User talk:ManVhv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 2006

[edit] HHV LAT

I originally added the cleanup tag as I believed that having over half the article text in headings made the article untidy to the point of embarrassment. The text is too jargon-dense for me to parse through with limited knowledge of the field, so I can't remove any of the headings without risking removing important content, and apparantly adding a cleanup tag isn't an acceptable solution to you either, so I did what I could to improve style: removing the table of contents and gaving a message in the comments about what I believed was the problem. The intent was not to be confrontational, but merely to suggest a way to improve the article. If presented with the same situation in another article, I'd do exactly the same and don't feel I was at all "quick" in my comment — which are only readable by editors. Instead, I wonder what you want me to do about my "annoying" comments. Would you prefer if I simply added changes without saying what I did, or why I did it? GeeJo (t) (c) • 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding the cleanup tag, particularly without comment, was snarky. Removing the TOC was helpful. Your comment about why you didn't like the style ("Too many headers") was communicative. The cleanup tag was added without editorial comment and somehow escaped the watched-pages mechanism. At least "Too many headers" initiates dialog.
I agree with WP:OWN, don't get preachy. If you know anybody who would like to add four times as many facts to the page and also improve the verbage throughout, please point them to the topic, they are desired greatly. You know what it really needs? Artwork. Are you good at that? I'm not. I appreciate that you aren't going to contribute to the content, although as a second-year chemistry student, I doubt it would be hard for you to do so. That is part of the reason that a "cleanup" tag is inappropriate. These tags encourage people to make edits when that probably shouldn't be encouraged. Already, any person who is at the level of the article will see that it needs more verbage, and then it will look cleaner. So my contention is that adding the cleanup tag was a helpful idea that was probably not helpful.
As for the Manual of Style, the Wikipedia is growing and it seems like I should try to get together an overall solution for technical articles. Consider that my contention is that technical articles benefit from a variation in style. The intent of my contributions on this article (as opposed to other contributions) is to write a technical article that is useful to technicians and students in the field. If you'd like, we could work together on my idea for how to effect this evolution.
ManVhv 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If your problem was with my original edit and the fact it didn't have an edit summary, why did you bring the problem to me only after my second edit several days later, and in the context of "annoying comments"? I'd agree that a better choice of tag would have been {{technical}}, but I've only become aware of that particular template in the last few days. In any case, {{technical}} is simply a more specific version of {{cleanup}}, and on opening the page it was fairly obvious something needed to be done to make the article more readable. I've gone through and converted half the article into prose, and shifted the more opaque bullet-point facts into the "miscellaneous reports" to be sorted through by someone who can make out their relevance. GeeJo (t) (c) • 22:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Because you became persistently bothersome, instead of occassionally bothersome. Why are you rhetorically questioning my statements of intent, you argumentative young person, you? Why did you bring up how unoffended you are by the subject matter of the page? Why don't you make material contributions? And now you've totally vandalized the article in your attempt to improve it. I can't believe you're an undergrad in science and believe you just did a good thing. You really need to go bother others. ManVhv 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The question wasn't rhetorical and neither is the following. What exactly do you want me to do about this? The article in the state I found it was ugly. Having previously admitted I have no expertise in the area I added a cleanup tag to let someone more knowledgable about the subject have a bash at it - you removed it. After your comment I asked how you'd like to proceed and you stated "I appreciate that you aren't going to contribute to the content, although as a second-year chemistry student, I doubt it would be hard for you to do so.", so I had a go - and you reverted it. I'm honestly scratching my head wondering what exactly you think Wikipedia is. You refuse to have any modifications made to the article you started at all, and rather than discuss it, you list it for deletion. I'm not trying to goad you, or cast aspersions on your work, I'm simply trying to understand what you're thinking in doing this over some stylistic changes. GeeJo (t) (c) • 01:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the explanation. I still don't understand why none of the changes showed up on my watchlist, but I see now that there could be many reasons.
After re-reading some of our exchange, I see you originally misunderstood what I meant about "I appreciate you are not going to edit this...". I take it you thought I meant, "Thank you for not touching this." I believe that is the more usual sense of the word "appreciate," actually. What I actually meant was, "I comprehend that you will not be editting the content..." as in "This is the assumption I am making based on what I have seen so far." The truth is, I was trying to goad you into making contentful edits.
My main dismay at your contentful edit was your "reorganization" and suggestion that a knowledgable person could "make sense" of where the articles should go. That seemed asinine and needlessly pejorative. In fact, the articles you moved were already organized properly. I wonder if you could appreciate the schema? Your major edit really didn't do much to the content other than change the grammar such that it was wrong, and disorganize things that were previously organized.
I agree with you that the references look nicer as the short form, but inlined. You can see that long before you came along, I had adopted that standard in related articles. If you'd asked for that with your original {{cleanup}} tag, you would have gotten it without fuss.
Your point about the "poor guy's" email address is: passively-aggressively pejorative, and, again, asinine. The "poor guy" has already published his email address on the web for years. Look the paper up on PubMED if you are able to use the Internet. His email address has been on thousands of web sites for several years. He already has a solution to the SPAM problem, I take it.
GeeJo, I have been here a long time. I would hate it if I had been a new user you had come across. ManVhv 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Hinduism

Hi ManVhv, you say on your userpage that you ahve Hindu beliefs. You then may consider joining the project. Thanks GizzaChat © 09:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moronic acid

You seem to have problems with the link to wikipedia:chemical sources, could you please explain that? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting phraseology. Sorry that I seem to have problems. It's true that I find your link ({{chemicalsources}}) both useless and distracting. Thus, I think it detracts from the pages to which you add it. In my mind, the problem is with your template. Your 'article' on chemical sources does not have anything specific information to do with moronic acid. Your template would be kind of neat if it took the compound name or CAS as arguments, and prepulated the searches. As it is, you paste in a big, long sentence that smacks of Advertising and is not in and of itself specific to moronoic acid. ManVhv 15:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra nee Gently, please check out what I have done in creating {{ChemicalSources3}}, which you can observe as linked-to from Moronic acid. ManVhv 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that my guestion seems a bit harsh, but the reversions were also done with a harsh remark, without explanation (the explanation of the chemicalsources template can be found here). I have now seen the new edit. I am sorry, I do not fully concur with this edit, the links to CAS etc. are already in the Chembox. The link from the template ChemicalSources there now indeed does indeed not link to specific information on moronic acid. But (similar to the link with the CAS number in the chembox), now it again links to one specific external link, using a maybe disputable identifier (CAS), which is just the problem (however thought of, they are biased, even if they already link to a non-commercial site). The page Chemical Sources has been created to eliminate ANY bias to links in the external section. Indeed, the page is not to it's full potential, but I have posted some questions on the talk page of chemical sources, and questions for help. And indeed the sentence can be rephrased (and that has been done), and we can discuss about that as well. But I guess we should move this discussion to that talk-page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think what you dont't get about ChemicalSources3 is that it is more like a proof-of concept. You are invited to work on it. You can use the template to pass arguments to your page, I think. I have not yet figured out how,I admit. In that way, you can make your article specific. Just figure out how to do it. I agree I am sounding harsh at times over your automated edits. I think it is wrong to make an automated edit pass linking to a half-baked page. When it comes out of the oven, serve it. Maybe a chemical sources box is more appropriate. ManVhv 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, lets cut the crap and work together on this, I did not feel my question was harsher than yours, but well. The problem is, we need more than what you are doing, the chemical-sources page has to be hard-coded into wikipedia, like the Special:booksources page (I have been sandboxing with your solution already, can't get it to satisfaction). I am looking for a programmer to do that. Before that can be done, the page Wikipedia:Chemical sources has to be created (a work in progress), and to give an intermediate functionality, a link on all chemical pages is now provided to enable people to find the links where they can search for information on compounds outside the Wikipedia. For now, the link to CAS you provide is a link that is similar to the link already provided with CAS in the chembox (whether CAS should be used is another question). As for now I would suggest to keep the link to the {{chemicalsources}} template (rephrasing is OK with me, would indeed be nice if it would fit on about half a line, so that it uses not more than one line next to a chembox). Using {{ChemicalSources3}} would give a lot of extra work, which I am not willing to perform (though, you could put your code into chemicalsources, but I am not going to put the arguments in on every page). May I ask you to help me setting up a Special:Booksources-like page, so that, in the end, the majority of external links can be removed alltogether? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry I offended you. I can't contribute code unless it is into the public domain by anonymous, i.e., not under the GPL or using any GPL code. So I only wish I could help, but if I did it could harm both us and the Foundation.  :( ManVhv 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks also, I am also sorry if I offended you. No problemo, I will look around for another programmer (I think the programming is under GPL, anyway, though I have the feeling that I don't understand what you mean there). But all help is welcome, also in the organisation of Wikipedia:Chemical sources or with template things. I have adapted the {{ChemicalSources}} template, I have put in your code, and have made the text of the template shorter. Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What I was alluding to is that I am under contractual obligation to my anonymous employer that I not read any GPL source code. But the Wiki articles and templates are OK, since those are hypertext documents. An alternative is for me to publish code into the public domains or to the Creative Commons, but then I cannot have read any GPL code, due to the clauses of the GPL. For now, it is too much to deal with and I just don't write Wikimedia code, sad to say. I wish they would switch the codebase to some non-viral license. ManVhv 21:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I understand. Too bad. Still hope you can help with the rest of the edits. Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007

[edit] Table addition

I think your changes to the species table in the Herpesviridae article are great - nice work. -- MarcoTolo 06:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, MarcoTolo! ManVhv 03:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kind words

Thanks for the positive feedback....it's always gratefully received.....like a sunny day in Seattle huh??  ;) Ah...you must be a virus expert judging by your edits....and it looks like the virus wikiproject needs a ton of work....happy editing!!! Ciar 07:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hee, hee, thanks. I'm a "virus hobbyist" and otherwise I'm a computer programmer. Over the last year I have been trying to compile lots of Herpes virus research, but there is a daunting amount to compile. I'm glad to see the Viruses wikiproject -- there are a lot of articles under this banner which need work.  :) ManVhv 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi, thanks for the vigilance, sorry for the sloppy edit. The article the IP provided said the same thing, but obviously not a reliable source, I should have been more careful. You know one of the external links you removed was there before my edit, right? Anyway, thanks again, I'll be more careful. Peace, delldot talk 01:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the kind note, see you around. Peace, delldot talk 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HSV (disambiguation)

I have undone your changes to HSV (disambiguation) because they do not meet the manual of style for disambiguation pages. Please refer to this when formatting disambiguation pages, thanks Rich257 08:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. See MOS:D#Longer_lists. I have conformed to exactly the style guideline suggested (exception of "Airports") and this style is in use for many of the longer disambiguation pages. Please check that out. ManVhv 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The page to which you refer says that the category should be in bold, yours is in italics. The example shows no indentation for categories, yours has indentations. So your modifications to the page do not "conform... exactly" to the style guideline, as you state. I don't really think this is a long enough list to be worthy of a breakdown, I think it just adds clutter. Rich257 16:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The list is certainly long enough -- all other disambiguation examples are for ~3 words. Your nit-picking (bold-face vs. italics, long enough or not, revert rather than edit...) is very interesting. Do you dislike the way I have re-ordered the items in the list, according to my impression of their global relevancy? ManVhv 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I bold-faced the terms -- it looks much worse but now it complies. I tried to remove the indentation, but that was awful. Maybe you would like to change the style guideline? I removed the cleanup tag, because really the page is fine as it now stands. ManVhv 16:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You also removed the {{disambig}} template. The style "guidelines" aren't there to be picked and chosen from, and person preference isn't what it's about. Yes, it looks worse. In my opinion the page looks better as a single list.

My aim in adding {{disambig-cleanup}} was that someone from that project would format the page since we can't seem to agree on what the style guideline is, it seems.

If you think the style guidelines should be changed, then please open the discussion, I don't think they need changing. Rich257 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your ability to cite guidelines, but please keep in my mind that you are annoyed that a television station has been deemphasized on a disambiguation page. Why people waste their precious lives writing "encyclopedia" articles on fictional topics is beyond my understanding, but I have noticed that the people who do so are quick to point to style guidelines when they don't like the way their topics are being treated. Thanks for the tip re: the template. As for the indentation, I intend to leave it because it does look better and harms nothing. As for combining the list to one list, that violates MOS:D#Longer_lists, as I am sure you realize now. ManVhv 23:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of history, HSV previously did not point to the disambiguation page. It pointed to Herpes simplex virus, which had a back-link to the ship with letters HSV-2. I have corrected the situation such that HSV now redirects to Herpes simplex virus, but the virus article contains a link to the disambiguation page. Topics such as HSV-7 Television Station and Holden Special Vehicles are too absolutely irrelevant to warrant a top-level redirect to the disambigation page. Only Hue, Saturation, Value is comparably relevant -- all the other articles are niche-interest, local-interest, etc. ManVhv 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


What was your reason for removing the links to pages in other languages? They are also disambiguation pages. Rich257 07:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, that was my mistake. I will put those back. Thanks for letting me know. ManVhv 05:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hepatitis B vaccine

Thanks so much for the edits to the article, it looks a lot better! It could probably benefit from being broken up into sections, but it may not be long enough yet. I think it's safe to remove the tags now! -- MacAddct1984 03:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICP0

Hi there! I took a look at the HHV Infected Cell Polypeptide 0 (ICP0) page, and updated the evaluation. Wow, you have been busy....what a great job you are doing!! I added some comments to help with the improvements, and if I ever find any time, I'll stop by and try and help with those!!! Keep up the good work ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:ChemicalSources3

A tag has been placed on Template:ChemicalSources3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)