User talk:Josh Parris/archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Josh Parris/archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

Thanks for adding ISBN information to Pythagoras, that is indeed very helpful. Oleg Alexandrov 05:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping edit list of books set in new york city. The list is a never ending project. Bremen 07:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I thought I had used it correctly, but apparently I have more to learn, as always. Thanks for letting me know. Lokicarbis 07:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Source for Electrowinning

You tagged your article Electrowinning as being copied from another source. Can you provide the details of that source to verify that the article complies with wiki's copyright policy (WP:CP). I'm going to flag the article as a copyvio in the meantime... once you have the source, post it to the Electrowinning talk page and I'll clear the copyvio notice. Feco 07:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI.. let's continue this conversation on the Electrowinning talk page (as opposed to your or my personal talk pages). I'm posting there. Feco

Smelting

You put this note on my page: Thanks for your contribution to Smelting. It would be helpful if in the future you provided an edit summary about the changes you have made.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I did provide an edit summary! BTW, please sign your notes. You can do it with four tildes. Pollinator 02:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne railway stations

I'm sorry - the Essendon article isn't bad, but I'm not awfully fond of the format, and I'd rather not see it used across the network, for fear of having to do a cleanup round later on. Firstly, it's too short to have sections. Sections are useful for longer articles, but in standard articles of this size, they just make the thing look bad. Secondly, the language could do with a polish. Thirdly, the second image (and its associated caption) looks amateurish. I also don't think the quick facts box is really necessary - the content can fit fine into the lead section. In general, the content is fine, though - I just don't see why it can't fit into a standard article, as per the others. Ambi 11:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RADIUS spam

That link had been reverted many times before; see for example your own reversion on April 28. Sjorford had gone through all those links and left only the one that is currently there. Requests for discussion about the need for the other external links went unanswered, so I just reverted it again. -- GreenLocust 19:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Altering other people's user pages

I suggest that if you make changes to the content supplied by users like Peak to their own user page you are likely to provoke a negative reaction. There are users, such as Slrubenstein, who tolerate messages, etc., on their user page instead of on (or in addition to going on) their discussion page, but other people get upset -- especially when someone else changes what the user himself/herself has written. So if you find it necessary to change something it would probably ruffle fewer feathers if you also put a note on that person's discussion page explaining what you have done. P0M 15:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the Edit summary is for. User:Peak is free to revert the change; it is, after all, their user page. I've altered dozens, if not a hundred, of user pages without any complaint from the affected users so far, perhaps because my edits are (usually) sensitive to the existing page. Josh Parris ✉ 23:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just this moment noticed your recent edit to my user page. I don't know why you don't want it to link to that disambig page, but I happen to want that link. If you have a good reason for making it an external link, please explain why to me, and if I agree, I will do it. (Also, what seems like an attempt on your part to turn the direct link into an external link didn't work - you linked to the "What links here" page for it.)

Let me reinforce what POM said. Generally it's simply not done to edit other people's user pages, except for a few specific and well-defined reasons, such as fixing a link when a page is renamed, or something. Noel (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

I suspected that might be your reasoning; see User:Jnc/Disambiguation for my thoughts on basically the same topic. I would suggest you should just ignore links from User: pages to disambig page, since we're really only concerned about articles which contain links to disambig pages. I'm only reluctant to switch my link to an external link because then that one entry will be different. Let me think about it, though.

Also, "My contributions" wouldn't really help - I have about 10,000 edits (well, 9350 to be exact). (And I normally do sign - that was an oversight.) Noel (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN

Hi, you've been adding template:ISBN to a lot of articles recently. Templates likes this (being primarily intended for editors as opposed to readers) normally go on the Talk page of articles. Would you care to chime in at Template talk:ISBN? Regards, — mark ✎ 10:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would also like to ask you to stop adding that template to the articles themselves. It is not helpful to readers. I am going to revert your additions of these templates; I trust that you will understand. &madsh; Timwi 11:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd wait a bit to see where the discussion is going before categorising again a few hunderd articles. I wouldn't want to run the risk of being reverted again. For the record, I think categorising is better than tagging them with {ISBN}, though I doubt the usefullness of the whole ISBN thing anyway (especially the edition-problem won't go away; besides, I know of many books in my field (African languages and linguistics) that either are not for sale anymore or don't have potential buyers among the readership of Wikipedia). — mark ✎ 07:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree about purchasers of books based on ISBN; who's going to go out and buy a book just because it's referenced in an encyclopaedia? But being linked into all my local major libraries means it's very easy for me to check for an old, out of print, expensive book that I can read, as a reference. And without ISBNs it's too much work doing a Library of Congress / Amazon lookup (I've done several, to supply ISBNs, I know what a pain in the butt it can be, especially in languages other than my own). With ISBN links, only one person needs to do the work - once. ISBN lookups is something I've done for wikipedia in the past, and expect to do in the future; having all the pages needing the attention in one place eliminates the hunt for articles missing ISBNs. Josh Parris ✉ 07:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault entry Josh, I'm not sure that the Foucault entry needs ISBNs. There are multiple editions of Foucault's books in different languages and they are very easy to find. It would just confuse the issue adding ISBNs in a situation where there are multiple reprints of the same books. --Panopticon 22:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Premium stations

The current page essentially serves the same purpose as a category, so it might be better to use the category system I agree. Something like Category:Premium Melbourne railway stations under Category:Melbourne railway stations could do the trick. Also, other cities are bound to have similar setups (Premium/standard stations), so having the list tucked into Melbourne's categories will be clearer if someone decides to add their city's equivalent list of stations to Premium station. One last thing, are host stations (Premium-lite) worthy of another category? TPK 05:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main list ought to be a complete list, so I would duplicate the categories. The host stations have an * after them in List of Melbourne railway stations, though the list may have changed since that was done. TPK 07:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Sites in Melbourne

Hi Josh, I have a problem with the name of the Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne. I have been working on entries in Category:Melbourne parks and gardens and several of these are listed as heritage sites, and I envisage other articles, such as aboriginal heritage sites, which would not be covered by the Category title as it presently exists. Can I suggest Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne is renamed as Category:Heritage sites in Melbourne, which is a more inclusive name? See also Talk:Heritage_listed_buildings_in_Melbourne where I have also raised this. --Takver 07:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent idea. I'll tackle recategorising them early next week (replace to buildings, add site). Josh Parris ✉ 08:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been musing on this, and I'm now thinking chucking Category:Heritage sites in Melbourne into Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne (effectively making it a sub-category) is the most appropriate technique; I've created the appropriate categories. Check it out. Josh Parris ✉ 23:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Protected_areas Josh Parris ✉ 06:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fraction

Hey Josh. Now I took a good look at fraction. That article is still more than half math. As such, I feel now strongly that it should be listed on the list of mathematical topics. Then we will be able to watch the recent changes done to that article (if you go to list of mathematical topics, you will understand what I mean).

The reasoning for watching that article, even if it has other things than math, is the following. If a hoaxer will try to screw up fraction (like changing a sign), and no mathematician will watch that article, then poeple will not know if that's a hoax or a true fix for a mistake. This is the reason why one should be inclusive when putting articles in list of mathematical topics, rather than exclusive.

So, I will backtrack on my word now (having spent some of your time), and sometime later today I will put back fraction in the category of fractions, and my bot will add it again tomorrow. Any strong objections? :) Oleg Alexandrov 03:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only that I intend to move Fraction to Fraction (disambiguation), trim the mathematics down dramatically and make Fraction a redirect page to Fraction (disambiguation) -- there's already a Fraction (mathematics) page (which is a disambiguation page in it's own right). I can add a category to the redirect page, which will ensure it's watched by mathematians to ensure it isn't made to point in the wrong place or get vandalised in other ways.

Now I see! Sounds good. Oleg Alexandrov 04:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the move of "Fraction" to "Fraction (mathematics). The vast majority of people will expect to see that article when they enter "fraction" just and the vast majority of uses of the word "fraction" will want to be linked there. The appropriate kind of disambiguation for this case is "primary topic" disambiguation (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Types of disambiguation. Paul August ☎ 04:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I can relate to your point of view. Most people's understanding of fraction (judging by the several dozen links I've disambiguated) is Vulgar fraction, and judging by Fraction (mathematics) (which I didn't create) there are a dozen variations on fraction even in a mathematical context. The advantage of having the Fraction page redirect is that it becomes very simple to monitor for ambiguous inbound links using "What links here", whereas with a "primary topic" disambiguation page, editors will blindly link to it - with no means to distinguish ambiguous links from intentional links. Josh Parris ✉ 05:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an idea. How about I point Fraction at Fraction (mathematics) with a disbiguation link to Fraction (disambiguation) at the top? Josh Parris ✉ 05:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to say, redirect fraction to fraction (mathematics). Then, why not just move fraction (mathematics) to fraction, and put the link to Fraction (disambiguation) at the top of fraction?

Because that makes finding new, ambiguous links to Fraction very difficult. This way I can do a special:whatlinkshere/fraction and anything that is listed is ambiguous. Josh Parris ✉ 06:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I myself don't care either way. Whatever you guys decide. Oleg Alexandrov 06:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Emerson

Hi Josh, can you show me where ISBN numbers are needed here? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrongly assumed in this case that the presence of ASINs showed a need to translate them into ISBNs. Josh Parris ✉ 03:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Castlemaine

Which article are you tring to move to Castlemaine? I understand the reason for moving the disambig to Castlemaine (disambiguation), but only if you move one of the articles in to take its place, and you haven't said which! I assume it's Castlemaine, Victoria, but it'd be nice to have it confirmed. Can you add this info to the talk page, and WP:RM, and add a {{move}} tag to the affected article . sjorford →•← 08:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to create a redirect page from Castlemaine to the disambiguation page, allowing disambiguated links to be directed to the disambiguation page, and allowing explicit linking to the disambiguation page if necessary. A seperate disambiguation page from the default page allows monitoring of ambiguous inbound links. Josh Parris ✉ 11:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the point. Surely, if Castlemaine is a disambiguation page, then any incoming link needs fixing. Nothing should need to link directly to Castlemaine (disambiguation). The move you're proposing isn't the standard way of doing things (although it has been suggested in the past). sjorford →•← 12:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Castlemaine (movie) is released, and then becomes the biggest thing of all time, then changing the Castlemaine redirect from Castlemaine, Victoria or Castlemaine (disambiguation) to Castlemaine (movie) is trivial. Policy becomes much easier to enact, and it's transparent to the readers. Defaulting the redirect to Castlemaine (disambiguation) is just my default way of not having an opinion on what the natural meaning of Castlemaine is. If someone cares to change that I wouldn't be upset. Josh Parris ✉ 00:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penhalluriack

Frank Penhalluriack was the Australia Party candidate for Chisholm at the 1974 federal election. My memory is that he also stood in at least one state election but I don't have details on that. Adam 01:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig

The reason was that, if you look at Category:Wikipedia official policy, you'll find it contains really official things like copyright violation, user removal, and deletion policy. OTOH, Category:Wikipedia guidelines contains more informal codes of conduct and suggestions. I felt Disambig was closer to the latter. It might even qualify as Category:Wikipedia style and how-to. Yours, R adiant _* 07:18, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy

I've never seen any firm evidence that Kennedy was gay, so I think the amended version is better. Maybe the facts will emerge now that he is dead. Adam 03:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GM disambiguation

You wrote: I see that you're planning on moving the GM disambiguation page. Why?

It does not make sense to have a GM (disambiguation) page and a redirect at GM. Alan Liefting 03:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appeals to my pedantic-ness and it is also "tidier" to move the GM (disambiguation) to GM and reassign the small number of "What links here" entries. A disambiguation page is only requires if there is one article that is VERY deserving of a title over other less deserving articles. Alan Liefting 03:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for welcoming me! User:The Living Peanut/sig 08:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Not sure what "dab" means, but I assume it means making Victoria AND BC into Victoria, BC.

Bug (disambiguation)

Yes, I'm aware of the formatting -- SNIyer12^(talk)

"rv vandalism"

You've made several edits to GW like pages headed "rv vandalism" which simply revert small changes by other editors that don't look at all like vandalism to me (eg [1]). Could you try to use less inflamatory language?

And if you make edits like this [2] people are going to start doubting your good faith William M. Connolley 20:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).

You're both right. I shouldn't edit angry. The 'rv vandalism' came from autocomplete and laziness. I understand now the extensive changes that User:Wavelength made were made in good faith, even if in my opinion they detracted from the Wikipedia style. Some time away from editing has given me that perspective. I think what set me off what how much was changed. Anyways, better now. Josh Parris ✉ 08:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ecology/environment

Could you explain why you undid all these changes, and why you consider some of them "vandalism". Guettarda 13:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See above, plus my discussions at User_talk:Wavelength. I think User:Wavelength came across a Wikipedia policy and applied it heavily. An edit to Ecoterrorism and the breadth of articles altered made me suspicious of User:Wavelength's motivations. Josh Parris ✉ 08:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether to capitalize list items

The section at Wikipedia:Lists#1_-_Title_and_bullet_style_or_vertical_style says "Do not capitalize list items ...", but you have done so at list of environment topics. If I have misunderstood something, please clarify it for me. Wavelength 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for fixing that link in my userpage. =)

About the article "Ultimate Logging System Professional"'s neturality

May I ask how the article could be improved? --Microtony 06:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:(disambiguation)

I'm not sure if this is relevant to you, but I've just put Template:(disambiguation) up for deletion, since it's a duplicate of the existing, more widely used, and much easier to type Template:Disambig. So you might consider updating the part of your user page that refers to the soon-to-be-deleted template. (See WP:TFD for discussion.) --Quuxplusone 01:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:(disambiguation) is very similar to the existing, more widely used, and much easier to type Template:Disambig, but serves a different purpose. It's for disambiguation pages that aren't ambiguous. Josh Parris ✉ 01:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That might be interesting, but it's not true. Before I changed all the references, Template:(disambiguation) had been used for dab pages without (disambiguation) in their titles; and Template:Disambig is certainly being used for dozens, if not hundreds, of dab pages with (disambiguation) in their titles. (Pick a place to continue this discussion if you want to: my talk page or yours. I've added yours to my watchlist for the next week or so.) --Quuxplusone 01:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I've used it on inappropriate pages. Sorry. Still, no reason to delete it. Josh Parris ✉ 02:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a reason to delete Template:(disambiguation), since my whole argument is that it's completely redundant with Template:Disambig in the way it's being used. Keep in mind that the fine distinction between dab-page-with-(disambiguation)-in-the-title and dab-page-without is certain to be lost on the average Wikipedia user, who doesn't keep up with userpage chatter. :) Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), by the way; did you notice that it explicitly supports the use of {{disambig}} on dab pages, and doesn't mention {{(disambiguation)}}? --Quuxplusone 17:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, (disambiguation) is my own invention. I haven't field proven it yet, so I didn't think it was time for it to go into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). And now I'm not certain it's a good idea anyway, because if a dab page becomes the primary page for a topic, then the template would need to be changed. Still, you pounced on it about a day after I created it, which kind of got up my nose. Josh Parris ✉ 00:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: whoops :-)

Hi - as I guess you noticed, I tend to answer questions on the page they are asked on - keeps the thread together. Anyway, yes copper (and other) mineral prospecting is done with multi-spectral imaging -see [3], [4], [5], [6] and[7] from a quick google on multi-spectral mapping copper. Could probably write a wiki article about this. -Vsmith 13:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ark

I very much appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I really don't think this thing is worth an article, possibly not even a line in a disambiguation page, and I probably shouldn't have wikied the word in the first place. It's also inaccurate as written: you'll only find them in tabernacles in Orthodox churches. In Roman Catholic tabernacles they store the reserved sacrament in a ciborium or pyx. It's not that I mind fixing it, but I'm tempted to delete it altogether instead. Csernica 03:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Topbanana/Reports/This article may contain a badly formed ISBN reference

Could you re-run User:Topbanana/Reports/This article may contain a badly formed ISBN reference? All the listed problems seem to have been dealt with, and it's been more than six months since it ran. Josh Parris ✉ 01:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This report has been updated now - have at it! - TB 17:24, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Script (performing arts)

Hey, thanks for that fix. I guess that was the obvious thing to do, but I never thought about changing the redirect.

re: User talk:Harmil#Script; Yeah, I might get my copy of The Complete Book of Scriptwriting back from a friend and see if there's any insight into scripts for stage that Wikipedia doesn't already have under screenplays (he covers a bit about stage play scripts as well). What would you think of Script (performing arts) pulling in info from play and screenplay, to create a general sense of what a script is for, how it's written and why it's different from a book? It would have links to the other pages, of course. -Harmil 13:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS: Points on Camera diet well taken. I'll see what I can do.... hmmm... I may need a TODO page soon.

Dab Victoria

Hi Josh, thank you for taking the time to disambiguate all of the various Victorias from the Member of Parliament lists. I just wanted to let you know though that there is one more little wrinkle, namely that these should ideally point to the electoral district rather than the community. These are:

Victoria (electoral district) (BC)
Victoria (New Brunswick electoral district) (1867-1914)
Victoria (Ontario electoral district) (1903-1966)
Victoria (Alberta electoral district)

I understand perfectly if you don't feel like going back and changing these again, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to point it out. Cheers, Fawcett5 14:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't feel like doing it again. I will, however, shove these onto the dab page if they're not already there. Josh Parris ✉ 05:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

I'm about to leave Wikipedia. Anything additional that I should do besides what I already did within my recent contributions?? Georgia guy 29 June 2005 00:06 (UTC)

I think everything will be fine; if you're turning off the lights you might want to remove your email address from your user profile, then you won't be emailed as a result of your editing on Wikipedia. Josh Parris ✉ 29 June 2005 00:25 (UTC)

USB cable length

5 meters? Is that for USB 1.1 speeds? I heard it was 3 feet for USB 2.0 speeds.

What are your sources? I'd be interested in finding out the definitive answer. Brewthatistrue 29 June 2005 18:04 (UTC) this is in reference to http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Universal_Serial_Bus&diff=prev&oldid=17804146 (don't know how to linkify that normally, so there's the fully link)

I searched google: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22USB+cable+length%22+meters Josh Parris ✉ 30 June 2005 00:20 (UTC)

mercury

Oh, ack, and oops, regarding mercury in dragées. I have trouble stopping to think about what links to what. Just the other day I had palm sugar linking to an obscure language. I never would have remembered my mercury goof. Thank you. --Mothperson 2 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)

My pleasure. Josh Parris ✉ 2 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)

Romath

Do you have any objection to nominating that article for a VfD? Judging by my own searches (I'd never heard of her before), Romath is apparently one of the all-time great kooks of the Usenet. Just check search Google groups on [romath kook] or [romath loon]. But are all-time great Usenet kooks notable in an Internet encyclopedia? We aren't even mentioning it in the article. Any thoughts on resolving this matter? Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 05:01 (UTC)

I'm just in there protecting the integrity of the article and encyclopedia, I have no personal interest in the ongoing existance of the article. Having said that, surely one of the all-time great kooks of the Usenet would warrent an article - if only because of the entertainment value of biography. And someone cared enough to create the article in the first place. If you look at the edit history before the lady herself turned up, it was slowly evolving into a decent article. Have you had a look at the link in usenet#Usenet personalities? It lists others, about half dozen oddballs. Josh Parris ✉ 6 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)

Don't feel obliged to sit on your hands if you have an opinion about the article. I'm still ambivalent, but that's no reason to hold you back. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't care; life would be a lot simpler if the article went away, but that's purely from an administrative POV. As a vandal, Romath is a very persistent person. And frustrating, because she doesn't seem to want to listen to reason. It's like trying to reason with an answering machine. Josh Parris ✉ 06:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DabBot

You could try posting to [8] -- Russ Blau (talk) July 9, 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome... i hope my contributions are well received and that other find them helpful... i think wikipedia is great... i'm a newcomer to this and hope i dont make to much mistakes auntil i get the hang of it... thanks again.

By the way.. what does "dab" mean?EjidoMike 05:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cassie Palmer

Touch the Dak, Cassie Palmer is not an article about a real person. It's a character in a book series, which I plan to write a summary on. Tamwood222 (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you chill out with A7

I just went through your contributions and you've been tagging mayors of small cities, places, movies, journalists for significant media outlets, events, ideas, articles with multiple references to books...a lot of stuff that is clearly making a claim to notability or deliberately not covered by A7.Prezbo (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors of La Crosse, Wisconsin

I notice your comments about whether former mayor Patrick Zielke's article would be notable since the city of La Crosse is a small city. This may not be as cut and dry. John Medinger was mayor of the city of La Crosse for 8 years. Ordinally, this would not make hoim notable but for one fact he served in the Wisconsin State Assembly prior to being mayor. Another exaample is Milo Knutson. He was mayor of La Crosse from 1955-1965-ordinally he would not be notable yet he served in the Wisconsin State Senate from 1969-1977 so he would be notable like John Medinger. I would have to to do some checking but I think there was some mayors of La Crosse ended up in the Wisconsin Legislature and maybe Congress. Just some thoughts-Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John T Prout

Hi, Re the notability. Prout is significant because he held one of the senior commands in the Irish Army during the Irish Civil War. He held the command for the whole south-east of Ireland and oversaw the taking of Waterford and the death of Liam Lynch, the anti-Treaty commander in the war. Jdorney (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: SystemJ

Hello Josh Parris, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of SystemJ - a page you tagged - because: articles about concepts are not eligible for speedy deletion under WP:A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Skomorokh, barbarian 15:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrestrial Physics

Hello, Just wanted to take the time to thatnk you for stopping by Terrestrial Physics. The points that you brought up are valid and will be addressed shortly ie. notiblity which will not be hard as I already have 5 sources to include but still refining in MS word, cats are already included. As far as the page name fork, the topic has been brought up on another of the sculptures of Jim Sanborn that until another article comes into the main space with a similiar name, that I should not disamb it. Any suggestions to aplease both sides of the isle on this :) ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 10:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Matthews (drug trafficker)

Hello. I was wondering why you think this article needs additional cites? I have a very detailed story by a highly regarded crime author (Black Caesar by Ron Chepesiuk) as well as two books that discuss the same information. What else do I need in your opinion? Also, I just added a PACER cite which, if you have a proper account (it's the federal court docket system which you must pay to access), you can access court documents which verify virtually everything the other 3 sources do.jlcoving (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Bucket

The page is tagged to death now - I don't understand why it is an orphan, it links up to the Clive James page doesn't it? To say it's all plot is dumb, there is no plot, its a precis of a work of criticism with examples of the acerbic style. If it doesn't meet the guidelines why don't you delete the article - I did something similar with Visions at Midnight, - it informs the reader of the article of the programmes reviewed and gives a flavour of the criticism. To tag it as lacking references seems a bit unthinking to me, look at the nature of the article . If it doesn't meet the rules for inclusion in the encyclopedia, delete it, otherwise leave it, understanding the nature of the article, it isn't going to have a lot of references is it ? Sayerslle (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOS

It looks like you did just what needed to be done, but I wasn't sure about. The DOS disambiguation page needed a link to disk operating system. Your way works fine, too.

It wasn't as if I was adding links to unrelated items. DOS is an aberviation for Disk Operating System. It was silly to have a list of DOSs without linking to the main article. Lucifer-oxy (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ace candy

This page was recently speedy deleted as a redirect. FYI. Cynof Gavuf 09:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename the newly created page on "Concrete failure" as "Concrete degradation"

Many thanks for cleaning the page on Concrete by making detailed pages with specialized sections. Indeed, it became too long.

Could I make a suggestion ?

A more appropriate name for the page on "Concrete failure" would be Concrete degradation.

Indeed, failure is the ultimate state occurring after degradation. And degradation can also cover a broad scope of different processes and stages.

Degradation is also a progressive process: disturbed stage, then damaged, and ultimately failed structures.

So, I would suggest you to rename this page as Concrete degradation.

What do you think ? Can you make it yourself ? Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't happy with failure and hoped someone (yay!) would suggest something else - but I wasn't going with "damage modes". Moved. Josh Parris 15:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southwold

Re your recent edit, shingle in this case refers to a Shingle beach, not slate. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, edification. Thank you. Josh Parris 11:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Blakeney Point‎ and Weybourne.You need to check your edits as I have found other article with the same error. Please be more careful with your edits. --palmiped | Talk 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Your robot assisstant missed here that the dablink was in the middle of a sentence and should not have been capitalized. Keep up the good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DaBing

When DaBing please be careful what you change links to. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANon-free_content%2FArchive_10&action=historysubmit&diff=326467173&oldid=326465895 β^_command 03:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was intentional. Jack Webb never said that, the phrase was coined in the Stan Friedburg sketch. Josh Parris 03:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tipsy (T-Pain)

I deprodded the article and I'm also the original creator. If you feel it's appropriate, please bring the issue to AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Chris McGrath (computer engineer)

Hello Josh Parris, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Chris McGrath (computer engineer) has been removed. It was removed by Ideabender with the following edit summary 'removed the deletion notice and submitted info on a Talk page. Appreciate any help. Thanks!'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Ideabender before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epsom Cluster‎

Looking at your disambiguation repair it seems to me that the new target is less correct than the prior disambiguation page. The Epsom Cluster‎ was not competing businesses, but a cluster of public service hospitals run by the same management structure, servicing the same community, and working in harmony with each other as part of a growing development to keep the lunatics out of London. What think you? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a geographic concentration of interconnected businesses, suppliers, and associated institutions in a particular field. Clusters are considered to increase the productivity with which companies can compete, nationally and globally." Don't get too hung up on the "business" part and it looks fine. Alternatively, you could go with agglomeration, but I think that's a little larger geographically. Feel free to change it to whatever term you think, or remove the wikilink entirely. Josh Parris 10:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ponder awhile. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Hi, some of the links that the robot you use changes are way off, so I will change what I can, but the robot needs to be given a much shorter leash. Cheers History2007 (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much in the way of bot, I select and are responsible for all the changes. What do you think I did wrong? Your change at Marian apparition was more than reverting a mis-disambiguation, and I can't imagine a better link for Apparition in that article. Can you see any other changes you disagree with? Josh Parris 21:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the Manor Born

I have reverted your change to To the Manor Born. Can you show evidence that Audrey fforbes-Hamilton is a Pastafarian? :) -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the flying spaghetti monster (blessed be his appendages) mistake several times. I was shooting for Tourism. I thought I caught them all. Note I immediately went to bed after that one - too tired to work! Thanks, I'll put the correct dab in now! Josh Parris 22:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-off

Hi Josh,

I'm glad you recognize the importance of disambiguation on Wikipedia; it's primarily what I do here too. I've let your two new entries stand on the Spin-off disambiguation page, but they really should have external sourcing on their respective articles demonstrating that the terminology is used in that manner. I've also reinstated the "see also" section to include the easily mistakable Off spin as well as Offshoot as it no longer redirects to Spin-off. I have also added the term "spin-off" to the two articles corresponding to the entries you introduced. Let me know if you wish to discuss either of these changes further.

Neelix (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations at RfD

Just a friendly reminder that rearranging and sectioning off "nominees" in a deletion discussion can be (and usually is) very disruptive (as is interjecting in the middle of the nomination can lead to confusion as a result of the first part not having a signature). I have attempted to restore one such rearranged RfD nomination and put the interjected comments at the bottom of it (with clarification of context, but not otherwise altering your comments one iota). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't need to do that if you'd have one nomination per redirect; for the articles in question, they have different usage profiles. Josh Parris 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFD vote

Would you consider your vote here as changed? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robot gone rouge

Hi. Not every reference to "foreign exchange" should be changed to "foreign exchange reserves." Please tell your robot to stop messing up articles. Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be me... the "robot" is me using a specialized tool rather than a web browser. Which change did you think I chose something other than the best option for "foreign exchange"?Josh Parris 07:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please have again a look at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_6#Rh_blood_group_system

I realized that I have written my text not clearly enough. I explained it again in other words. No key word will be lost if the redirect is deleted since the article has now the new name. I just cannot delete this technically nonsens redirect myself. Thanks for your understanding. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have seen that you have closed the discussion on this. Currently, it works; but only because someone reintroduced my workaround again (to redirect the Rh redirect to the Rh article page. If it was you, then thank you very much. This is probably still the easiest way to go since somehow nobody else realized it. But just to explain. If one starts typing Rh blood group into the search field, then 2 variants show up, one Rh blood group system (which is the article) and Rh Blood Group System (which is the redirect that was pointing to the other redirect with rhesus in it and now has been changed back to point to the Rh article itself). For me, this current workaround is OK; I just wanted the system to allow a proper solution. :-)

Thanks again, since you seemed to be the only person interested in this problem at all. Cheers, --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Josh Parris. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
Message added 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied to your comment on my proposal :). Tim1357 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lyons

I've had a go at cleaning up the above article. If you would like to have another look to see whether this affects your comments at the AfD that would be great. Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi, I've responded to your warning on my talk page. Thanks! -70.96.41.224 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Car

I reverted that vandalism just before I had to leave and do other things. The subsequent vandalism there (and your comment on my talk page) all occurred before the next chance I had to go online. And when I did go back online, I was focused on the return of a vandal who's been inserting hoaxes into Wikipedia for the last couple years under nearly 70 (so far) blocked socks. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain.) Edward321 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne IPA edit war

Why not issue the same warning to the editor who has reverted two others, who continued edit warring after you got involved, and who has actually violated 3RR? kwami (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking what I've done, one moment... Josh Parris 11:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. Basically, you were too fast for me. Josh Parris 11:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlaggedRevs stats

Hi, Josh. I'm doing a little project management work for the English Wikipedia FlaggedRevs rollout, and just wanted to say that I appreciated your thoughts at VPR. We're still working to figure out what stats we can do conveniently, and a lot of people have a lot of different hypotheses about what this will actually do, but we'll be working with Erik Zachte and hopefully can bring at least a little rigor to things. If you have more thoughts, please do email me or mention it on my talk page. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic: I've made big changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Research/Research

I've moved around a lot of content in the article. To find a list of places content has been moved to, see the discussion I started about it. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if I leave you a message here you see it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me Marvin (talk • contribs) 11:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]