User talk:N2e

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, N2e, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Software Engineering and CS

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on Talk:Software engineering. About the only thing I disagree with is your characterization of CS, which I don't believe just focuses on "programming" (for example, one of my own favorite research areas, process calculus, can be applied to the design of things like software architectures and distributed systems, as well as to the specification and generation of test regimes). OTOH, it certainly doesn't focus on engineering a product either. I personally see CS as providing the theoretical tools (such as process calculi :-) that a SE can apply during system design and testing (or redesign in the case of maintenance) to ensure that the software does what it's supposed to do. Just my 2c. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Alan, both for the welcome and the comments about CS. I think the words you added about CS in the above paragraph will be a helpful addition to the SE page as it gets cleaned up. As a long-time development manager for Software products, as well as many SW/HW embedded products, I appreciate the theoretical contributions of the most serious of the CS folks I've worked with. But on balance, my view is that the SW industry needs more of the kind of full-lifecycle, engineer-a-cost-effective-product-that-meets-the-business-need-when-it-is-needed kind of training & perspective for the folks who are turning out the code. Maybe its a ratio thing, if the current ratio of programmers working in industry is 90%+ CS-oriented folks, and 10% or so SE-oriented or SE-educated folks (and this is just an illustration), then I think it would be better to have the ratio of SE folks increase. I updated the Talk:Software engineering page to attempt to clarify that my comments are more focused on the typical undergrad-educated gal/guy who is working in industry as a programmer, and not on the discipline of CS. (Aside: although many programmers might very well have the title 'Software Engineer' on their human resource record or business card, my personal experience of 20+ years in the industry is that by far most operate as 'programmers' and not Software Engineers.) I would like to make a significant contribution to the SE page cleanup, but just do not have the time right now. Thanks again for your input. --N2e 16:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You say ...my view is that the SW industry needs more of the kind of full-lifecycle, engineer-a-cost-effective-product-that-meets-the-business-need-when-it-is-needed kind of training & perspective for the folks who are turning out the code. And I agree 100%. My own training is as an engineer (EE — with a little SE — and Aerospace), and I find the current state of much of what passes for "software engineering" quite disappointing. I guess mostly because much of what is called "software engineering" really doesn't take an engineering approach. IMHO David Parnas pretty much hit the nail on the head with his article "Software Engineering Programmes are not Computer Science Programmes" (which I've used as a reference on the SE page).
I look forward to seeing your contributions to the SE article. I too would like to clean it up, but like you I lack the time right now. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics problem

I'll certainly have a look and see if its anything I can assist with if you let me know what the issue and project are. Ian3055 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Photos of Irish level crossing

Yeah, sure, I'll take a look. With all the images there already though, we'll probably have to resort to using <gallery> tags to display everything. Perhaps you could add some text describing the differences between Irish crossings and those already described. Slambo (Speak) 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're Welcome

My pleasure =). alphaChimp laudare 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Proposal IV: Categories for military units

Yes, that's assumed; see, for example, Category:Battles by country to see how broadly "country" is interpreted here. We have categories there for city-states, religious orders, militant groups, and tribes; they're just lumped together to avoid having a dozen different "by country"/"by group"/"by nationality"/"by international organization"/etc. categories. Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation

Yes I can interpret 'under C2 of MNF-I". The 36th CAB is under the Command and Control (military)(C2) of Multinational Force Iraq. You'll see at MNF-Iraq that I've placed them, as a guess, without much further knowledge, under 4th Infantry Division. Could you ask First Army Public Affairs: "..which subordinate formation of Multi-National Corps Iraq the 36th is under??" Cheers Buckshot06 04:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Revert War

I have taken note of the revert war currently going on. The mediation is currently going on via e-mail, and I am very pleased with the courteous discussion we are having. It's probably going to take awhile, but I do feel that the mediation is going to be successful. As for where to report revert wars...if you feel someone is violating the three revert rule, then you need to report it here. Otherwise, short of staying clear, there's not much you can do. Hope this can help. ^demon[yell at me] 03:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 36th Combat Aviation Brigade

Hi N2e, I added the 36th CAB to the Iraq War order of battle page. Sorry it took me so long to respond to your suggestion but I haven't had much time in the past few works to work on the page. I added the 36th CAB under the United States since it was a brigade-level deployment, although I think it would be good to add some sort of note on the page that gives a sense of how many Guard and Reserve units are deployed in Iraq. Thanks for the suggestion and I hope you like my addition. Cheers, (Dsw 14:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Hey, got your message about adding the 36th CAB. Thank you very much for your kind comments and I plan to do a better job of keeping the page up-to-date in the future. Feel free to suggest any additions in the future. I think we should keep the additions to larger units, like brigades, multi-unit Guard deployments, etc. I also would like to come up with a way to reflect the number of National Guardsmen and Reservists who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you have any ideas, let me know. Cheers, Dsw 18:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Thanks

No problem; I've just been trying to clear up all the backlogged merge tags. Hopefully the page can get cleaned up before it reaches the end of the clean-up backlog a year from now. Good wiki hunting, comrade. -- DSGruss 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination)

You participated in the first AFD, so you may be interested in the second AFD over the recreated article. THF 12:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Sailwx

A tag has been placed on Sailwx requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jfire (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on please. I will put together an encyclopedic paragraph for the Sailwx article on why this service is important or notable. Sorry for any bother; I was unaware that such was required and I guess I thought the notability of such a real-time mapping service would be obvious, and of great interest to the Wikipedia community. I have used the sailwx site for several years now to get a handle on shiping in congested areas, especially around the time of several of the recent maritime piracy incidents in the contested Malaccan Straits. I was, quite frankly, very surprised to find that Wikipedia had no information about the service at all today when I tried to learn more about it.
Just for reference, Wikipedia does have four pages that have a link to sailwx.info for ship or drilling platform location information, but no page that tells what sailwx is all about. That is why I took the time to creat a reasonably well-wikified intial stub for it. N2e (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Rationale has been added to the article, and an additional rationale has been added to the Talk page. Will now wait to see what other editors think about it. 01:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International standard

On the talk page for International standard you have suggested expanding the article. An anon editor has proposed merging it with other standards articles and seems to be proceeding. Do you have any thoughts on this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows file associations

Hi - This procedure should work to associate the files in WinXP:

  • Place a .ogg file on your desktop
  • Right-click the file and choose Open With -> Choose Program
  • Choose your desired program & make sure "Always use..." is checked
  • Press OK

Let me know if this works! -SCEhardT 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)