User talk:Pi Delport/Archive Discussions 2000s

2006

SAIX proxies

I see you have a list on your user page; I've taken it and amended it with a few more. If you want, please contribute any others to User:Dewet/SAIX proxies; you can also substitute this list as a template, by using {{User:Dewet/SAIX proxies}} anywhere. Thanks, dewet|™ 08:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes; I didn't actually think to check the contributions, I just tried DNS names. dewet|™ 15:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've sent an email to Tim Starling (according to meta:XFF project), with the details of the proxies, and he replied that they have been whitelisted. So hopefully everything's sorted out now. dewet|™ 08:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If i understand it right, this means the real client address (via the X-Forwarded-For header) will show up in Wikipedia now, instead of the proxy address, which is fantastic. Thanks! --Piet Delport 09:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's how I understand it, too. So now vandals can be targeted much more accurately. Cheers, dewet|™ 09:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:for vs. Template:othersuses2

Hi! I think that Template:for is more appropriate than Template:otheruses2 in cases where the name of the article can refer to several things within a field. The recent example is generator (computer science), where I would like the disambiguation to point out that it's not just for other fields but within computer science too. Perhaps a time for a new template, if you don't consider Template:for appropriate markup? --TuukkaH 10:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, "other uses" already includes "other uses in computing". :) What prompted me to change "For other uses in computing, see Generator (disambiguation)." was that it seems to imply that the disambiguation page does not cover non-computing uses of the term.

In any case, template:for is probably not the right template for that context: as far as i know, it is generally intended to be used to link to particular other topics, as in {{for|the rock band|Frobnitz (band)}}, not for generic "For other uses"-style disambiguation (which the various otheruses templates have covered).

I don't think a new template is needed. If anything needs changing, it's probably the title of Generator (computer science), since it only describes one kind of generator you find in computer science. A qualifier like Generator (programming) might be more appropriate. --Piet Delport 11:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the disambiguation page, there are several things generator can refer to even in programming. I don't think it's possible to always give a field that excludes all other uses.

The use case is this: the readers type the article name including the field, find the article in a search, or follow a carelessly disambiguated link. They are most probably looking for a topic inside the field, and now they get one. I suspect that it doesn't help a lot if there's a simple link to "other uses". The article would have to start "One thing generator can refer to in programming is this..." If the readers were expecting a totally different field, I'd think they'd click the disambiguation link at once in any case, or go to the fieldless title. If there was logical inexactness in the disambiguation, I don't think it mattered that much. --TuukkaH 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation request

Piet, Please translate this english article (only two lines) of Afrikaans Wikipedia to Afrikaans language because there is a problem. Please ... - Vaikunda Raja 23:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Piet Delport 03:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Kung fu

Hi there, I noticed that you have redirected kung fu to Kung fu (disambiguation). There has been a concern that most readers who are looking for "kung fu" are actually looking for "Chinese martial arts", hence the redirection there. Also, about 300 articles currently link to kung fu, so everyone who clicks on those links will now have to read the disambiguation page before reaching "Chinese martial arts". What do you think about those issues? Thanks. Shawnc 02:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; i was not aware of this concern. I made the edit without much thought, based on the general principle of directing unqualified terms to their disambiguation pages. I definitely agree, however, that most or all of the unqualified English uses of "kung fu" refer to the Chinese martial arts, and so the redirect is appropriate. (I would restore it myself, but the regional web cache i'm going through has recently been blocked from Wikipedia; until that is fixed, i can only edit this user page.)

Thank you for your patience. I will endeavour to put a bit more thought into my redirect "fixes" in future. --Piet Delport 02:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the redirects, now that my access is back. --Piet Delport 02:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help! Shawnc 07:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Link in the Yamato Article

A link to the Operation Ten-Go article was inserted as a footnote for a specific reason, which I'm sure you will understand if you read the discussion page.

Please do not remove it without gaining a consensus on the talk page first. It is a stop gap measure and should be replaced by a proper footnote to a source outside of Wikipedia, but in the meantime it serves to identify the source of a controversial statement.

Spventi 22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to overreact; it's a simple case of a duplicated link, not a controversy. (Yes, i did read the talk page before making the edit.)

Besides, if/when a better citation about the controversial machine gunning is found, the right place to add it is in the main article about Operation Ten-Go, which is already referenced by the paragraph in question. --Piet Delport 02:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Bos telefoon

Hi, met 'n naam soos joune weet ek al lankal jy is van Azania.. Dewet hulle het 'n "Bush Telegraph" vir Suid Afrikaners geskep, soos van vandag af.. Ek stel belang om Python te leer gebruik. Ek het Clipper ondervinding.. Groete Gregorydavid 14:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ek het myself daar gaan lys, lyk interesant. --Piet Delport 21:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

newLISP article

re your edit today: I think you might be wrong. Look at kozoru's project... Cormullion 14:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert your edit later today unless you provide some facts to backup your claim that the philosophy of newLISP definitely does not encompass distributed agent-based computing ... Cormullion 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. :)

Firstly, the burden of evidence lies on you, not on me.

Secondly, that newLisp allows the convenient implementation of basic distributed systems is not surprising or interesting: it's the kind of functionality and expressiveness you'd expect from any high-level language of this kind. There is nothing about newLisp that makes it stand out from the crowd when it comes to being "an excellent language for implementing distributed, agent-based computing projects". (Unless i've missed it, in which case i'd be grateful if you corrected me.)

If you're not already familiar with languages/platforms like E or Erlang, by the way, you might want to look at them to get a better idea of what actually means to make this kind of claim. --Piet Delport 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Supporting evidence is easy to produce: [1]

'Surprising' isn't the only criterion for adding facts to Wikipedia articles, and 'interesting' is subjective - if you know it all and are surprised by nothing, then good for you, but why should I care? But I repeat my assertion that part of the newLISP philosophy is as I stated. Whether newLISP succeeds or not isn't really the point.

I don't consider that you have sufficient knowledge to revoke my edits without any prior discussion. I haven't seen any evidence of your authority on the subject of newLISP.

I read on this page that this isn't the first time that you've made ill-considered edits to other people's entries. If you're an experienced Wikipedian, perhaps your experience has gone to your head, and you're starting to edit without thinking or starting a preliminary discussion on the Talk page beforehand. Cormullion 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I already read that blog post as part of my background research before removing the claim from the article, and i don't think it supports your position. The most relevant statement it makes is that kozoru "needed a small-footprint, agile tool like newLISP" to write their distributed system in. While being small-footprint and agile are admirable qualities in any programming language, it does not imply that the language is "excellent" for distributed computing.

I am not questioning any assertion of yours about what is or isn't part of newLISP's philosophy: that's not within my scope of knowledge or interest. However, the claim in the article not about newLISP's philosophy; it's about the language's suitability and support for distributed, concurrent computation:

newLISP is an excellent language for implementing distributed, agent-based computing projects, where dozens of different newLISP instances run concurrently and communicate with one another over a network, in response to changing demands.

For a problem domain that's this hard, this is a strong claim for any language to make. Yet there is no indication that newLISP tries to solve any of the problems taken on by other languages aimed at concurrent/distributed computing applications; let alone that newLISP is an "excellent language" among these.

--Piet Delport 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

welcome to WikiProject Programming languages

I look forward to working with you. Ideogram 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise! --Piet Delport 02:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

interesting conversation on models of concurrency

I see you are interested in distributed concurrent computation. I had a very interesting conversation with Allan McInnes on his talk page comparing the process calculi with the Actor model. You might want to take a look. Ideogram 02:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I share your interest in theory applied to implementation techniques, but my theoretical knowledge is still very nascent. It's not an easy field to find learning resources for, but hopefully, Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming will get me on track. (I'm currently waiting for my copy to be delivered.)

Have you looked at the join-calculus? --Piet Delport 03:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't. That looks interesting. Ideogram 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

HCoop

Hi Piet, this is ntk from HCoop (are you a member?). I see you added a link to HCoop on the Cooperative article. This is flattering but probably unwarranted. I don't want anyone to get the impression that we are spamming wikipedia, so I removed it. There were already a lot of links there, including some spammy ones that I have removed. It should probably be limited to cooperative links of more general interest. NTK 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, i'm not a member. I just added the link after stumbling across the website, trying to find more information on Wikipedia, and seeing that it was not listed among the other cooperatives.

Thanks for taking the time to clean up the section. --Piet Delport 14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit at Revision control

Good point about tigris.org and CollabNet--when I restored them before I was reacting to the characterization of them as spam links, and didn't even stop to consider whether they belonged in the article on their own merits. · rodii · 17:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Piet Delport 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(programming language)

In reply to Talk:Python programming language#Article naming - sure, I'm with you on that. In addition to what you've already said, I'd note that the cited guidelines have identical text, and give no justification for the recommendation. The guideline seems to date back all the way to 2002 or earlier [2] (possibly to early Nupedia) and was duplicated on the other page in 2003 or earlier [3]. Seems like a good time for a revision. People seem to like the word "cruft"... Let me draft a complaint, which I'll pass to you for comment before publication. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We, the undersigned, note that programming languages have distinct names like other objects (sensu Wittgenstein 1921) of everyday parlance; for instance, Perl, Python and C#. Convention on Wikipedia is that when several subjects share the same name, as in the case of python the snake and python the programming language, a modifier is appended in parentheses to distinguish the articles, e.g. Enlightenment (concept) and Enlightenment (window manager). Only what can be properly considered the name of the object described goes before the parentheses by convention.

We believe that programming languages are tools in the same way as other software, for instance Blender (software), COPS (software) and Multisync (software); indeed, they are objects that can be referred to by their names and properties. We therefore question the convention that they be treated differently in having article names such as Python programming language, when the correct name of the language is simply "Python".

We include in this proposal the suggestion that the same convention be adopted for all communication protocols, machine or human, including written and spoken language, since we see no case for these being different, and indeed, existing Wikipedia guidelines do not state any reason for the convention of omitting the parentheses in these cases. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to amend, copyedit, whatever, probably just edit it here and send me a quick message when you have a version you can agree with. If you don't make any alterations, feel free to post this in an appropriate place - maybe here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Cheers. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Piet Delport 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'll take the above as agreement and add your signature to the proposal. Please confirm whether this is okay, or go ahead and change it. It's now posted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Proposal: parentheses for programming and other languages. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. We should probably draft a replacement for the current policy/guideline pages; i'm a bit strapped for time at the moment, though. --Piet Delport 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone especially needs to draw up the list of articles that need to be changed when the policy change becomes accepted. The opposition will make its appearance once we start moving articles to the new names. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Googling Wikipedia for "* programming language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" seems to be a good first approximation. --Piet Delport 22:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Do we know how quickly Google refreshes? If it refreshes quickly enough, we may not need to compile the list. Otherwise, it will be better to have a list to avoid us checking entries that have already been changed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but probably a day or more, at least. There's always the Wikipedia search and categories, though. --Piet Delport 09:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers University

Do you think I could ask you to do an Afrikaans translation of the first introductory paragraphs of the Rutgers University article? —ExplorerCDT 02:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Here, or as a stub on the Afrikaans Wikipedia? --Piet Delport 09:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• As a stub, if you wouldn't mind. If you're up to translating the whole thing when we get the English article done, I'd be much appreciated, but a little bit is more than enough. Thanks. Anything you need in any of the languages I speak (see user page), I'll be glad to accomodate. —ExplorerCDT 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Hand (disambiguation)

Heh, no problem. Sean Black started saying in the admin channel that he was removing disambig-cleanup tags, so I had to hurry up and save what I could... (sean's a good guy, he's just not a frothing MOSDABer). --Interiot 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Generators and Ruby

Piet, can you take a look at my question about why you think that Ruby would not support the concept of Generators and hence should not be listed as a supporting language? See Talk:Generator (computer science)#Generator in Ruby --The emm 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Piet Delport 12:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sascha and Miro

"It's a dirty work, but someone has to do it." :-D - Matias 18:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Programming language disambig.

I've continued the inquiry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages regarding the use of ( ) to disambiguate programming langauges. If you would weigh in, it would be appreciated. atanamir 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Grand Illusion

I think you should stop redirecting this to the disambiguation page. The 1937 Renior film is far more important than two obscure albums by obscure rock bands and a seattle movie theatre, and is the primary use of the phrase/title. While I think it was wrong to move Grand Illusion to Grand Illusion (film), I see your reasoning. But Grand Illusion should redirect to the more notable/important film (which mentions the disambiguation page via a disclaimer), rather than a disambiguation page seeking to aggrandize three insignificant other articles. —ExplorerCDT 19:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll have an extremely hard time defending your position as NPOV. (Seriously: Styx is an "obscure rock band", and their triple platinum breakthrough album an "insignificant article"?) It's not relevant how famous or important the old French film might be: there's simply nothing about it that somehow makes it a primary topic for something as open-ended as the title "Grand Illusion".

(Also: "seeking to aggrandize"? It's just a standard disambiguation page, mate; you're imagining any such intention behind it.) --Piet Delport 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the thing about "primary topic" guideline on the disambiguation page. Your move of Grand Illusion to Grand Illusion film while bold was disingenuous. The disambiguation disclaimer at the top of it was sufficient. I'm currently asking an admin to move it back. Compared to the 1937 film, the other articles under the title Grand Illusion are obscure, it's not POV, it's fact.—ExplorerCDT 22:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand your vehemence about an issue as benign as this.

I assure you, i'm quite familiar with the guidelines in question, which is why i don't think the film qualifies, however notable it is. Things like school and Rome have clear primary topics. "Grand Illusion", on the other hand, is the title of multiple independently notable works; the film simply does not have any special, overriding claim to it. (It's not even the film's real French title...) --Piet Delport 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(providing a third opinion) Without a doubt, the article should redirect to the disambig page. the film has no clear entitlement to the name, in fact a google search revels at least two other items "grand illusion" could refer to. so please change appropriately and stop reverting the change. Stuph 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

MoS:DAB and the Still Life disambig page.

Meh. I don't want to be annoying, because anyone working on cleaning up disambig pages is a good thing, but I rather disagree with some of your changes for the disambig page at Still Life (disambiguation). Normally, I would just shrug it off, but since your contribs indicate you do quite a bit of disambig work... Anyway, I disagree with removing the periods at the end, for reasons I've stated on the talk page of MoS:DAB. Unfortunately for me, not enough other people seem to want to overturn that guideline, so I'm not here to refight that battle. However, I would like to comment on the style you seem to use for entries in general. Two things- one for your album sections. You have, for example:

• Still Life, by A. S. Byatt
• Still Life (Aqualung album), by Aqualung

My version was:

• Still Life, a novel by A. S. Byatt.
• Still Life (Aqualung album), an album by Aqualung.

A subtle thing, but since the idea behind the list is that you can complete the sentence "Still life can refer to, in music, (ENTRY)." If you use a preposition like "by Aqualung," then you should really leave out the comma entirely as you are creating "'Still Life' by Aqualung" as one phrase. I prefer to keep the comma, myself, but then it sounds considerably more natural to have the "is a" type finishing to the phrase, even if it is seemingly redundant with the parenthetical note. Plus, it keeps consistency with those list items that really do need the "a blank" phrasing.

Secondly. As the MoS:DAB examples themselves indicate, if there's no article to link to but merely a description, a "NAME" isn't necessary. As in:

School may refer to:

• A swarm of fish

Not:

• School, a swarm of fish

Obviously this doesn't apply if it's a related word not the actual one, but still. Since it appears that there will never be an article on this random unaired television series, but it's the same name as the page ("still life" and not "Still life with flowers" or something), I personally prefer not to have anything there. So:

• An unaired 2003 US television series.

Over

• Still Life, an unaired 2003 US television series.

All that said, it's good to see another editor helping clean up disambig pages. You also caught an error I left in my version- I'd left the italicizing of the video game entry wrong before, so thanks. SnowFire 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'll attempt to explain my reasoning:

• Qualifiers: "Foo (thing), by somebody" versus "Foo (thing), a thing by somebody"

Like other editors, i feel the repetition of the clarifier in the description can get, well, a bit repetitive. (Especially when you have a whole bunch of albums in a row, for example.) I generally stand back and ask myself: Does this actually help the user find the page they're looking for, or is it just adding clutter to what could be a more compact and unique entry? To me, this is the golden rule for deciding what goes into a description.

(Obviously, entries without clarified titles should always get them in their description, still.)

• Trailing periods

I agree with the convention of leaving them out for pretty much the same reason as above: entries appear cleaner without them, to me. (Besides, it's in accord with Wikipedia's main style guide for bulleted lists.)

• "Still Life, An unaired 2003 US television series"

You are right that this kind of entry doesn't make sense if there's not going to be an article. I've gone back and added an appropriate redlink (which i seem to have missed the first time around), but if it goes long enough without an article, and there's no evidence of potential notability, then it can probably be removed.

--Piet Delport 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's no big deal about different styles, but there are cases where even a redlink is unreasonable, and in those, I prefer to not repeat- heh, which is exactly the same argument you use for leaving out "a blank" after entries. I will say that that's a nice thing when categories are important- if you have "in music," then you don't need to add "by the band foo" rather than just "by foo."

As for the convention on bulleted lists, I would say the same thing, except in support of my position. Since each entry is a complete sentence (when added to the introduction), periods should always be added. SnowFire 21:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ocean (dab)

Hi, thanks for cleaning up Ocean (disambiguation) and for putting back the commas that I had mistakenly removed. But I don't agree you putting "Billy Ocean" back in, so, instead of senselessly doing a rv, I thought I'd tell you I left a note on Talk:Ocean (disambiguation) with my reasons. Thank you. --maf 12:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; i responded over there. --Piet Delport 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Slight omission

You forgot to mention that you're a loser on your user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.91.220 (talk • contribs)

Eternal September note

The "non-sensical" link you had removed from Eternal September (which has subsequently returned to the article) was an example of "Software programs exist which display the date in accordance with this reckoning — for instance, September 4086, 1993 for the date November 8, 2004." - Check the site out again and look at the timestamps of posts. Search4Lancer 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Given that description, i was expecting a nice, sober web page describing just such a software program (a date conversion tool?), instead of a free-form Japanese BBS with a "Release Emergency Mittens" button and thread topics like "Frankpa whips it out".

Maybe the linking context could be tweaked a little? --Piet Delport 01:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Roedy Green

Speedy deleting the article was a mistake, as on a second look it does claim notability. However I point out to you that the point of a {{hangon}} tag is not to stop an article from getting deleted altogether but to indicate that there is a discussion on the talk page - which did not exist when I looked at it (apart from the single post in 2004 and a post in July). I have nominated the article for WP:AfD so it can be properly debated there.--Konst.able 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It didn't exist because i was busy writing it. :) (Hence the {{hangon}} tag...)

Thanks for AfDing it. --Piet Delport 10:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bookworm

I don't like silly edit wars, so I haven't rv'd your re-ordering, but can't for the life of me see why you've just popped the overwhelmingly most common meaning of the term below (1) a worm which doesn't really exist, and (2) an obscure comic strip which is itself named in reference to the "overwhelmingly most common meaning", and an even more obscure game where again the names "works" mainly because of the primary meaning. Please consider moving it back to the top of the list, or at least leaving it there if I do this sometime in the near future --Snori 19:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not a popularity contest or a collection of dictionary definitions. They're a navigational aid, intended to point readers at the articles they are looking for.

The common dictionary definition of "bookworm" does not have any article; it appears on the disambiguation page only because the entry can link to the larger book article, which briefly discusses "bookworm". Please see the Manual of Style, specifically #URL anchor notation and #Order of entries, for how and why this is so.

With that out of the way, thanks for approaching this civilly. --Piet Delport 12:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction! It does have article, at Bibliophilia (cleverly hidden in the disambig page's "see also" section, among other places). I created an appropriate primary topic link for it. --Piet Delport 12:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Uhm ek wonder maar net waar naby Kaapstad jy woon... --Adriaan90 14:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Durbanville/Bellville area. --Piet Delport 16:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool... ons het eers in Boston, Bellville gewoon, maar nou woon ons in Strand. Dis nogal crap hier. Hoe oud is jy? --Adriaan90 20:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

23. Jy? --Piet Delport 22:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool... ek's 15 O.O --Adriaan90 08:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Riptide

I'm new to this process and see that there is a special use for disambig pages. However, I did a Google search for rip tide and the wiki page came up, which does not state that a rip tide is a distinctly different phenomenon from a rip current.Lascorl 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)a NOAA scientist.

The disambiguation page doesn't say they're different, but it also doesn't say they're the same.

The purpose of disambiguation pages is not to define, but to include just enough information to let the reader find the right article. A rule of thumb for what to include: each bit of information about an article should directly serve to distinguish it from another target article on the same disambiguation page.

In this case, the distinction between rip current and rip tide (and undertow, for that matter) does not serve any disambiguatory purpose; they have same target article. However, if rip tide ever gets enough written about it to get split off into its own article, the disambiguation page would have to distinguish them.

Anyway, i've reworded the summary line to be more general and inclusive of both phenomena. I hope this is OK, and that i haven't put you off editing Wikipedia! --Piet Delport 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seed7

Hello, at Talk:Seed7 you wrote (referring to the deletion of the Seed7 page) that "For the record, i agree that the article should be kept.". There is a discussion about the deletion of Seed7 now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed7. It would be nice to share your opinion (and vote) in this discussion. Zron 08:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! --Piet Delport 11:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Twisted fix

Thanks for cleaning up my edit of a few days ago; it was a case of editing while sleepy; I thought I fixed it up but must've forgot to hit "Save page" or just hit "Show preview" and thought "Oh, that looks good!" MeekMark 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem! --Piet Delport 18:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Emo semi-protection

Thanks! As per Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy#How, can i simply replace the {{sprotected}} header with the appropriate categorization, or is there a protocol involved? --Piet Delport 06:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by appropriate categorization. Can you elaborate? -- tariqabjotu 06:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing the template, and adding Category:Semi-protected.

I'm pretty sure this is OK (according to the policy); i just wanted to confirm. --Piet Delport 06:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's probably not a good idea to do that though as the article won't be semi-protected permanently. -- tariqabjotu 07:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How so? The vandalism has been going on forever, and will almost certainly just continue if the page gets unprotected.

Emo (slang) faces exactly the same problem, and it is under long-term semi-protection. (If anything, Emo has more of an excuse to be semi-protected, since it's a stable-content disambiguation page: legitimate edits to it are already very infrequent, and of those edits, almost none are made by non-regular users. In other words, the potential negative impact of long-term semi-protection is about as low as it's possible to get.)

I realize how heavy a step semi-protection is, but i hate seeing how much valuable anti-vandalism time this article sucks up, compared to how little impact long-term semi-protection will have on its legitimate editing. --Piet Delport 08:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Medcab

Hey, I'm your friendly cabal mediator, I'm looking into the case, and if you accept me as the mediator I hope to see you on the talk page. - Francis Tyers · 15:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Piet Delport 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, as Wizardry is refusing to take part I'm afraid this mediation cannot go any further. You have been civil and reasonable in your requests and this will reflect well on you should you choose to take this further in the WP:DR process. I would probably recommend doing an RfC next. Or possible ask for a formal mediation. If you do choose to set up an RfC I will be more than happy to comment. Please leave me a note on my talk page. - Francis Tyers · 14:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like escalation has been averted. Thanks again for stepping in. --Piet Delport 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

2007

Roedy Green

Regarding you changing of the web addresses: I could not access any of the pages that you had in your edit. So I reverted it to the version that has legimate links. As for the removal of the controversial material: I agree totally. Until that info is given a source, I think it should stay off. Cynrin 17:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Right; i was about to apologize on your talk page. :) I just saw the last few days' vandalism now, and incorrectly thought i was restoring the right version. Thanks! --Piet Delport 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Iron Savior (album)

Hello, I was adding fair use rationales to album cover images when I was blocked and told I couldn't do that because the article about the album had to specifically mention the album cover's artwork. I went and put in mentions of the artwork in some of the articles, like Iron Savior (album), but you removed it as POV, which apparently may lead to the deletion of the image (which I think is ridiculous and unnecessary). --Strangerer (Talk) 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Who told you this? :) I'm pretty sure it's a mistake: you don't need to comment on the album cover if it's used as part of identifying the subject of the article. --Piet Delport 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

inconsistent removal of dab page "see also" sections

What's up with your inconsistency (hypocracy) in deleting "see also" sections from dab pages? This edit to Vampire (disambiguation) shows you leaving in the links to Vamp (a root word of "vampire") yet on other pages, like Inner space and Outer space (disambiguation), you remove the links to the basic words of inner and outer (which I have since restored). Why? These aid in dab page navigation. Please don't remove them! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your addition was inconsistent: Vamp is a plausible destination for "Vampire"; Inner and Outer are not plausible destinations for "Inner space" and "Outer space".

This is how disambiguation works on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, work constructively towards changing it: please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Piet Delport 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, are you seriously unable to comprehend how one can get "inner space" from "inner"? Yet you (or others--who knows now since you're all the same incessant gang) seem to think Im and Pact don't deserve to be linked to on Impact (in its "See also" section). More inconsistent, contradictory hypocracy... Hard to "work constructively towards changing it" when the people involved don't have a clue as to how linguistics works... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course Im and Pact should not be linked from Impact. You alone are the only person that seems to think it should. --Piet Delport 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course why? You have continually failed to provide reasons while I, on the other hand, have provided numerous reasons constantly. <blink> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The converse is true: your reasons have consistently been revealed baseless, and countered, by a growing crowd of editors impacted by your loose cannon editing.

Your refusal to accept this and move on is causing all this trouble. --Piet Delport 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To tag in on this one; there is an ongoing RfC on Eep that has led to a number of blocks. if you would like to give your comments you are more than welcome to. Thanks -Catneven 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

<eyeroll> Typical gang-up-on mentality, as usual... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called consensus. Your personal beliefs do not give you license to override everyone else, ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and engage in disruptive editing. --Piet Delport 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure they do; it's called ignore all rules and consensus can change. Duh. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read what "Ignore all rules" does not mean, and Ignore all uses of "ignore all rules".

The IAR policy gives you a license to improve Wikipedia, not disrupt it and ignore consensus. --Piet Delport 06:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over image sizes

I have to admit that your desire to edit war on Thread (computer science) over an image size is...crazy.

Since you want to reference the MoS, here's something for you to chew on:

However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: ...On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.

I certainly contend that "Thread" is much more readable with a larger image and it, doubly, serves as the lead image. I see two compelling reasons to set an image size against your one reason for concern about the antiquated 800x600 resolution. Cburnett 15:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war? I'm sorry, i assure you that was absolutely not my intention. I was following the guidelines in what appeared to be a routine way.

To me, it makes a lot more sense to rely on users' preferred image sizes: the 300 pixel image seems too large over here, and will surely seem too small on higher resolutions. I can definitely understand picking a specific good size to fit a raster image, but this is a scalable SVG; there should be no reason to prefer a specific fixed resolution.

If you still feel strongly about setting it, though, i won't stop you. --Piet Delport 17:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Adventures Unlimited

Why is the addition of these links in the "see also" section "not pertinent" despite such links being "pertinent" on name dabs like John Winston and other "personal name" articles? Hypocrisy... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

They aren't: you added them to John Winston. --Piet Delport 01:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Please desist in your repeated removal of other people's comments from discussions. Uncle G 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not removing your comments, i'm undoing your unnecessary and non-standard reformatting of the entire discussion. Please add your comment to the discussion normally. --Piet Delport 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are ill-informed about what is standard. You erroneously think that colons are the one "normal" format. That is wrong. My comment was added perfectly normally, moreover. I suggest that you gain more and wider experience of talk pages and learn more about what wiki markup actually results in. There are many places where asterisks are the norm, as well as good reasons for large discussion pages to use asterisks in preference to colons. Uncle G 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not ill-informed about the talk page guidelines: "Normally colons are used, not bullet points". The bullet usage on AfD and other specialized discussions do not extend to general talk page and noticeboard discussions.

With respect to your greater contribution history, this is a lame thing to cause a fuss about. --Piet Delport 10:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(Context, for the record.) --Piet Delport 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Closures

I see you removed my sicp comment on closures. You say there is no reason to single out sicp, but if there are other books that explain implementation of closures, they could be added, why not? Also, the full text of sicp is online, this is in my humble opinion a useful thing to add. I understand your point, but I see no reason to remove an useful bit of information.190.31.67.222 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it were to be added, it would belong in the external links section instead of in the main article flow. (However, the current external links section is already in need of trimming: see Wikipedia is not a repository of links.). --Piet Delport 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue it is a far more important external link that most that there are right now. In fact most of the article could use trimming, there are far too many mentions on closures in every langugage. Maybe, if one wanted to keep this information, a separate article (Closures in various languages) could be added? Anyway, I see no point in not having a SICP mention anywhere in the article. 190.31.234.17 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page redirects

(in reply to User talk:DESiegel#Talk page redirects --Piet Delport)

Yes I do think that redirecting these was a good thing. Strictly speaking they weren't "orphaned" the relevant article pages had been converted into redirects to the newly created dab pages. Therefore i made the talk page redirects follow the article page redirects -- much simpler and cleaner than deleting them. Not a huge matter, and if you want to ask another admin to delete them, i'm not going to raise a fuss, but my feeling is that when an article page winds up converted to a redir, the most normal result is for its talk page to winds up with a matching redir to the corresponding talk page. DES ^(talk) 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant "orphaned" in the sense of Wikipedia:Orphan: the incoming links have been disambiguated.

Generally speaking, there is never a reason redirect a talk page somewhere just because the corresponding article redirects there: moving a (talk) page creates a redirect, but this is only to avoid breaking existing links. Once this motivation is removed (by disambiguating incoming links, and then creating a new redirect) there is no reason to keep the old talk redirect, and definitely no reason to change it as well. (Same as with other explicit redirect pages: their talk pages are content, or redlinks, not matching redirections.) --Piet Delport 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you don't object, i'll request them again. --Piet Delport 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pinion

Hi Piet:

I notice you changed the disambiguation page for Pinion to say "Flight feather, the outermost primary feathers on a bird's wing". However, this isn't worded correctly. While the article pointed to is indeed flight feather, the term pinion only refers to a handful of those feathers -- out of the dozens each bird has. Is there a problem with leaving the page as it was before the most recent change, with the term "Pinion" pointing to the flight feather article? I checked some other disambiguation pages, and they often show the same term used to point to multiple articles... (I won't change it back until we've agreed on what will work best.) MeegsC | Talk 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake; thanks for pointing it out. I made the change mostly in passing, to avoid piping (which is discouraged on disambiguation targets).

I changed the entry to read Pinions, the outermost flight feathers on a bird's wing: i hope that's OK. (I also added an entry for Pinioning, while there.) --Piet Delport 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I didn't know about piping being discouraged on disambiguation pages, so thanks for correcting that... MeegsC | Talk 16:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help. :) --Piet Delport 00:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mystery (disambiguation)

Regarding your reversion, I tried linking to the relevant articles, but you removed them! Then I made a list of mystery-related television shows and it was deleted! Now I made a category for such shows and you remove the link to it and tell me to link to the relevant articles! Uh, hello--contradiction/hypocrisy, anyone?! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity; i meant "add the category link to the relevant articles", instead of to the disambiguation page, (as implied by "not for topical navigation"). --Piet Delport 15:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you bothered to actually go to the category you would see the articles already are categorized (the correct term, incidentally) there, obviously. However, the link between that category and making the connection to "mystery" is not established. Do I need to add the category to mystery or will you revert that too? <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You can try, but it's tenuous: don't be surprised if it's among the first links to be removed during cleanup.

If a Mystery television article ever gets created, that would be the place to put it. (Compare Mystery film.) --Piet Delport 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

How is making comments on discussion pages vandalism? Perhaps you should learn how to do your job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.153.125 (talk • contribs)

My user page is not a discussion page.

Your comments, such as "your posting has a lack of talent" and "metal fans are idiots", have no relevance or value to discussions about improving Wikipedia articles: this kind of deliberately unconstructive behavior is considered to be Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Piet Delport 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, your user talk page tells me all i need to know about your character. Buh bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.153.125 (talk • contribs)

tagging redirects

Hi Piet,

When you're retagging redirects, can you please consider whether the tag should be added or substituted for the present tag? In my opinion, a redirect from lower case to a disambiguation page should be tagged with both {{R from lowercase}} and {{R to disambiguation page}}, rather than substituting one for the other, as you did here.

Cheers, Hesperian 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't, actually: {{R to disambiguation page}} is for redirects that are used by links that should always point to the disambiguation page, to distinguish them from other redirects (whose incoming links should be disambiguated).

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages for more. --Piet Delport 04:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point in general, but in this specific case you're bidding against yourself. Coast banksia redirects to Coast Banksia, which is a disambiguation page. Where do you suppose the former should redirect, if not to the latter? My view is that Coast banksia quite properly redirects to the disambiguation page at Coast Banksia, and so {{R to disambiguation page}} should have remained. Hesperian 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Coast banksia should redirect to Coast Banksia, but it should not be tagged with {{R to disambiguation page}}. As the guidelines and template documentation explains, the tag would only be for Coast Banksia (disambiguation), used to indicate a deliberate link to the disambiguation page.

In other words, {{R to disambiguation page}} is not for any redirect that happens to go to a disambiguation page, despite what the name might have one guess. --Piet Delport 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. The documentation is less than crystal-clear, but then again I suppose the concept is quite difficult to explain. Thanks for your time, and carry on. Hesperian 04:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, yeah, and the template name doesn't help: it should probably be renamed. --Piet Delport 05:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To what? "Dedicated links to disambiguation pages"? "Deliberate links to disambiguation pages"? "Self-evident links to disambiguation pages"? If we can agree on an appropriate title, I'll sort it out right away. Hesperian 05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a pretty high-impact change; i started a discussion over at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation talk page. --Piet Delport 05:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Buffalo

Minor point: I reverted your removal of the para spacing in this DP as I assume it wasn't intentional. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it was quite intentional: why have excess whitespace on a disambiguation page? --Piet Delport 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary topic on Look.

Umm, I thought primary topic was for pages with the (disambiguation) as part of the title, and that it is the topic that you would end up on if you don't type this part of it. After all, the reason for moving it away from the rest of the topics is because it's unlikely that the primary topic is what is looked for. The way I understand WP:MOSDAB#Linking_to_a_primary_topic is that Visual perception would be the primary topic of Look (disambiguation) if Look redirected to Visual perception. Taemyr 15:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's not strictly a primary topic according to the usual titling conventions, but i think it does qualify as a "well-known meaning that's probably not what they are looking for".

The edit was mainly to avoid mixing it with the other links, so i'm not set on it—in fact, looking at the page again, it should probably be a "see also". What do you think? —Piet Delport 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The reason we can know that the primary meaning is not what is looked for is because the dab page title includes the (disambiguation) part. Which means that the user have explicitly been avoiding the primary topic article. This is not the case on Look. While I can agree that most users can be expected to know what look means, they might be seeking the look article for answers to questions like; "What part of the prain is engaged when I look at something?" The article fits poorly in the "see also" section, and is clearly a relevant meaning of the word look, so I see no strong argument for separating it from the other articles. Especially since Look is a fairly small dab. Taemyr 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would they search for "look", instead of "vision" (or "brain" for that matter :)?

WP:POPE. "Look" is named as one of the 850 most common words. "vision" is not. A user might indeed type brain, if he follows the link from the introduction he will end up on visual perception. Taemyr 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, i think the argument for not mixing the entry is strong: "look" is not an ambiguous title for Visual perception, but a related term; it interrupts the flow of the other entries (which are all things named "look") to put "visual perception" in the middle of them. I think it reads much better either before or after them (whether as an entry, top link, "see also", or whatever). —Piet Delport 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The verb to look means engaging in Visual perception. As such I feel that more people would type in look in this context than are interested in LOOK Magazine. Especially since Looking redirects to Look.

A possible solution is to change Looking to point to Visual perception(no other articles on this dab fits). And link to visual perception via this redirect.Taemyr 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Pope is Catholic is about avoiding assumption and systematic bias; i don't see too much relevance here.
I don't think the word frequency affects the situation much; even someone not using "vision" is still probably going to use "looking" if they're looking for information about looking. (I fully agree about the redirect, and changed it to Visual perception; nice spotting.)
Anyway, i'm not advocating removing Visual perception; just saying it shouldn't be lost in the middle of a list of unrelated senses of the word "look". —Piet Delport 14:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

R3 and new template

Hi Piet. I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD R3 expansion that you had created {{db-redirmisnomer}}, but I'm not sure it is really needed. This is because I've updated {{db-redirtypo}} to apply to the whole criterion, to make things easier. Would you mind if I redirect the misnomer template to the typo template? Picaroon (Talk) 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks, replied there. —Piet Delport 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Sanctity's demo articles

I removed your merge templates from Sanctity's demos for the following reasons.

• Having track listings and album details on the main artist's page makes the page look unproffesional.
• Sanctity is a notable band, and therfore demos done by it are notable.
• Each page provides enough detail about the demo's to warrant having an article.
• The pages provide extra details about Sanctity's accession to a record label and an album.

Thnaks for reading. Also, I am going on holiday, so I will not be able to respond quickly to anything you do during that time. Hole in the wall 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the album notability guidelines i mentioned: Sanctity being a notable band does not imply that the demos warrant articles. They never saw significant release, and lack independent coverage; the articles are highly unlikely to ever grow beyond their present stub status.

There is nothing "unprofessional" about having discographies on artist pages: it's standard practice. (Length is not a problem; the content can overflow into a discography article.) —Piet Delport 03:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged them into Sanctity discography; see Talk:Sanctity (band)#Discography. —Piet Delport 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I may not agree with you, you are admin, and I am not, and as Wikipedia is not a democracy, you superceed me. I will thank you however for responding to my notice. I will not revert the changes. Hole in the wall 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, i'm just a regular user. :)

I want to make it clear that even if i was an admin, i would not supersede you: when people say Wikipedia isn't a democracy, they mean that it's based on consensus, not voting. This means that decisions should basically be unanimous: a majority opinion is not enough to force something through. No admin (or any other user) is above this; admins are just users who volunteer their time to take responsibility for more maintenance than regular users do.

Now, i still stand by my edits, and believe they're in accord with the guidelines (which should reflect consensus), but if you've reviewed them and disagree, we should take the discussion to the talk page, get some outside opinion if necessary, and go from there. —Piet Delport 14:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've just got back from holiday. I've been thinking about this and the way you have done the demo's in the discography page removes alot of the information that was within the demo's articles... Would it be possible to include that information somehow? (For the record, I have absolutely no inetention of starting and edit war. Hole in the wall 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the only thing i recall leaving out was a sentence or two of unsourced description.

What do you propose? —Piet Delport 2007-08-14 02:23

Sorry I haven't responded... Been kinda busy in real life... I propose we re-make the pages again, as they aren't actually against Wikipedia's policies to exist. Hole in the wall 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, i don't know about that. I see the discography page i split off itself got merged back into the Sanctity article; i can't argue with that.

I think we should rather expand the demo information in the Sanctity article: when they (or the discography section as a whole) get big enough, it will become natural to split them off. —Piet Delport 2007-09-17 23:28

Mozilla developers are Free software programmers

Hi Piet. I removed the category Free software programmers from Jamie Zawinski as the remaining category Mozilla developers is a sub-category of Free software programmers. I suggest to list every article only in the “deepest” category which fits. --mms 13:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, in general; however, Jamie Zawinski has contributed significantly outside of Mozilla too. In this case, i believe both categories are appropriate. —Piet Delport 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

TSL color space

Hi Piet. In the TSL color space article I corrected the formula for calculation of the T, tint value, to use the sign of the ratio of r'/g' rather than the sign of g' to determine the value to add to the arctan term. Pete k 1948 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Do you have a good reference for the formula, by any chance? The article is rather conspicuously lacking one... —Piet Delport 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S., Welcome to Wikipedia! —Piet Delport 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided to back out the change to the TSL color space entry; the earlier version matches the algorithm described by its originators, Terrillon and Akamatsu. A reference to their paper, for which a complete .pdf version is available via citeseer, has been added to the entry. Pete k 1948 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, sounds good. —Piet Delport 01:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Accumulate and fire

Dear Piet Delport,

You reverted my edit on August 18th, commenting simply in your edit "please, that is not how it works: address the issue first, then remove the tag." I would like to note that I did indeed address the issue shortly after making my edit, as can be noted by the edit made on the Talk page dated August 13th, five days prior your 2nd revert, which spans some three paragraphs. If you wish to maintain your demand for notability in spite of what I have stated to the contrary, this is fine, and I do not take offense at that. I do, however, take offense at you undoing my change, stating simply the following:

Firstly, that you are correct and I am not. ("Please, this is not how it works.") Strictly speaking, this statement means nothing.

Secondly, you comment that I should "address the issue first." I wrote three paragraphs when I made my edit, so excuse me if I feel offended that you neglected them (which is evident in both this request and in your negligence with regard to the stub tag that I pointed out in my post).

Thus, I feel that it is you who should address the issue first, then revert the edit. If you wish to demand notability and have a reason, I am fine with that, and I am sure we can reason things through. If, however, you resolve that this is the most constructive form of reply, then I shall fire off a request for arbitration swiftly. In the meantime, I shall let your notability tag stand, lest a revert war occur. However, I would appreciate it if you did give a reply addressing the issue on the talk page of the edit. -Caudax 23:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the unswiftness; i started replying before restoring the tag, but got pulled away for a few hours. I might not always respond promptly, but i won't ignore your comments.

As for my edit summary:

• I did not imply anything about who's "correct" or not; i'm referring to how the tag and its process work.
• With "address the issue", i mean establishing notability. The talk page discussion is good, but it does not justify removing the tag.

As for the stub tag, i removed it intentionally: the article is on the big side for a stub. (Less importantly, the tag is a footer, not a header.)

Finally, it's not "my" demand: the requirement is Wikipedia's (and i'm not the first editor to bring it up). —Piet Delport 2007-08-19 06:29

Thank you for replying both here and at the talk page. Also, the lack of swiftness is perfectly understandable. We do have real lives, after all. ;) For now, I find it most prudent to leave discussions of an ad hom (to the person) nature here at this talk page and to place discussions relating to accumulate and fire at its respective talk page.

First, you did very much imply "who's 'correct' or not." You stated "please, that is not how it works". Now, let us dissect and analyze this statement (or rather, let me, being the author of this post, dissect and analyze this statement within my own narrow framework of mind). The pronoun "that" can be inferred by context, seeing as the statement was placed as an edit summary of an edit that solely undid my edit. Given these conditions, the non-working "that" must evidently refer to the edit I made, and, seeing as edits are made by their owners and based upon the owner's personal viewpoint of the matter, the reasoning I had underlying the edit. "It" can be readily inferred by context (the context being the discourse concerning the validity of applying notability standards) to mean "how one would go about applying notability." At this point, the sentence can be rewritten as "please, your edits (and reasoning) do not follow the workings of how one would go about applying notability." You apply a redefinition through the use of a colon; however, the following statement is an imperative statement and thus a demand (which the original statement was not). For this reason (You demand a course of action in the latter portion, whereas you make a declarative statement in the former.), it forms an invalid redefinition, albeit a pertinent injunction, which grammatically speaking means that a semi-colon should be used to enjoin those statements instead of a colon, should they be enjoined at all. Thus, a further reason is not declared for its validity at the time when the statement was made. Nevertheless, the statement is nevertheless (declaratively so) granted to be a true statement by yourself, barring the notion that this constituted a (contextually vexing) sarcastic comment and the notion that you have decided to lie for reasons I am not privy to, because it is otherwise wholly dysfunctional if it be a false statement. (Ergo, there would be no point in saying it if it wasn't true.) Therefore, it can be granted (ergo, assumed) that you declared this as a true statement. Then, the statement is true because it needs to be true. This measure of truth has been created by yourself, seeing as you are the original author of the statement in its present context. Given that you find it to be true, it is true simply within your limited viewpoint. (Being human beings, we all possess personal, limited viewpoints.) Consequently, in this context, the statement is true given that your viewpoint is correct, and, consequently, my viewpoint (which is the reason causing my action, the reverted edit to which you respond) must be non-functional within the context of how one would go about applying notability. As a result, the underlying reasoning upon which your statement is founded becomes "please, your viewpoint is incorrect on how one should go about applying notability because my viewpoint is correct." This statement can then be further personalized (seeing as a viewpoint is intrinsic to the owner) as "please, you are incorrect on how one would go about applying notability because I am correct." This statement can be further reduced by removing a limiting descriptor which can be readily contextually inferred into "please, you are incorrect because I am correct." This, being a form of self-reliant, or circular, logic, bears no meaning due to its enclosed nature, wherewith one cannot extrapolate the logic outside its self-imposed limits which qualify its truth. Whereas the statement very much does imply "who's 'correct' or not," I am willing to consider (by suspension of disbelief, in absence of a better reason) that you did not intend such a meaning.

Second, this second point of yours essentially redeclares "please this is not how it works" with different terminology. Thus, it can either be assumed to possess an equally limited context, whereupon the above paragraph would be applicable, or to be within the context of your corresponding talk page post on the accumulate and fire talk page, whereupon the responses on the talk page.

Third, this should be addressed on the accumulate and fire talk page. Therefore I shall do so there as well.

Fourth, Wikipedia is essentially no more than the accumulated contributions made by its contributors, and therefore the requirements set forth are that of its contributors. Seeing as you contributed the demand to the accumulate and fire page, the demand within its present context is uniquely yours. Demands which can be taken to be Wikipedia's are its rules, not its guidelines. Please see the talk page concerning accumulate and fire there for further explanation of this differentiation.

If you want to respond to the above, feel free to. I'd just like to request that comments regarding the article (as opposed to our intentions when communicating to one another) would be put on the article's talk page. Thanks! -Caudax 08:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again,

I'd like to inform you that a deletion request has occurred as a result of the notability template. This isn't meant to be an "I-told-you-so" message, but rather a request for you to participate at the deletion page, if you'd like to see things through.

Thank you,

Caudax 22:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm somewhat tempted re-emphasize that I sincerely do not mean this message to be condescending or sarcastic, which it could be taken for by context, given the past dialogue. So, to repeat, I'm not being sarcastic.

Thank you, i appreciate the notice. (Don't worry, you don't sound condescending or sarcastic. :)

I've reiterated the need for sources on the deletion discussion page. —Piet Delport 2007-09-17 01:38

Hello yet again,

Well, thanks for participating at the deletion discussion. Your input is appreciated. So, apparently, Haemo has closed it by way of a speedy delete. The response struck me as somewhat bizarre (not least since it put our discussion there to an abrupt halt), so I initiated a deletion review, which can be found here. If you would like to participate there as well, given your lengthy involvement already, doubtless, your input will be appreciated again. ☺

Thank you,

Caudax 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Back once more...

Uh-oh... Gamer Eek (talk · contribs). I can't open a case myself at the moment because of the late hour, but thought I would let you know. (You deserve multiple barnstars for maintaining civility through all this, I must say.) --Paul Erik 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting; i'll open a case when i have a moment. —Piet Delport 2007-08-27 04:54

No worries. Akhilleus already did the necessary blocking. I have gone through some of Gamer Eek's contributions to do some cleanup, but you may want to take a look too. ...in your spare time... :) --Paul Erik 05:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I tagged Gamer Eek's user page appropriately; will review the edits when i have a moment. —Piet Delport 2007-08-27 07:47

Stormwarrior

(from here —Piet Delport 2007-12-17 18:33)

Before I undelete this article, please can you post to my talk page their achievements that satisfy Wikipedia notability criteria. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. In brief:

• They've been the subject of multiple independently-published articles and reviews
• They've released three albums with Remedy Records, and are finishing their fourth album with Dockyard 1
• Yenz Leonhardt is also a member of Iron Savior and Savage Circus, and the band has performed and recorded with Kai Hansen
• They've been on the bill of several major festivals, including Bloodstock, Wacken Open Air, and the Magic Circle Festival

—Piet Delport 2007-12-17 18:33

OK, I'll undelete the article. To conform with Wikipedia criteria you will need to provide some references to back these things up. Happy editing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) —Piet Delport 2007-12-17 19:23

2008

Matthew Watkins

Hi there. I have reverted your request for Matthew Watkins (disambiguation) to be moved to Matthew Watkins, and I have also requested that the disambiguation page be deleted. The disambiguation page currently only lists one notable Matthew Watkins, and it is highly unlikely that the other will ever become notable. In fact, I presume that the other was added by the man himself. The necessary cleanup should be done ASAP. – PeeJay 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Flyer (steamboat)

thanks for looking at Flyer, but I wonder if it's a good idea to rename it as only Flyer (steamboat). There was more than one steamboat named "Flyer", I'm certain there was one in Idaho in the early 1900s, and the 1891 designation was to distinguish the 1891 Flyer from the later boat.Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I renamed it mostly because the naming conventions would call for "Flyer (1891 steamboat)" rather than "Flyer (steamboat 1891)".

I don't know whether the other steamboats are as notable, so i erred on the side of simplicity for now: the disambiguation can be added when the other articles (or redlinks to them) are added. —Piet Delport 2008-08-07 09:53

2009

Friedrich Kellner

I just sent you an email, but in case it does not get through to you, I thought I should write to you here, as well. I am hoping you can help me with the Friedrich Kellner article, to translate it into Afrikaans. I have a condensed version of the article that I can send to you (about 1500 words). A Friedrich Kellner article is also available on German Wiki. Thank you, Scott --Rskellner (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I've started translating the English article to af:Friedrich Kellner; hopefully more people will jump in.

As a side note, what is the copyright/licensing status of Mein Widerstand? If you are seeking a wide and free readership for it, the work would probably make an ideal candidate for addition to the WikiSource library (see What is Wikisource?). The only requirement would be that it meets WikiSource's free content definition. —Piet Delport (talk) 2009-12-14 14:05

Thank you for your help. I will add some photos to the article, and some links, too (if I can navigate my way around the Afrikaans pages). I will enjoy learning more of the language. There is already a publisher involved in bringing the diary into print (in coordination with professors at Justus Liebig University), so we will not be able to place the book on Wikisource. But when the book is published, we will place as many diary entries as possibly into the public area. Thanks again for your help. Scott --Rskellner (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)