User talk:Nigelj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Negligible

Yes, interesting idea to have this page so that others can be linked to it. It may need expanding tho' to cover all possible uses of the term 'negligible'. Perhaps the page should have been called 'Negligibilty' but thats a bit of a mouthful!!. :-) Light current 13:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I understand. But 'negligibility' can be redirected to 'negligible' can it not? Light current 18:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WWW

I'll comment on the WWW definition on that talk page. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breidbart quote in Internet

Nigel, I've cleaned up the punctuation to fix my transcription error. The quote does actually make sense: in fact, it's actually a reasonably succinct and accurate description of what the Internet is: in plain-ish English, it means "the largest group of computers that can all both successfully send IP packets to, and receive IP packets from, every other computer in that group". Seth Breidbart could have left out the "reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure" bit, since that's implied by "equivalence class", and simply said: "[the Internet is] the largest equivalence class of the binary relation 'can be reached by an IP packet from'", but it wouldn't have been nearly as funny. -- The Anome 09:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] stay mouse

I want to commend you on your excellent edits to Stay mouse; what was once incomprehensible and ineffective is now an interesting and valuable reference work. Great job! -- Rmrfstar 22:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electric boat pollution

What am I to do regarding the discussion Talk:Electric boat and reversions happening at Electric boat? There doesn't seem to be much chance of convincing this person that the boat is non-polluting. I'm tempted to revert the article and reply to the latest comment pointing out a number of non-polluting electricity sources, but I'm sure that it would not do any good. Perhaps it would be best to simply let this cool off and revert it next week. What do you think? --D0li0 09:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ajax (programming) / pronunciation

Hi. I agree to leave your edition while we discuss the factuality of pronunciation "A-JAX". Would you be so kind as to start a discussion concerning this on the talk page? -- Kirils 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Template:Free software

Well, I did notice that it was being used statically in quite a few articles, so I thought it'd be good to use it again. It'd be nice to get any help possible, sure. Do you have any suggestions for where to put it other than articles that focus on something involving free software? -Matt 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Dark web

The main article that I am basing my edit off of is "[1]", in which "dark web" and "dark web space" refer to hosts that are intentionally hidden, and talks of them specifically launching SMTP and other DoS attacks (not limited to what is correctly called "the web"); I have seen this elsewhere too, if you like I can try to find more references for it. I understand that it is a misnomer, but it is how the term is commonly used. If you feel that it is commonly used also to refer to the deep web, then we should make it into a disambiguation page. --DDG 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting World Wide Web

I just created a major rewrite proposal for the World Wide Web article which is currently a shameful mess. As you recently contributed to the debate, I'd like to invite you to join our efforts. This article needs some love: come and submit your ideas! -- JFG 05:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunday Times Golden Globe Race

Hi, I thought you might be interested to know that the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race article is up for FAC. If you like, I'd welcome your comments on the FAC review page. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations! You made my Quote of the Week

Your edit summary from Masturbation, "A story about Jim Morrison getting drunk is not what 'historic chronicles' normally refers to", has made my duo quote of the week! Happy editing. Teke 04:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XPath

Hi Nigelj, you rolled back an edit I made to XPath. Sorry for not leaving a comment but the example //a[@href='help.php'][../div/@class='header']/@target is wrong. The part ../div of the second predicate specifies the div children of the parent (i.e. the a element's siblings) whereas the explanation speaks of a div parent. The expression can be fixed by replacing this bit with parent::div i.e. changing the expression to //a[@href='help.php'][parent::div/@class='header']/@target. Hwiechers 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hwiechers, you're absolutely right! That's what I get for not testing code! What it turns out that I meant was //a[@href='help.php'][../../div/@class='header']/@target. However what you suggest works just as well except that it mixes the full and abreviated syntaxes, although there's no rule against that. I've corrected the page. Thanks for your help and well spotted! --Nigelj 21:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The brief definition of the Internet

hi Nigelj,

you removed the brief definition i added and mentioned that it was repetitive, though i didnt actually see the place of repetition. of course, the complete explanation of this concept contains the meaning of "network of networks" but does not give a clear outline. see here:

"The Internet .... is the .... interconnected computer networks that .... (IP). It consists of millions .... networks, which .... of the World Wide Web."

70 words! a reader has to extract the core meaning, "network of networks", him/herself after reading the 70 words. why dont we just give it out directly?

how about this? to give the brief definition at first, then expand it to the above complete definition? to make it smooth and integrated.

regards,

--bbao 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bbao
The repetitions I spoke of were the existing phrases. "system of interconnected computer networks" and, in the other paragraph, "collection of interconnected computer networks". What I liked about those two phrases was the way that the words can easily be contracted from interconnected networks to inter-net, showing the origin of the word (maybe via internetworked networks, but I don't imagine anyone really cares about that).
I'm not 100% convinced that network of networks is the best introductory phrase, as it conjures for me an image of separate, island networks with single links joining them up to their neighbours. I think the real internet is much more intertwingled than that with dozens of routes from any host to any other - hence the fault tolerance.
What do you think? Shall we take this discussion to the Internet Talk page to see what others think? Apart from that niggle in my mind, I think it reads fine as it is now, after your recent edit. --Nigelj 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

for moving it to e.boat

[edit] Nuclear power as a renewable energy source

You've blanked the Nuclear power section again. Please revert yourself. — Omegatron 01:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Omegatron. Please don't be so rude. Have a look at the page history[2][3] No-one has blanked anything. --Nigelj 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UTF-8

It turns out you're right. According to the specification, encoding="UTF-8" is the appropriate thing to put in the XML prolog, not encoding="utf-8". I will make this correction to the other sample document on the Cascading Style Sheets page shortly.

[edit] SVG and Firefox 2

I took your statement about my SVG Firefox 2 edit to offence, I merely noted that my Firefox 2 said it didn't have SVG support whenever I tried to view SVG. I had thought it in the best sake of accuracy to see to it that the article be accurate, I wasnt aware that my SVG problem was localized. Also, my handle is not zoetronic! Zeotronic 01:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wildman7856

I am so sorry. I didnt know about how much time it took you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildman7856 (talk • contribs) 15 December 2006

[edit] Your edits to World Wide Web

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Nigelj! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Shadowbot, that you were completely wrong in this case - there was no spam or even an external link involved. Please ask your owner to apply squirts of WD40 to all the right places in your brain :-) --Nigelj 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet

Please take a look at abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz, some one has screwed it up, and can you also tell me how they edited up there.--Wildman7856 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)WildMan7856

Hi. I can't see a problem - it's just a redirect page. It got vandalised yesterday and someone already fixed it. Redirect pages can get confusing, because sometimes you get to follow the redirection, and only occasionally do you get to see it, its Talk and its History. Follow your own link above, then click on the first 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz' link you see on that page to see the redirect page itself. Then you can get to its Edit, Talk and History views. --Nigelj 14:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morse code example

this seems like it would be better suited to be placed in the Q code and Morse Code Abbreviations article since that is really what is being demo'd

Presumably you are going to place it there then, rather than just going around deleting other people's careful, relevant and useful work? --Nigelj 18:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The examples are not even using Morse Code. They are just clear examples of Q Code. Show me how that is relevant information to the Morse Code article. The examples were long, looked horrible and bring nothing to the article. I'll move your precious examples to their respective pages, but not right away. Later tonight, perhaps. You are more than welcome to. PMHauge 19:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but this wasn't really a priority for me (or anyone else, it would seem). I've moved the information over to both the Prosigns for Morse Code and Morse Code Abbreviations articles. PMHauge 06:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much - it looks great. Well done. --Nigelj 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreskin restoration

Regarding your comment here. It is actually true and related techniques are commonly used in the treatment of burn victims. The reason this can work is that skin cells in the multi-layered Stratum spinosum, like in the deeper Stratum germinativum are capable of mitosis. All traditional skin growth stimulating techniques rely on the stimulation of mitosis in either of these two proliferative skin layers. Another (naturally occurring) example is the build-up of skin in pregnant women or people who get fat. -- I won't argue inclusion into the battlefield, but trust me, it's in fact possible and widely practiced. 87.78.176.10 18:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compact Flourescent Lamps

Are you perchance an environmentalist [spits]? Why have you removed all the disadvantages from the above reference article?. You have succeeded in restoring much that is inaccurate and dowright lies. This is what environmentalists do to push what is basically a political agenda. They don't like people finding out that what they push is rarely the whole picture.

For example, no CFL has a guaranteed life of 8000 hours. No CFL in normal use comes anywhere close. In real usage, most rarely last longer than a normal bulb.

Also: they do not contain 1/5 of the mercury of a watch battery. Watch batteries have been mercury free since at least the beginning of the century. CFLs are most definitely not mercury free.

If you must correct articles, then at least don't include total bollocks.

20.133.0.14 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My detailed response to this tiresome attack is on the relevant talk page --Nigelj 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News Links on Renewable Energy

Hi Nigel. You reverted my removal of 3 external links to news articles on the Renewable Energy page and said "News links are relevant because significant renewable energy propjects are newsworthy." However, if this were the criteria for inclusion of external links, then we are going to have hundreds of external links to news stories about significant renewable energy projects. Why not just include a link to a site which provides both current and archives of renewable energy news such as Renewable Energy News Also, why should these 3 news articles appear first before the link to the National Renewable Energy Lab? Surely, a news article no matter how newsworthy should bump the National Renewable Energy Lab. This was the secondary reason I removed these links since they appear to be spam links.--67.176.26.111 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See talk page of relevant article --Nigelj 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Use preview if you want to see references. Don't clutter up the page for the rest of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.198.97 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

References and citations are essential to Wikipedia - they do not 'clutter up the pages'. Why not create an account, read some of the policy guidelines and get involved? --Nigelj 19:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lifespan

yep, you're right, lifespan on LEDs is relevant, thanks for persisting. reg. Mion 13:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Just wanted to compliment you, Nigel, on your recent work on the lead section of the photovoltaics article. Much appreciated. -- Johnfos 10:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] css links

Answered. --Yurik 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please put my formatting back - I have committed the change on the servers, and it will become available shortly. --Yurik 22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The way I understand Wikipedia, if you want to change an article, you can. You don't instruct others to make your changes for you. If other users don't approve of your changes, they may revert or alter them. But you still don't get to start giving them orders. --Nigelj 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Touchy... Never gave any orders - just politely asked to undo what you have done and stated my reasons. Putting them back would be a revert war - not a way to go. --Yurik 08:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article candidate?

I'm wondering about doing some work on Renewable energy to try to bring it up to GA status. I think the main thing needed, apart from a general cleanup, is to add some more references and/or delete a few short unsourced paragraphs. Please let me know if you have any interest in helping with this. -- Johnfos 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knot (speed)

I wanted to draw your attention to the comment I have just placed at Talk:Knot (speed) and to suggest here, too, that you create a great, authoritative article on theoretical hull displacement speeds.

I also wanted to ask you not to resort to name calling when making comments. My objectives are transparent. They are to create a better Wikipedia in every article I touch. Sometimes that does mean removal of segments that have no place in the article in question.

In this case, while the segment itself is good, it is in the wrong article. But referring to the new article from the old is the right way to go. Fiddle Faddle 19:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone by any 'name'?! But equally, I have to tell I'm not here to take orders: If you're so sure what is the "way to go", then do it - edit the page, create the article you want etc. Don't make up your mind what's needed, irritate me by deleting my work, then tell me to get on and implement your plan for you. --Nigelj 23:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It was both name calling and derogatory. You said "If it doesn't suit an extreme-expert's most pedantic sensibilities." I found it offensive, thus I have drawn it to your attention.
With some small research on your part you would have found the article Hull speed. I have added your table to it. I've added that to the See Also section, where it had previously escaped notice. Please do read about ownership of work on wikipedia. This is, once submitted "our" work. The bottom of the edit screen has the notice "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I simply suggested to you a better idea (my opinion) a different idea (presumably your opinion). Note that there was nothing ordering you to do anything. I can't order you, no-one can order you. People may suggest, people may edit. Fiddle Faddle 08:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet

The Internet article received heavy editing today by unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Jreferee. I found only one small error that had not been reverted. That's neat technology that you used - thanks for the links :-) --Nigelj 19:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web 2.0, IMHO full of buzzwords, etc.

In case you might be interested in what's going on at Web 2.0, I just added the Buzzword tag to that article, along with a plea on the Talk page to also weed out jargon, weasel wording, marketese, and plain old bullshit. -- 201.19.77.39 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a look, and will keep an eye on it for a while again. --Nigelj 14:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur radio

Hi Nigel. The article lead parapgraoh really is an attempt to give a very general overview of ham radio, and frame it in an international sense. I don't think we're trying to exclude all the various interests and contributions of hams. But I'm sure you realize that if the lead sentence were to include every significant thing about ham radio and radio hams, it would be pages long. So the job is to have a description one might find in the opening paragraph of a book meant to introduce the subject to laymen in a way they can understand. And you're right, I should have done a little explaining here on the Talk page rather than try and fit it into an abrupt edit summary. Let us know what you think belongs in the opening sentence, and hopefully give a reference work that describes ham radio (as an introduction to the subject) in those terms. -LuckyLouie (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologizes, if it is due

Things got pretty heated up at the article and if I ever were rude, please be assured that it wasn't intentional, just that the stress got to me. I apologize for the situations, if there were any. No hard feelings, right? --soum talk 05:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)