed with a box on the article page over two weeks ago; it isn't as if I just suddenly decided to do this. Please feel free to revert my changes if you feel they are wrong; I certainly won't be offended. But I do think something drastic does need to be done with the article as it stands. It really is hard to read if you're not familiar with what it's talking about already. JulesH 07:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the the article, the discussion page about the merge did not reach consensus on merging it. However, the article does need a rewrite. It needs to be much clearer about what EDA is and cite references. I have had a first go at sorting this out. Peter Campbell Talk! 00:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Good work. Makes a lot more sense that it should be an independent article now, since it discusses in-depth interactions between components. I think as the concepts are so closely related, though, there should be something at the top of each page like "this article discusses the use of events in the design of information processing systems; for details of the programming design pattern that uses events see Event-driven programming" or something like that. I also think the article's good enough now that you can remove the stub marker, if you're happy with that. JulesH 08:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please see the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Event_Driven_Architecture for my comments. Antgel 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : AfD//Disemvoweling

There are some newly-registered accounts and one IP voting keep, so they had to be discounted. In any case, 66% (2:1 ratio) IMO still falls short of consensus if strictly speaking, which is at least 70%. In any case you don't have to worry since no consensus always defaults to a keep. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

It appears we were thinking the very same thing at the very same time. I have never had an edit conflict be with a comment of such a similar nature before :) I guess I should start actually reading edit conflicts instead of just quickly posting behind them.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WYSIWYG

WikiThanks

Thanks for fixing the WYSIWYG article! We appreciate it! Shinobu 06:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] self-published

Thanks for taking the time to see what was saying. So, how do we go about changing the policy? Do we hold a vote or something? JoeMystical 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't a clue. I've been trying to get a more rational version of the self-published sources policy together for a while, but there seems to be very few who actually care, and enough people who care about maintaining the status quo that it's a tricky one. JulesH 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. So, let's write a policy for self-published sources being used as sources of what the ideas of the self-publishers are. Then we can post it and let people vote with "Yes" or "No". What do you think? If it's totally rational I don't see why it would fail. It's just a self-evident truth that a self-published source is reliable for that. JoeMystical 20:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'll copy the current section to User:JulesH/Self Published Sources/Proposed Text, then we can make changes to it until we're happy. JulesH 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject CS

Hi! Just noticed that you have signed on as a participant in WikiProject Computer science, and wanted to welcome you to the project. Please stop by the project talk page to see what the other participants have on their minds right now, and to add your own thoughts. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perl 6 Good Article Review

I just want to thank you for helping out with the reviewing of the Perl 6 article. Having someone with the right background knowledge goes a long way towards improving the overall quality of the review process and again, we appreciate the help. We do get a bit of Tech articles put up for GA nomination from time to time, if you are ever interested in reviewing just stop by the candidate's page or drop me line. Take care! Agne 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core policies?

Since you were part of the earlier debate about this on WT:ATT, please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:List of policies. Thank you. (Radiant) 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca in July. You may want to review/comment at User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns.-- Jreferee 22:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yup

I was misreading. The comma is appropiate there. Regards, Navou talk 15:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accounting period

Many thanks for your constructive comments on my good article candidate, Accounting period. I have now addressed the points you made. I should be grateful if you'd re-review the article and either let me have further comments for improvement or promote the article to GA status as appropriate. All the best. jguk 18:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COCOMO Talk

Noticed you had an accuracy question on the Talk:COCOMO page. Without more information, I couldn't say why you noticed order of magnitude differences between your COCOMO estimate and your project actuals. There are plenty of papers devoted to this topic, I assure you! My 2 best guesses:

  1. All parametric estimating models (like COCOMO) are pretty sensitive to your starting estimate for size. You have to start with a good size estimate as a starting point and the model will provide effort and schedule. None of these tools will 'automatically' help generate good size estimates.
  2. Your project seems small - COCOMO shouldn't be used to estimate a project smaller than 2,000 SLOC.

Some references:

DSParillo 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spectr-H64

Bravo on finally writing the Spectr-H64 article! I've been trying to get up the gumption for a while. Just wanted to say well done. Ntsimp 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centripetal vs Centrifugal forces on Space habitat

Hmm, just looking to avoid a 'revert war', but as I understand it, the centrifugal force acts in a reactionary manner on the object which is exerting the centripetal force. In this case, the habitat is exerting a centripetal force on its occupants, while the occupants are exerting a reactionary centrifugal force on the habitat. That is why I'm suggesting that centripetal be used, rather than centrifugal, as the subject is the effect on the occupants.

The ficticious definition of the centrifugal force really doesn't help someone who is trying to understand it as it is, well, ficticious, and therefore could lead someone analysing the physics in the wrong direction (pun entirely unintended). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiroth (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The problem with saying it's the centripetal force that acts in this manner is twofold:
  • Centripetal force acts in the opposite direction to the "gravity" that is felt in a rotating frame, so clearly it isn't actually centripetal force. It might, however, be the reaction force provided by centripetal force, except...
  • Only something that's actually in contact with the outer edge would experience centripetal force. But all objects within the frame of reference experience apparent downwards acceleration, whether they are in contact or not. The acceleration is fictitious (i.e., it's really caused by an *absence* of acceleration due to there being no centripetal force to keep the object moving in a circle), but is an observable phenomenon. The "force" causing it is the fictitious centrifugal force (really a combination of inertia and lack of centrepetal force, which is effectively what centrifugal force is).
Hope that clarifies things. JulesH 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this to Talk:Space habitat as I think it would be useful for other editors in future. JulesH 09:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amiga Exec Kernel

Kernel_(computer_science) Thank you very much to have re-issued Amiga entry in the article about Kernels. I very apprecciated you as open minded person. It is becoming a very rare talent in the world of today, which is full of fanatics and lacerated by religion wars, as in the reality as like as in discussions related to computers that are almost insignificant respect to true life. I feel touched by your action. Really you made a "beau geste". Ciao, --Raffaele Megabyte 06:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Death Star picture

Hey Jules,

I noticed that you removed the image of the Death Star from Space warfare in fiction. You said that the photo was not appropriate because the page did not have critical commentary on Star Wars. Isn't that whole section on the destruction of planets related to the Death Star?

Just wondering,

S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re poll at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Poll re handling of apparently false, but attributable, statements

My concern is whether the new policy statement "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." might be interpreted as requiring editors to include apparently false statements. I was not proposing a new policy sentence. --Coppertwig 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PC

[2] - Kittybrewster 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Barbara Bauer

An editor has nominated Barbara Bauer, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Ng.j 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not threaten me with blocking for reverting the article. This will be reported for arbitration. Thank you.Marky48 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] message when searching on wikipedia

Hello,

Didn't know how else to contact you, so I created an account and am using the comment page. I recently got a message when searching for buck choppers telling me not to add nonsense and use the sand box, that it is considered vandalism, with my ip posted. What is this about? I never added anything to Wikipedia before.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaranh (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] AFD contribution to The Open Organization Of Lockpickers

Hi Jules, Thanks for adding to the content of TOOOL. I am still on the lookout for softcopies of the reports highlighting the achievements of the group. Most of my problem is that the data is referenced back from the group's website. If you are aware of softcopies that we can reference from other organisations/news/media it will be very helpful to save this important organisation from AFD. -Deepraj | Talk 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my only knowledge of the organisation is via the TV program that I've already linked. JulesH 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
For your intervention and suggestions leading to the saving of TOOOL from AfD -Deepraj | Talk 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack sites

Please see WP:NPA#Linking to attack sites. It doesn't matter how well-known a site is. We do not tolerate personal attacks on editors. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no good working definition of "attack site." I'm extremely dubious that a site on which another Wikipedian whom you have made many small and disputable edits vents some spleen in a message board instantly becomes, in toto, an "attack site." To my mind, this falls much more into the realm of "criticism." As the distinction is highly subjective, and as you are the subject of the criticism, it is hard for you to maintain the appearance or the reality of neutrality here. It would be better if you tried to resolve this equitably with TNH, and it certainly isn't appropriate for you, personally, to be taking this action. Doctorow 00:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That policy states that "Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed". None of the links you have removed are to personal attacks, but rather to useful information that is relevant to the articles at hand. I don't have time to examine the entire site for such personal attacks, so I will assume that you're not making it up and there is one. It doesn't matter. The policy only applies to links directly to the attacks, not to entirely different content on the same site that happens to also contain such an attack. JulesH 00:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There are several attacks spread across a couple of pages. I didn't mind when there was one, or even two, but it's crossed the line. I've done nothing to harm TNH, have not treated her differently than I treat other users, have never called her any names, and haven't been vindictive in any way. She, on the other hand, is doing all of these things, and encouraging others to do the same. And no, I don't see any constructive criticism to justify the attacks. If TNH would like to come here and tell me to my face what she thinks of me in civil language, then she's welcome to do so. If she'd like to make a case and press charges against me, then that's fine too. If she wants to use her blog to point out the errors in my editing, then I might even find that helpful. But if she's going to just make derogatory references and spend time trying to find personal information then that's not something we tolerate as part of this project. Name calling and dirty games do not foster the collegial editing environment that we try to maintain. Civility is a requirement. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleting other people's work because you don't like some of the content that's on the same web site as what they've linked to doesn't exactly "foster the collegial editing environment that we try to maintain" either. JulesH 00:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See my essay for commentary on the whole contentious "attack sites" issue. *Dan T.* 04:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leanne Tiernan

As you have contributed to the discussion on the AfD would you lie to help in the expansion of the article? --Lucy-marie 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for remembering to put a <references/> tag at the end of the page... -- Mwalcoff 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)