User talk:Atlant/Archive 5

This is an archive of my Talk page containing the discussion from about mid-May 2006 through to August 10, 2006 minus a few things I want to keep "current".

The current page is, of course, located at User talk:Atlant, as per usual.

---

remorse

Your recent edit of a Tom Swiftie (to read "He's dead", if I got it right) is cool. What it had had was palindromic, however, which fit the pun on "remorsefully". Can you do a Morse palindrome which makes appropriate sense? That would be the best. Otherwise "He's resurrected" or "He's come back" might be better than "He's dead", do you think?

You might discuss it on the Swifties talk page, too. --Lavintzin 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okay. I changed it when the original Morse didn't make any sense. Howzabout the ever popular "Madam I'm Adam" palindrome? (Well, palindrome 'cept for the apostrophe.)

Then again, "He's dead! He's dead!" might be even more obvious.

Atlant 21:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He's dead. He's dead." is what I ended up implementing.

Atlant 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bptdude and Stirling Engine discussion

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I have unblocked Bptdude (talk · contribs) who I blocked earlier today for removing comments at the Talk:Stirling engine page. Apparently, those comments were placed by him in the article and moved to the discussion page by another editor (Lumos3). Bptdude felt that he didn't need to keep those comments around, and blanked them from the talk page. He's relatively new, and didn't realize that not using edit summaries and continuing to remove them would look like vandalism. So, you were all doing what seemed right...and he was doing what seemed right, but I just wanted to explain the situation to you all. Hopefully I've set him on the right track and you all can continue to create a great article. Thanks! Syrthiss 22:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not surprised it was something like that (and that's why I tried to write my first "warning" in a more-advisory tone. The thing that made me wonder, of course, was that Bptdude never replied to any of us, but perhaps he hadn't realized that he could?

In any case, thanks again for making things right!

Atlant 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats exactly the case, that he didn't know he could... or didn't know enough to check the edit summaries in the history... and that some of the warnings were placed on his userpage, not on his talk so when DV8 2XL copied them over to his talk it appeared he had been seeing warnings for several days instead of ~1. Cheers! Syrthiss 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Why does your userpage get vandalized so frequently? --NEMT 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I spend time doing Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and the vandals don't like to be called on their actions.

Atlant 18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, thank you so much for patrolling the Vermont towns recently - these have become a common target as of late so thanks for helping set them straight! H0n0r 03:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. What Wiki really seems to need is a filter that automagically catches kids editing for kicks during study hall. ;-) That's where most of the completely silly potty and penis stuff seems to come from. And it's not just Vermont kids, either. Kids worldwide are all apparently amused by the same things. (Wot a shock, ehh?)

Atlant 11:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense to that, I'm 21 and when I vandalize pages from the comfort of my own home with great amusement. --NEMT 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How nice. And I see you just vandalized another page. Do we really need to go through the whole rigamarole of warning you, etc. before eventually writing you up on WP:AIV? Or could you just behave yourself?

Atlant 17:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have you know I vandalized Bashar al-Assad days before I ever commented here; and I have no plans to stop informing the world of his many appearances in Stately Autocrat and similar publications any time in the future. --NEMT 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ground or Common?

The term 'reference' for the circuit common has a lot going for it. On the other hand, it does have three syllables. I teach an introductory EE course to non-EE majors and I just covered the node voltage analysis technique where step 1 is: "Select a circuit node to be the reference node - the node to which all other node voltages are referred to". Alfred Centauri 23:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Select a circuit node to be the reference node - the node to which all other node voltages are referred to.

There you go! (Also three syllables ;-) )

Thanks for writing back!

Atlant 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Packistani A-bomb

I have put this article up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packistani A-bomb. Your opinion on this matter would be appreciated.--DV8 2XL 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- thanks for letting me know!

Atlant 11:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

For stuffing the battery page - mt internet went down during a save I have fixed it at an internet cafe : chad 212.158.202.207Chadnash

No worries. Another semi-common event is that certain browsers will only edit 32KB of text (which is why the Wiki software warns you whenever a page gets longer). If you try to edit the article with these browsers, they have a nasty habit of cutting off the article at the 32,769th character. (That's what I figured had happened to you.)

Atlant 15:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza stone

Thanks for the additions. :-) I was amazed that there wasn't even a stub on it! — ceejayoz ^talk 23:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! And for the million articles Wiki has, it's still amazing how easy it is to find some really basic topic that has no coverage at all!

Atlant 23:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar

Are you opposed to these? It seems unbelievable that a hard worker like you should not have one.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This overdue barnstar is awarded to Atlant after I was alerted to his continuous invaluable contributions when he reverted vandalism on my user page twice. He remains a polite, patient, and friendly person despite all the things that can and do happen here. MrFish^Go Fish 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not shy or politically oppsed or any such thing. And, "Thanks!"; I try to do my part to keep Wiki nice and spotless and am glad to have that appreciated.

Atlant 13:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi and Wikibooks

I'm not the one who removed the Wikibooks link, but I'm guessing the reason they removed it was that there's no such Wikibook. Follow the link you reinstated, it takes you to an empty page. If you want to start the book, feel free, but if not, I'd recommend removing the link again until such time as its referent exists. --Haruo 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! If you haven't already deleted the link, I'll go back and remove it.

Atlant 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New England "fundamentalists"

Did Yanksox get you to change the page? If so, he probaly did it after I had to show him proof that cannot be denied about CT.[1]

You New England fudamentalists need to leave CT out of you small world and low self-esteem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.159.172.100 (talk • contribs) .

Have you ever actually been out South-Western Connecticut? Say, along Route 30 or I-84 east to Hartford, Vernon or even Union? Do those places really feel like New York City to you? Or do they feel like New England. (Not Boston. New England.) How about Mystic or New London? Does those feel like New York? Mystic Seaport seems to have a lot more in common with any number of old New England whaling towns (for example, New Bedford or Nantucket) than it does with Dutch traders in lower Manhattan.

Seriously, you're not going to win this one. While an argument could be made that Fairfield County is, in mindset, more a part of the New York metropolitan area than it is part of New England, there is no doubt in most folks mind that the state of Connecticut, as a whole is a part of the region we call New England. And all your personally abusive arguments aren't going to convince anyone, and may well get you blocked from editing from time-to-time. You've been invited to craft text on the New England talk page that we can eventually all agree to; why not take up that offer?

Atlant 11:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Your peculiar habit of placing your sig on a separate line may be intended to make it stand out, but it actually makes it more difficult to discern your entries from those of others. It is also much better to combine sentences into one paragraph if reasonable, for the same reason. (Just a suggestion of course, I realize some people are very particular about their personal styles). --Blainster 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions obviously vary. ;-)

I actually do use the "in paragraph" signature when I'm participating in a series of parallel replies (such as Wiki votes). But I definitely feel that this style of reply buries the author's signature, and I think who wrote a post is an important piece of data. Because of this, I prefer to write in full block style, especially when my reply spans multiple paragraphs.

Atlant 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

Thanks for the revert on vandalism (again!) to my userpage the other day. Many thanks, --TeaDrinker 18:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Always welcome!

Atlant 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie Thank You 's

Perhaps this would be a useful section on your own talk page. I could not find an email address to send a personal note.

The style correction on the PDP-1 Spacewar entry I made was appreciated. If you spot grammer or spelling mistakes, please take a free hand. --brucekg 00:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My thanks to NHN for reverting my user page

You're welcome. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 07:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than start a new section, I'll just add it here. You're welcome! :) -- Steven Fisher 21:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dark City

No worries. When I noticed that User:ju66l3r's comments had been removed, I figured it was a simple mistake and put them back. No harm done. Odd that you weren't warned about the edit conflict, though. - EurekaLott 05:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time that I know this has happened to me (an unflagged edit conflict on a "Talk" page). Because I get normal notification of conflicts on edits of pages in the main articles space, I can only conclude that this non-notification is either a deliberate choice or a bug in the Wikimedia software.

Atlant 18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Democratic_Underground

The trolls are loose. What do you think we should do about the Dummie Funnies link. I am certain that it is not an acceptable link for this article, and that they ought to start it a page of its own, or mention it on the Free Republic topic as it is a creature of that message board.

Also, I am an old PDP-8, PDP-15, PDP-11 and VAX guy myself! You wouldn't have any old RSX-11M distribution disk images lying about would you? I want to build an emulator for Linux, but have no OS to run on it.

BenBurch 14:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually torn on the DUmmie Funnies link. On one hand, I think it's obvious linkspam, intended to drum-up business. On the other hand, I'd hate to push the issue and see the PFC and PI links taken out as well, as they're probably the left-wing dual of that reich-wing link. I guess the bottom line for me would be to let it stay and live to fight another day.

Meanwhile, no, I don't have any RSX docs/disks around (and never had much at home anyway, I was much more a RSTS/E guy before becoming a VMS guy and then Solaris guy), but the first place I'd look would be the Bob Supnik SIMH emulator project; some of his emulators come complete with the runnable software. Failing that, you might E-mail me via Wikimail and I'll ask a real pack-rat that I can probably still contact.

Atlant 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me call your attention to my attempt to achieve a defensible consensus at Talk:Democratic_Underground. BenBurch 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Embedded systems

You're welcome - thank you for noticing! Nice to feel appreciated :) akaDruid 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Office Space

Uncommented deletions? You'll forgive me for pointing out that we have talk pages, where a very thorough debate about this is taking place. Also note that the revision in question was related to an earlier revision which was clearly summarized. And putting unsourced material into Wikipedia, which you did with your revert, contravenes WP:V, an official policy. I've been working with Leflyman and we've now got sources on some of the pieces that were questionable. If you have sources for others, by all means source them. Deizio talk 00:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So add an edit summary (audit trail comment), perhaps as simple as "See talk". Deletions without any audit trail comment are an almost-certain hallmark of a vandal.

Atlant 10:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I still dont really get it tho, I'd made 3 edits to the article when you made yours, 2 with manual edit summaries (one was admittedly short, just saying "tags") and a popups assisted revert with the automatic summary. Also vandals dont tend to use popups, which the page history shows I had previously done.

I also know all about vandalism, and one of the first things I do when a bluelinked user with a bluelinked talk page makes a suspicious edit is check their user page. It's usually pretty clear from there if we actually have a vandal in out midst, I would hope that's the case with mine, even without looking at the 3rd userbox ;)

I've never heard the term "audit trail summary" before, is that a tech term from another industry? Deizio talk 11:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite likely that I didn't look at the history when making my decision to revert so wouldn't have seen earlier edit summaries; of that, I'm guilty as charged. But that's one reason why essentially every edit should have some summary associated with it, if only to avoid mistakes by people like me. ;-)

Meanwhile, audit trail is a very common term in information processing. Essentially all transaction processing systems (which is what Wiki fundamentally is) maintain one or more audit trails, although many are automatically (rather than manually) kept.

Atlant 11:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AVconn

I see I did a wrong edit on Template:AVconn but why do you removed DisplayPort?

Armando82 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake -- thanks for calling it to my attention! I've now put it back; could you check and see that it's as you wanted it?

Atlant 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. Thanks!

Armando82 13:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:3RR perfectly well. And you had no business deleting those *THREE* links. One of them is under discussion on the talk page and the discussion clearly hasn't reached a consensus; the other two links have not been discussed for deletion at all and as I'm pretty sure you realize, were the topic of some heated AdF warring not too long ago.

Atlant 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three links violate WP:EL - all of the editors external to your political slapfight have strongly agreed on this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, you should have removed the like to Conservative Underground as well. Otherwise, your actions can only be seen as being politically-motivated.

Atlant 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my contribution history to the article in question, paying specific attion to this edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, since you've been reverted several times by several different editors, you're operating without any consensus having been formed. I also note that you've felt the need to "warn" the editors who revert you. Perhaps you need to consider your own actions rather than handing out warnings.

Atlant 16:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher

May I ask how by any stretch of the imagination the following (re Margaret Thatcher) can be construed as anything other than POV:

"Undoubtedly one of the most significant British politicians in recent political history, she is also one of the most divisive, being loved and loathed in equal measure."

I respect anyone affiliated with the ACLU, but for you to just state that the above is "fact" is absurd. I really hope you are not motivated by any personal atavisms, because-referenced citation would not pass muster on any other "encyclopaedia", except perhaps one put out by Roberts-Rinehart/Sean McPhilemy.

I hope you will reconsider your rv as it is unfounded.

Yours,

64.105.74.207 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is ridiculous.

LailaRookh 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, which part of that compound statement is untrue?

Maggie clearly wrought significant changes on Britain; privitisation, etc. She was also highly divisive, much like her contemprorary, Ronald Reagan, adopting an attitude that she could have her own way regardless of opposition. She's loved by many. She's loathed by many.

So which part of that isn't true?

Atlant 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can say that about anybody in politics who has an impact. I don't think your kind of comment would survive long on, say, George W. Bush's page or Daniel O'Connell's (talk about "own way regardless of opposition." What is more you are disrespectful to a great woman ("Maggie") who dealt with things that would have sent you into permanent reclusion, including chaos bordering on anarchy, disloyal opposition, terrorism and a narrow escape from assassination. It is evident that you are guided by your atavisms because otherwise you would know that any sentence that starts with the word "undoubtedly" is obviously POV and not encyclopaedic. I give up. LailaRookh 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my statement wouldn't last on the GWB page; the political partisans covering his ass would have it out of there in 20 seconds, just as you did for Maggie. But that doesn't mean what I'm saying isn't the absolute truth.

Atlant 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sup?

Sup Atlant? --NEMT 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying-spot scanner CRT

Atlant -

Thank you for your revision on the Telecine article with regard to the CRT emiting an electron or photon beam. I understand, logically, it should be called a photon beam - as it is visible light - but every resource I can find specifically states a CRT emits an electron beam. Can you point me to a resource or two that specifically states a flying-spot scanner telecine CRT emits a photon beam?

Just some of the resources:

"Lines on the inside of the screen traced by an electron beam to create an image called a horizontal scan line. These lines appear on a CRT monitor or a TV screen." - Definition of Raster Retrieved 7/2/07.

"Each time an electron from the cathode hits the screen, a spot of light appears, and this is the technology used on conventional television sets and computer monitors." - World of Physics: Cathode Ray Tube Retrieved 7/2/07

Bartleby Encyclopedia Retrieved 7/02/07 About.com CRT Retrieved 7/02/07 [2]

Perhaps it would be correct to say that "the CRT emits an electron beam, which is converted to a photon beam through the phosphors coating the envelope"? I understand the logic of that, however I cannot find a single resource to support that logic. All of the resources I look at refer only to an electron beam.

Thank you. LACameraman 19:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, confusing beams can cause massive problems for any potential Ghostbusting efforts. --NEMT 19:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cathode in a cathode ray tube emits electrons (so called "cathode rays" before we knew what electrons are), but once the beam strikes the phosphor screen, the energy contained in the accelerated electrons is converted to light by the phosphor coating on the front of the tube.

A flying spot scanner is an alternative to pointing an ordinary video camera (or camera tube) at the film. Instead of taking in the entire picture at a single time, a flying spot scanner creates a moving spot of light that scans through the image in the transparent film. Think of it as moving the film past the face of a CRT 'cause the flying spot scanner tube is just an ordinary CRT except that it uses a phosphor that has a very short persistance. Because of this, any given spot on the phosphor screen only glows for an instant (essentially, only as long as the electrons are striking that spot). Then, a simple photomultiplier tube watches the light coming through the film from whatever spot is being illuminated at the moment. (If you're scanning color, there's a beam splitter splitter to separate the three colors and then three photomultiplier tubes.)

Atlant 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlant - thank you for the quick response. I understand wholly how a flying-spot scanner works (I have, in fact written about it and taught others). I am discussing the specific semantics of "electron" to "photon" beam. In order to refer in the Telecine article to a "photon" beam, I do need a verifiable, published resource to cite. As I said, I understand the logical physics implications, but cannot argue with every resource specifically referring only to "electron" beam. To change to "photon" I need a specific citable resource. Can you recommend one? LACameraman 21:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear google has tons of information on both photon and electon beams, including instructions for differentiating between the two. --NEMT 00:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that stalking/harassing someone on Wikipedia can get you in trouble with the Wiki authorities.

Atlant 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking/harassing? I'm providing useful resources for this fellow wikipedian. --NEMT 01:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta

Have you ever been to Atlanta, Georgia, Atlant? --NEMT 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Polk Audio

Re: your message — Ah, good catch. I saw the "Ȳ" that was added to the end of the word "was," assumed it was nonsense vandalism, and didn't look closely at the other part of the edit. Checking that ISP's other edit, they're skirting the POV line in their enthusiasm for Polk Audio, but I should have been more careful in my revert and summary. I left the editor a message here. Thanks for pointing that out to me! -Tapir Terrific 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Dear Atlant, Greetings from India, Thank you so much for editing William of Baskerville page. Much appreciated. Best wishes. --Cyril Thomas 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always welcome! Thanks for the thanks! ;-)

Atlant 22:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Democratic Underground

Is there any particular reason you only gave an opinion on the first two links? Not that you have to comment on all of them. I'm just curious - Che Nuevara: ^Join the Revolution 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I gave a third opinion as well, but in fact I only commented on the ones I felt most-strongly about. Of courseI I reserve the right to become opinionated on some or all of the others at a later time. ;-)

Atlant 21:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DIAC picture

I belive the picture diactime.jpg is indeed correct for VOLTAGE REGULATED applied voltage. Note how the image is titled for an ideal diac. Althogh a diac with these exact charictaristics could never be manufactured in real life, it is used for this example to show basic properties of diac without requiring the user to worry about practical limitations of semiconductors, compnents, and of course practical elctonic theory. That being said, this diac has an unlimited voltage, current and power handling abilities. Because of this, the power supply, being voltage regulated, is also ideal. This makes it possible to regulate a voltage across the diac. With the voltage regulated beyond the breakover voltage, the ideal diac continues to conduct in a linear fasion once it is turned on and it stays that way untill it it turned off. Also notice i did not include a scale or units for the graph. this is because the cyan and brown line represent different units, voltage and current. because one scale could not accomadate both of these, they are draw to scale to themselves but not nessasrily to eachother. since everything is relative, one could say the brown trace represnts a sine wave at 1 volt RMS and the cyan trace represents 600000000000 ampres RMS. also the breakback voltage of this ideal diode is 0 volts. is there any other reason you find this graph to be incorrect??

Please let me know because i think a time domain graph of voltage and current in a diac is a very important and useful tool for teaching people the charictaristics of diacs and i would like to see an acurate picture of one on wikipedia.

pardon my atrocious spelling.

peace --Gdead 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for VOLTAGE REGULATED applied voltage

Nope, can't be. One the device triggers, you can't force enough current through it to maintain that sort of terminal voltage; the current required would destroy the DIAC. (This is especially true if we're speaking of an ideal DIAC; remember, one of its ideal points is that its forward voltage will be something like 0.6 to 1.0 volts once triggered, no matter what the current.) What the sine wave could be is the voltage applied across the DIAC and a load resistor, but that's not what the caption says it is. So either the waveform is wrong or the caption is wrong.

pardon my atrocious spelling.

What attrocious spelling? ;-)

Atlant 16:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ooooooo, i know pn silicon juction regulates 0.6 volts when forward biased. I see what you are getting at but I just figured the parameters of this perticular diac would be so that once turned on the diac would not regulate any more.

Talk:Boston Globe

You reverted my edit on Talk:The Boston Globe with the comment "don't edit other people's talk postings." I wasn't editing someone else's, I was editing my own, and I though that was okay. I'm a relatively new user, so if it isn't okay, go easy on me. Thanks.--ColForbin 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's perfectly okay; my mistake. I'm sorry. Carry on...

Atlant 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant discussion on talk pages

It's standard practice on Wikipedia since at least 2004 to remove irrelevant content from talk pages. Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, and talk pages must be used to discuss improving the article, not the subject in general. This is routinely done on talk pages like Talk:Israel, and users are encouraged to do it whenever they encounter it generally. This is stated pretty clearly on Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages: Superfluous content should be removed, while content that is salvageable should be refactored. In the case of the content I removed, there was nothing related to improving the article, so it was entirely superfluous and should be removed. --Delirium 00:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It contained data that was relevant to the article, even if it is not currently contained in the article. It sounds to me like the content maybe just happened to gore your ox. In any case, I will continue to object to your removal of it from the talk page.

Atlant 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Brooks at the Telegraph

This is Dave Brooks at the Nashua Telegraph - aka user:DavidWBrooks ... I'd like to pick local wikipedians' brains for a story next week advancing Wikimania in Cambridge. Care to have yours picked? If you - drop me a line ([e-mail]) or call me (594-5831). Thanks! - David

Why did you remove my link contribution ?!?!?!

Portmeirion

You removed my external link to the 3D model of Portmeirion village labeling it as SPAM.

It sounds like censorship.

That wasn't spam at all, the original game SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 2 game is needed as the 3D engine to freely walk in my Virtual Portmeirion world. I spent 9 months of my spare time building up the virtual village from scratch using a freeware 3D editing tool.

I haven't gained a cent form this work taht was only a tribute to Sir Clough.

Please restore the link.

Best regards,

Massimo MASSIMAGNUS Magnasciutti Massimagnus

Wiki is very clear on this: you are not to use Wiki to promote your own work. See Wikipedia:Spam for more details.

Atlant 12:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Period after incomplete sentence

I don't care one way or the other about the period at the end of the cow statement, but I must respectfully disagree with your rule against placing periods at the end of incomplete sentences. This is a time-honored and acceptable practice, although not as common as it once was. If you look at old photographs of businesses, for instance, there was almost always a period at the end of the business's name in the sign. Newspapers used to have periods at the end of the masthead (the Wall Street Journal still does). To get closer to this case, plenty of older children's books would have a picture of a cow with "A cow." written beneath it. —Chowbok 21:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of The Wall Street Journal. masthead, but I'll pay closer attention for other modern sources. Is there a specific recommendation in the WP:MOS?

Atlant 14:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:4ft8in

That was my first thought when I was told about it too. Another editor created it as a result of the conflict over which units are listed first on {{tl|standard gauge}}. Now that we've got parser functions, I think a better long term solution would be to merge {{RailGauge|56}} into the other by a parameter call (perhaps {{standard gauge|imp=yes}} or something like that to show the result with Imperial units listed first). Slambo (Speak) 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing back!

Yes, I was thinking exactly that, but didn't want to get too pedantic so I left it at the "joke" level ;-). Plus, someone would eventually want to go back and edit all the template references so they didn't "default"; in this way, we'd best educate the editors to the capabilities ofthe newly-expanded template. How about just "style=Imperial" and "style=Metric" as the keywords? Or maybe "style=Imp_1st" or "style=Metric_1st"?

Atlant 16:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving large section of talk page

Atlan, I specifically chose that spot for the discussion, since it did seem appropriate. I feel your manner of sending the message a little aggressive. I have communicated with the other party in a resonsible manner. And excuse me for my suspicions about you. Dogru144 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:89.138.23.12

I do not understand your complaint against my changes. I simply added accurate and relevent historical information to the page. Would you have prefered that I cite a source? --89.138.23.12 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know perfectly well why your edits were vandalism; you were adding content that everyone already knows.

Atlant 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that we should remove all obvious information? For example, should we remove from the Independence Day entry the fact that it is on July 4th (this is after the article states that it is also called the Fourth of July) or from the Christmas entry that that holiday is usually celebrated December 25th? Should we perhaps remove from the article on the Yom Kippur war that said conflict was started on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur? Perhaps that the 9/11 attacks occured on the 1th of September should also be removed. In short, where do we draw the line between "content that everyone already knows" and information that should be included? --89.138.23.12

I'm not going to fence with you. I believe what you did was done as vandalism, I believe you know that, and if you do it again, I'll escalate the warnings and eventually, if needed, report you to the administrators; then they can decide which of us has the more-correct "read" on the situation.

Atlant 12:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Daines & Paul Killington

Yes, Maria Daines [3]and Paul Killington are notable. I found a page here about them recently !!!! They do sooo much it's incredible !!!! Really, you should read about all Maria and Paul have done across the globe in terms of their continued commitment to animal welfare and the environment. Here's a link to their most recent BBC interview that was done on July 27 2006. [4]If getting interviewed on the BBC doesn't make you notable, I don't know what does !!!! Cheers,

ZEST 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks!

Atlant 17:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re fluorescent lamps

Thanks for this - it was to settle a practical debate, and your pedigree and knowledge looks impressive. I will continue switching them off when I pop out of the room until I hear anything different Gwaka Lumpa 21:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or don't, this is still something I ponder each time I leave a room ;-). I've pretty much gotten over worrying about the lamp life versus energy tradeoff, always tending to favor saving the expensive energy, but compact fluorescent lamps add a new wrinkle. Many of them, particularly one design we have quite a few of in our house, tend to have that annoyingly long warm-up period before they reach full brightness. (It probably takes 45 seconds to a minute for that one particular design to to reach full brightness.) So I still end up wondering: "Will I be back in a minute or two or gone for half an hour? Leave it on, or turn it off?"

Atlant 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebert reviews

Hmm...tougher to say. I would have to verge on "no", mainly because it opens the door to including links to all of his reviews. And if Ebert, why not several other prominent reviewers? I admit I find it almost tenuous enough putting the Criterion essay links up, but at the least it's a rare label that not only includes essays but has them available for free online, and furthermore has a very limited scope. I'm generally against link-cruft, even including Rotten Tomatoes links, which generally would aggregate all available reviews. Personally, I'd think it a good thing to link to his Great Movies articles, but again, it just seems to open the door to all his reviews, and everyone else's. That's my opinion, anyway. Girolamo Savonarola 12:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're thinking along the same wavelength as I am and so I'll let things stand as they are for now. But again, thanks for including the Criterion Collection reviews!

Atlant 12:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]