User talk:Lentower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notices:
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes.
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for.

 

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lentower.
This is the user talk page for User:Lentower, where you can send messages and comments to Lentower.

Contents


[edit] TOCright

Moved from Talk:Leonard_H._Tower_Jr. (I now know that the discussion better belongs here, then in the Main WP encyclopedis. A newcomer on the learning curve.) - Lentower 20:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • All articles should have a TOC and the default should be a TOCright as the first entry on the top of the page. Looks better in all browsers I've used, less distracting, less white space on the first screen, and a more consistent experience for the user. Wikipedia culture seems to be into (too?) many fine distinctions. And not enough knowledge of good typography and how to approximate it across many screens/browsers/window_systems. -Lentower 04:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOC Comments moved from AfD

  • BTW, all articles should have a TOC and the default should be aTOCright as the first entry on the top of the page. Looks better in all browsers I've used, less distracting, less white space on the first screen, and a more consistent experience for the user. Wikipedia culture seems to be into (too?) many fine distinctions. And not enough knowledge of good typography and how to approximate it across many screens/browsers/window_systems.
    • -Lentower 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no point to a table of contents if an article has only one section. Why would you need a box to navigate between sections if there's only one section? --W.marsh 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the four reasons above. And you never have to worry about adding it later. Yes I know that the ugly regular TOC gets added when the number of sections threshold is reached. But it's ugly.
    • -Lentower 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
And the current version isn't ugly? Your reasons are really all subjective or nonsensical (how does doing something quite unusual provide a "more consistent experience" for users?) Anyway it currently looks ugly in IE and FF, overlapping on top of the AfD box, and there's no point to it, as I said above. --W.marsh 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The overlap isn't ugly. Another point to it for those with small screens or using text only browsers in small windows - a clue that the article is not long. Somewhere on my web sites and somewhere on the GNU +/or FSF web sites are some web site style guidelines. Suggest you have a look.
  • Another reason is this page. The first section is likely to get long longer then several screens. So the TOCright tells people there is a second section. Does the automatic TOC insertion catch this case?
    • -Lentower 04:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
But right now it's pointless, as the only section is the external links... when there are multiple sections, add the table of contents however you want. Right now it is like adding empty image boxes just so you'll be ready in case someone uploads images on day. --W.marsh 05:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Empty image boxes are a different case. Not a good analogy.
    • -Lentower 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's the exact same thing... adding a pointless box that will do nothing until some other content is added, which may be years in coming for all we know. --W.marsh 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resume new discussion on TOC

I strongly disagree that all articles need TOCs. The specific TOCright here renders poorly (at least in Firefox), wastes screen real estate that may be important on small displays or for people using screen readers, and it's redundant when an article only has one section. More importantly, Wikipedia has developed, through consensus, a number of defaults with respect to style and formatting that it is usually unwise to change unilaterally -- even though it is possible -- without further discussion and consensus. --MCB 05:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • There are at least two discussions here. So let divide them.
    • -Lentower 08:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOCright better then TOC?

[edit] When to add a TOCright?

[edit] NPOV and the Hurd

Hi. Please read the policy on Neutral point of view. It's not appropriate for Wikipedia to describe the Hurd's design as "solid," since that is a value judgment that we are not qualified to make. If you like, you can quote people who claim that it is solid (or people who claim that the design is poor), as long as you properly attribute that claim to them. What you can't do is make the encyclopedia say that it's solid or poor. Nandesuka 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I thought that by citing the FSF article on the Hurd design, I was quoting a source. My concern is that the wording as i found it, and after my edit was changed, saids that it was poor design that lead to the slow development of the Hurd. It was not - but I do not wish to be a quote on this matter. Could you change the wording, so the design is not blamed for the slow development? For that matter, why is Wikipedia making the claim that the Hurd design is why the developement is slow, without an adequete quote? Isn't this a violation of NPOV? Can you change the wording to fix my concerns? Obviously, my attempts are not meeting your approval. -Lentower 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Employee field in template

That Richard Stallman is an unpaid employee of the FSF is no reason to modify the template to "vocation" intead of "occupation". If anything it's argument for not using templates at all.

Your Web browser concatenates large Wikipedia articles when you edit them. Perhaps it's firefox? --71.161.220.178 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental article truncation

Greetings. I noticed that you have (accidentally, I presume) truncated a bit over 90 lines from the Richard Stallman article, in this edit. I have added the information back to the article, but thought I might give you a heads up, as it is possible that this may be an issue with your choice of browser and/or any addons (the article is quite long, about 34kb now, and it might be hitting some browser limit). In particular, I believe there is/was a bug in Google Toolbar when used with Firefox, as the following warning displayed when editing large articles notes:

Attention, users of Firefox with Google Toolbar: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and appears to have been fixed; please upgrade to the latest version of Google Toolbar.

Regards, Capi 02:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article

Len, it appears that the article about you was deleted by an administrator who misinterpreted the AfD results. (While it is true that votes and postings by brand new users who may have registered only to participate in the AfD are usually disregarded, there still was by no means a consensus to delete the article.)

I posted on the admin's talk page pointing this out, and asked him to restore (undelete) the article. If that is not successful, I'll bring it up on Deletion Review with a recommendation to overturn the deletion. Best, --MCB 06:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain

Hi Len, can you explain to me what's going on here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Len_H._Tower_Jr.&action=history

Thanks, Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's generally more common to correct links in the text than make redirects. Also, given that you profess to be a programmer, I am puzzled by the fact it took you four attempts to get it right. Furthermore, it's interesting that my nick entered each edit summary, when one would have amply sufficed. I'm beginning to wonder whether you really are who you say you are. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Image:Len Tower.jpg is GFDL, right? Did I get the date right? LossIsNotMore 09:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It was fun working on your article. I think you'll survive deletion now. I'm finished in case you were getting edit conflicts before. I hope you have been well over the years. I don't know if you remember me, but we last met in the late 90s at Lile's I think. LossIsNotMore 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I'm finished. LossIsNotMore 12:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Now for sure! I love this link (search for "GNU"). LossIsNotMore 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Call 650.793.0162 when you are next near Mountain View, please. Here is my daughter and I. LossIsNotMore 16:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template deletion

I just noticed on the talk page how your perfectly polite request was treated rudely, instead of answering your question. The page you need is Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, instructions are at How to use this page. Please let me know if I can help you with this. — Sebastian (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish more editors were so polite. Too many are rude, and not only bite newcomers, but old hands.
The FOSS Celeb template doesn't need deletion. There are better options for it. Hope to get back to that discussion soon. Thanks. Lentower 05:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wan Wan warnings

looks like the wan wan page is on its way to being completely deleted. Ive spent quite a bit of time on valid research to further back up my point as I was unclear earlier on in the game as I was a newcomer that was being attacked. Have you read my article? if so what are your thoughts?Is there any way possible that you or someone can assist me on the research side of this, perhaps I am not making myself clear? Seems like everytime I put a sincere effort to add new research today the warnings keep coming in. your feeback and assistance is appreciated. Merry Christmas. -Ideaperson dec 25 2006 at 11:55 pm ET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideaperson (talk • contribs)

[edit] Miscommunication

I thought you were saying reverse the page move, which I did. What you actually meant is revert the edits to the page, which I didn't understand you as saying. My apologies. It's just that you said "reversal" with no qualifier until just now.--Urthogie 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civic center of the MIT campus?

MIT Chapel says:

Kresge Auditorium, and the green that stretches between the two buildings were envisioned as and remains the civic center of the MIT campus.

Now, it's an odd thing... but that statement struck me as utterly out of accord with my own feelings.

I never regarded that unnamed "green" as a center of anything. It didn't have a nickname. It wasn't a place I went to lie down and lounge on a summer weekend afternoon.

And I lived at Burton House, which means that I walked through there as often as not. I certainly attended innumerable events at Kresge, and walked over it on my way to the Stratton Student Center (just the Student Center then).

Yet in my mental map of MIT, it's just a pure gap; empty space; much less meaningful than the Great Court (now Killian Court) or, for that matter, the unnamed space near the Great Sail, between the Green Building and the Hayden Library.

Just wondering. Does that/did that green feel to you like "the civic center of the MIT campus?" Dpbsmith (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] APO in Australia?

Have you heard anything of APO being in Australia? See my comment from earlier today at the bottom of Talk:Alpha Phi Omega. If not, should I drop Ellen a note? GRBerry 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Palmer

Dude, do you know Amanda Palmer? If Amanda herself added to her Wiki page that she slapped Caleb Newman would you still edit it out? Jimmypman 01:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Jim

[edit] Canvassing

Please note that you are in direct violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing in regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (5th nomination). Please cease your mass messaging, or you may be blocked for a short period for violating policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that inviting editors to review something they had an interest in was against policy. My reading of Wikipedia:Canvassing doesn't convince me you are right. In any case, I won't ask any more of the concerned editors to contribute. Lentower 04:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I for one certainly don't object to being notified when articles of interest to me are repeatedly nominated for deletion on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as this one most certainly has been. Calling this "canvassing" is disingenuous and insulting to say the least. I'm far more concerned about people repeatedly nominating articles for AFD in the hope that this time they'll manage to get the outcome they want because too few people notice until it's too late. --Gene_poole 07:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice it, could you please answer the question I asked at User talk:Ryulong#Canvassing? Thanks. --Eyrian 14:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bee GNU/Hurd

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Bee GNU/Hurd, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pamploma

Am I to surmise that you yourself are a Pamploma (ex)regular? I think that would count as notable! Sdedeo (tips) 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Business Brigade

Hi Len! Do you think the Dirty Business Brigade should get it's own lemma besides the notes in The Dresden Dolls and Amanda Palmer lemma? It became some sort of movement even besides the Dresden Dolls gigs. Like Paco wrote: "'Ideally, we'd like to take this beyond the venues provided by The Dresden Dolls and we encourage everyone to put their souls into their art and perform on the streets in their own towns, at hospitals for children, on the bus, at other events, or anywhere you can think of to add an extra touch of beauty to the world.'". I'm not familiar with the criterias of the English wikipedia-version also I think they're similar to the German ones. I'm currently working on an blueprint for a German article in my sandbox and wanted to release it once it looks finished. But the "English speaking Brigade" is bigger, so their would be more people to contribute to the article. That way I could see what I missed mentioning in my version... Greetings, Konsumkind 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "High" on Talk:Thomas Bushnell

You added a talkheader to Talk:Thomas Bushnell and the word "High" alone in the body of the text. Why "High"? The Wednesday Island 11:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

typo, now fixed Lentower 12:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Merge of Free Software and Open Source Software??

This is being discussed at Talk:Free and open source software and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_and_open_source_software - Lentower 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, what I oppose is a Thumperward-lead merge, for two reasons. The first, which is the lesser problem, is that he thinks the work of the GNU project was of mediocre importance. IMO, his view of history is distorted by the PR departments of "Linux" companies. The second, which is the bigger problem, is that he has more edits per day than all the other people involved in the debate combined, and he's not shy about reverting people until the other person gives up. (How long does it take to knock up 500 edits? Thumperward 9 days,[1] me 40 days,[2] yourself 100 days[3].)

(The first is the lesser problem Wikipedia has a social system that protects against this: the community review and editing process. The second is a bigger problem because such a volume of edits combined with that confrontational approach render the community review and editing process useless, and with that process, Wikipedia doesn't work.)

He would reply with the strawman that having a lot of edits doesn't make him wrong, but that's not what I said. I said he undermines the community process, which is wrong. The current FS and OSS articles are the product of more than 100 editors editing for years. If a merge could be done, preserving most of that work, I would probably be for it. (In the past, I've been the one arguing that the two topics are the same.) However, I fear that Thumperward is going to throw most of that work out the window, write whatever he likes, and it will be very hard to stop him once he starts.

(P.S. the closing admin's job is probably quite easy - a count of the keeps and deletes usually gives them a clear answer. If you're concerned about saving them time, asking them to read Talk:Free_and_open_source_software might backfire, no? :)

--Gronky 02:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Gronky

AfDs are not suppose to be a vote count. The closing admin is suppose to evaluate the arguments presented versus the WP's guidelines and principles to make his decision.

As is usual, your comments reflect your set of unique POVs, that are not neutral.

For similar reasons, I suspect those on the OSS side of this issue would oppose a Gronky-led merge .

I agree that a merge has to be done carefully, respecting what is in both articles, WHILE removing the non-neutral POV each has.

If you hadn't gone to AfD (and now if the AfD fails), the merger can be worked on at Free and open source software and it's talk page.

The WP community has failed here. It has allowed two sub-groups to create two distinct set of articles, that support their distinct non-neutral POVs. Instead, there should be a single set of articles, covering both and the wider issues, including the controversy.

The rest of your arguments are strawmen, supporting your biases. Lentower 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the existence of two articles for virtually the same thing is a failure. I've been arguing this for a long time. There were previously six articles. I got it down to two. (Thumperward and yourself have raised it back to three. Oh well.) But, the current situation is still much better than a steamroller merge by Thumperward (citing your support as creating "consensus").
I think the correct procedure for developing a proposal is to use a sandbox such as a userpage-space page rather than a mainspace page. --Gronky 21:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Granted FLOSS survived AfD, might as well do it there. Lentower 01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you Len !

Thank you Len ! I'm grateful for the opportunity of going over difficulties with spamassassin headers in RMAIL. the zak 17:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwarnersaklad (talk • contribs) 2007-12-01 12:55

[edit] Please use email for non-Wikipedia information

Please use my talk page for Wikipedia matters ONLY. Thank You! Please use email for non-Wikipedia information. Thank You! Lentower 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of External links sections

Is there a particular reason for preferring to move footnotes to the end? It's certainly not the most common ordering on WP (although I know Gronky seems to prefer it), and while policy doesn't mandate an order it does suggest one (see also, then refs, then extlinks) which is followed by most articles. I can see that there's an argument for avoiding the big clump of whitespace on the RMS article but wondered if you had another reason in mind. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The external links are often more interesting then the footnotes. Some people read an article through, without jumping around with the ToC, or even reading it. Some of them will stop at a long footnote section, ignoring it, along with the rest of the article. And miss the external links. So when a footnotes section gets too long, I move it to the end. Note also that there are links to each footnote, so people get to see those they wish to. Not true of the External Links, except in the ToC. Lentower (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool, cheers. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dresden Dolls fanbase

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dresden_Dolls&diff=178432301&oldid=178340916 - I don't mean to be picky, but does the forum site meet WP:RS criteria? Forums are naturally subjective and they're not exactly going to be third party are they? Just a thought. Have a nice day! ScarianTalk 13:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, after checking further, the livejournal/forum/myspace can't count as third party independent sources. What counts as a "large fanbase"? 3,000 members? 5,000 members? I think it'd be a good idea to remove the whole sentence as it's WP:POV. ScarianTalk 13:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I focused the citations better pointing at the numbers on each site. Those are hard nunbers, so WP:RS isn't applicable. Lentower (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

They may be hard numbers, but they have no significance. Please read WP:NUMBER and WP:BIG; these state that a number without analysis from a reliable source means absolutely nothing, and should not be used as a reference. GlassCobra 13:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll to merge "Alternative terms for free software" to "Free and open source software"

Can you please comment at Talk:Alternative_terms_for_free_software#Survey. Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dresden Dolls

Hi, is there any reason why you reverted my edit on The Dresden Dolls article? I had removed much of the overlinking (the album name needn't be linked every time in the table) and re-organised the section to suit the standard of modern band articles. Thanks, indopug (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You lost important info in the way you did it. Traveling right now, and don't have time to expand on what you did. Lentower (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 

Notices:
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes.
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for.

[edit] Sxip Shirey

Hi, thanks for your work on Sxip Shirey. I created that article a year ago and it's been underloved since, so I'm glad someone else has taken an interest! --R27182818 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)