User talk:Sj/Arc1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 : Before 7/04 | 2 : 2004.2 | 3 : 2005.1 | 4 : 2005.2 | 5 : 2006.1 +/-

Contents

[edit] Eber et al

Hi Sj, I see you participated in Talk:Eber after I left in frustration.... one needs to provide a source -- especially when talking about speculations. Had the contributor merely wrote what "is taught by Rabbis in Moscow", I would have had no objection to it. [I would still have objected. --Ed.] If you can attribute the POVs he expounds, I for one would be very happy; I enjoy reading unfamiliar new theories... [but] am not planning on reworking his idiosyncratic material. -- llywrch 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Providing Zest with good information, instead of demanding it from him, seems to have brought peaceful resolution. +sj+ 2004 Mar 15


[edit] 47 Ronin

Put discussion on the talk page, not the main page. [an ongoing problem --Ed.] Please see my response to your comments (and other changes) there. Thanks! Noel 23:42, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fixed, w/cheer all around! +sj+


[edit] numbers

Kudos on the numbers articles :) When I have the stamina, I'll try and pitch in too! :) Dysprosia 13:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

excellent. there's so much fun to be had... we need our own local ramanujan! +sj+


[edit] Origins of the American Civil War

Beautiful work on Origins of the American Civil War!!!! It's downright elegant! To get an idea about how pleasantly surprised I am, take a look at the crude 8/03 two-part division of the History of the Soviet Union article. I had no idea how to go about creating anything that wouldn't resemble that breakup. I'm going to use the origins article as a template for dividing long articles from now on. Thanks again. Great user pages too! 172 14:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

perhaps it would be worth making a list of the long chapter-length articles/series (is there one?) and trying yo apply a nice template to them.

I find your solution interesting. Since you fixed the size issue, the article is now going through the FA nomination process again. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War and vote one way or the other. --mav 21:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lovely. (and look at the recent community copyedits! amazing.)

Update : The subject of reorganizing Origins of the American Civil War has come up on the mailing list. I'm really concerned about Mav and Bryan Derksen's proposals. I'd really appreciate your thoughts on the subject. 172 06:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] bf mods

Wow nice user page man! Like the talk comment thing. Yea I hear ya on the mod stuff-things link to random links, disambig issues. I [wondered] if there was a standard like just (mod), (computer game mod), or (BF1942 game). A lot of mods cross multiple engines so I cant use BF:1942 throughout... Mods do get posted elsewhere somtimes though, like i mentioned home front on the halo page, and was thinking of mentioning on some aircraft pages games that have them in it. Its weird with mods rivaling official games in content and innovation. Let me know if you have any more ideas for standerdizing disambigs for this stuff. Greyengine5 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Isaac Newton

I understand the need to break up the overlong page at Isaac Newton in depth -- couldn't you have used titles that didn't violate the naming standards for articles? See History of the English penny for an example of another method. Rmhermen 14:35, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Please note that the nav-box for that set of articles includes the header "[part of] the History of the English penny series" (emphasis mine). The style I am using is explicitly designed to avoid a series, and instead to break up a monolithic article into pages/segments with a unified TOC and navigation at the start and end of each page reminding users that they are in the middle of a single article. I'm no expert in "naming standards for articles" (link?), but here is a link to my suggestions for naming/format standards for long article layout. +sj+ 18:04, 2004 Apr 12 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa reference site

Someone was asking over at Wikipedia_talk:Announcements why Alexa don't list us as a reference site yet... I believe it is you that made contact originally. Do you think the time is right nudge them again? Thanks. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. No response though.
Hi, I noticed you have me down as a minor villian with the tag "imp+++". I decrypted this as meaning "very impatient". This is the only thread I remember having with you.. maybe it pissed you off somehow? Yours intrigued, Pete/Pcb21 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Not at all; you were also once severely provoked by trolls, in public. Perhaps on IRC? In any case, lest there be any confusion, you rock. (: villiany is far more ambivalent than villainy. +sj+

[edit] Docuan tables

Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers : "Docuan table" began to be used in the edit summaries of users (other than User:Docu) who added such tables to existing number articles. User:Sabbut came up with a similar, though more colorful, format, for the number articles in the Spanish Wikipedia, and that is sometimes referred to as "tabla de Sabbut" in edit summaries in the Spanish Wikipedia. PrimeFan 19:18, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Copyediting

Sj- I haven't looked through enough of the 'pedia to select pages needing copyediting the most, so I will go along with your suggestions. I know that you will find German articles written in English, by Germans, in Biology. That was another group you pointed out as particularly needing copyediting.

I intend to post something on the mailing lists, both pointing out that copyediting is different than other types of validation and requesting volunteers.

Some problems I foresee:

  • The selection and access to copyediting reference books. For Nupedia, we used The Chicago Manual of Style for American English, as well as, Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage. And, for British English, we used Fowler's Modern English Usage. In Wikipedia, since we have multiple authors, American and British English are mixed :-).
  • In Wikipedia. our articles are a mix of American and British English. There are major differences between the two in punctuation and spelling!!!
  • Copyediting does not seem to need a scale to evaluate articles, just a simple "Yes/No."
  • Copyeditors do not need content knowledge to copyedit an article.
  • Copyediting will be strange with no author to appeal to for disambiguation of content, clarification of content, etc.

I welcome your feedback. RoseParks 23:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I think it was decided somewhere that either Am or Br spelling is alright, but it has to be consistent within an article. We can note which is the native tongue of each editor, to properly match up final reviewers with articles.
Please explain about the [punctuation] -- I am surprised to hear it, and have yet to notice.... Speaking of which, we should probably draft a quick addition to the current Wikipedia:style manual, noting the convention for all kinds of silly things, such as em-dashes (in what character set? substitute -- when necessary, or just a single hyphen?), ellipses (three or four dots at the end of a sentence?), &c. (use an ampersand in &c., write out etc., or either? disallow parentheticals after sentence-ending abbreviations, due to final-stop ambiguities?).
These don't matter much, but it would be nice to start building a structure which could eventually produce a stylistically self-consistent volume. +sj+


Punctuation Differences between AME and BR :

Sj - I finally got this together. As you can see (below), Garner had the most complete entry. I went to some online British newspaper sites in hopes of seeing these rules supported, but they were not. I really have to find a BRE source that does use these conventions.

Is this familiar to you? [Ed. Note: I have always been confused about this.]

(Based on Garner. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 1998) (Supported by Fowler. Modern English Usage, 1998)

  • Inline quotations

In AME quotations that are inline are set off by pairs of double quotation marks. For example:

He said. “Your next assignment is an essay.”

In BRE, quotations that are inline are set off by single quotation marks. For example:

He said, ‘Your next assignment is an essay’.

  • Nested Quotes

In AME, double quotation marks are used for the first quotation; single quotation marks are used for a quotation within a quotation; double quotation for further quotation inside that; etc. For example:

Joan said, “We will sing ‘God save the Queen.’”

In BRE, the practice is the exactly the reverse at each step. For example:

Joan said, ‘We will sing “God save the Queen”.’

  • Closing Quotation Marks with a Period or Comma

In AME, it is usual to place a period or comma within the closing quotation mark, whether or not the punctuation so placed is actually part of the quoted matter. For example:

“Joan said, ‘We will sing “God save the Queen.”’”

“She looked back on her school years as being ‘unmitigated misery.’”

In BRE, the closing quotation mark comes before any punctuation marks, unless these marks form part of the quotation itself (or what is quoted is less than a full sentence in its own right). For example:

‘She looked back on her school years as being “unmitigated misery”.’

‘Joan said, “We will sing ‘God save the Queen’.”’

  • Quotations that are Interrupted to Indicate the Speaker

In AME, the first comma is placed within the quotation mark. For example:

“Sally,” he said, “is looking radiant today.”

In BRE, the first comma remains outside the quotation mark. For example:

‘Sally’, he said, ‘is looking radiant today’.

RoseParks 03:28, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Awaiting Updates

Hillis: I emailed Ben Goertzel about whether the Danny Hillis article was a copyright violation. Angela. 11:46, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Much obliged. [wonder what happened... --Ed. (article restored w/orig text, as of late 2004)]



[edit] Rail stubs

Thanks for the suggestions...

The reason I'm treating each model separately is so that if I or someone else wants to add more information, photos, drawings, etc. on a specific model, it can be done without causing undue confusion. If all of the models are listed and described on the same page, I'm afraid things will eventually get too cluttered. The articles on the newer models (Dash-8 and Dash-9 series, etc.) will be a bit more detailed as I have better information on them, as well as personal observations.


[edit] Featured Article Candidates

Your objections on FAC are tremendously nitpicky and stress-inducing. I approve of this wholeheartedly ;-) - David Gerard 18:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stress inducing isn't a good thing as it de-motivates editors. Good feedback and finding errors others don't see however, is critical to making truly great articles. With that in mind please note the responses to your objections and offer clarification at FAC Supply and Demand - Taxman 17:07, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of which, replies to my replies on Mission Earth would be welcomed - David Gerard 19:59, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments on the US government articles. I don't mind nitpicking, nor would I be in a position to do so, as I occasionally do the same. -- Emsworth 00:10, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)