User talk:Editore99/Archive/2007May

1965

Is there any particular reason you don't like that year linked in Larry Pile? I find it annoying and slightly vandalistic that you keep removing the wikilink there. Please explain. ClaudeReigns 19:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is an excessive link of an unremarkable term. If anyone wants to read a year article that is mentioned in Larry Pile, they can type the four digits into the search box. You disagree with my edit and can't understand it but that does not make me a vandal. I would prefer it if you avoided using such terms about my editing. I had no intention of annoying you, I am sure we both want to do good. I assume good faith about you, please assume good faith about me. Editore99 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sizes

Hi there. Rather than just removing measurements in angstroms, could you please just add the nm dimensions as well? Angstroms are the most commonly-used measurements for protein structures. TimVickers 17:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Here is my reasoning for only using one:

The nanometre is undertood by specialists and non-specialists. Putting both adds clutter and is redundant.

Wouldn't you agree? Editore99 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't redundant. If a particular measurement is commonly used for a particular thing, then that measurement should be used. Include an alternative measurement if it's necessary, but don't delete the standard form.

By the way, you evidently know your way around Wikipedia, know the abbreviations for pages etc; do you have another user account? If so, please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. If you violate these rules, you may find this account being blocked. -- ChrisO 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angstroms are the standard measurement in science in protein crystallography and are used in the vast majority of publications (see link) Removal of this standard usage is both disruptive and unnecessary. TimVickers 03:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temp indef block

I have blocked you indefinitely for the time being. There are some that are concerned about your methods of editting being too fast and automated.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me. These 'some' are making false accusations and I believe I am entitled to know my accusers. Who are they? Editore99

Horsepower

Moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Editore99 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Which tool is it that you are using to edit? Are you using AWB? TimVickers 15:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No tool. Unless you count Firefox, my fingers and my keyboard as tools. Why do you ask. Editore99 15:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this and this edit were just 14 seconds apart. I thought that either you are an astoundingly fast reader, or you are using a semi-automated tool to make these edits. TimVickers 01:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

There is no real indication those edits were not manual, blocking admin does not object to unblocking, assuming good faith and unblocking.

Request handled by: ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your response to the thread on AN here and I (or if I am away from the keyboard someone else) can copy it to the noticeboard. Newyorkbrad 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These edits really are not that fast, at the fastest 20 seconds between edits. I am not sure this is a bot policy violation. I have contacted the blocking admin, and will get back to you. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about horsepower. Moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Editore99 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Minnesota edit

I'm sorry. I misread your edit last night and thought you were removing metric measures rather than adding them. Sorry I made extra trouble for you, and thanks for improving the article. Keep it up.--Daveswagon 18:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I was a little perplexed by your edit summary. That clears it up. No worries. I am glad that we are of like minds. Editore99 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skylab

I've reversed your edits to this article; as far as I can see, Wikipedia style seems to require all dates to be linked. I think this is something to do with preferences settings. (See here [1]Hope you don't mind, let me know if I'm wrong. Chrislintott 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I see I'm wrong. Sorry Chrislintott 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for your polite feedback and gracious update. It is a popular misconception and that is why there is massive overlinking of date fragments. The problem is that the date preference mechanism and the linking mechanism have been combined. Editore99 12:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnie Mouse

Just out of curiousity why are you removing the wiki links to dates in Minnie Mouse? BeckyAnne 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking for date preferences only works if the full date (i.e. the day, month and year) is linked. Links of date fragments (e.g. year-only) does not benefit the article. You will see this discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

Since Minnie Mouse only had date fragments linked so I cleaned it up by removing them. I see that the article actually contains the full dates so if you want to take the trouble to do a complete linking exercise, that is fine by me.

Thanks for bringing it up here. Editore99 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Online

I saw your edits to Eve Online and while I understand the individual edits made to the sections, I'm curious about your edits to the section headers. Instead of having one word capitalized and one in lower case, shouldn't both words be capitalized because the words in question are section titles? It would seem to me that it makes sense to capitalize them to make them stand out because they are section headers. Thoughts? --Wootonius 22:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking of 'word case'. It should be 'sentence case'. See the Wikipedia Manual of Style:

Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".

Thanks for bringing it up initially here but feel free to question the guideline at that page. Regards Editore99 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number unit spacing

Hi. I notice that you are introducing spaces between number and units in most articles that you copyedit (e.g. 100km/h becomes 100 km/h). Would you mind telling me why? Apart from the aesthetics and readability of the spaceless form being better to my eye, on a non-subjective note keeping the two linked prevents text wrapping separating the two halves of essentially one term onto different lines. You reasoning would be appreciated. Pyrope 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia style guide has a guideline:

Put a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg", "5 °C", (not "25kg", "5° C")

That guideline was been debated extensively but feel free to question it at that page. Various national and international guidelines (SI, ISO, US NIST, UK NPL) were relevant to the debate. I prefer that style.

As far as the text wrapping issue is concerned, the Wikipedia style guide goes on to mention a preference for a non-breaking space. That will prevent text wrapping. I don't prefer that style but if others want to spend time converting spaces to non-breaking spaces, that is fine by me. Indeed, some editors do spend time doing it. Thanks for bringing the issue up. Regards Editore99 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bps versus bit/s

Hi there, noticed in LRPT that you changed all the bps to bit/s. Could you help me understand why you made this change? Thanks - Davandron | Talk 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing 'bit' when you mean a 'bit' is unambiguous. The letter 'b' can be confused with bit or byte. It is also less language specific. The forward slash is the universal divider symbol. Editore99 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed these changes although byte is represented by a capitalised B so it is not ambiguous as you say. Dnel 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome it if you took this debate to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Editore99 13:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just changed your changes on the DAB page back to 'kbps' but with a link to the kbps page. The reason I did it was because if you see the units for 1000 or 1 million bits per second you invariably see kbps or Mbps used - e.g. on an advert for a broadband package or in the Properties in a media player - and you never see kbit/s. I would therefore argue that it is more useful for a layman to see kbps rather than kbit/s, because they may have come across this term before, whereas they won't have seen kbit/s used.

In the literature, e.g. for DSP, audio coding, digital communications etc, kbps and Mbps are very widely used as well - probably about 50/50 in my experience - so whether someone uses kbit/s or kbps is down to personal preference rather than being right or wrong, IMO. If you do change kbps to kbit/s, could you at least put it in a link to the kbps page? Digitalradiotech 10:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question so I checked the style page you mentioned. There is no reference to bit/s. (There is extended discussion about the related kb versus kbit question.) There IS a specific reference to kbps along with the suggestion it be used as per IEEE (a well recognized international organization) guidelines. Your reference sounds pretty convincing. kbps it should be. Bellhead 17:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking years

Hello. I noticed you are removing wikilinks to years, why exactly? I personally see no harm in them. Mattythewhite 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look, those pages do not just link to years, they also link to months and perhaps even days. The date preference mechanism has been mixed up with the linking mechanism. So some people see those and mistakenly believe that date fragments should also be linked. Editore99 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So dates shouldn't be linked? I wasn't aware of that.... Mattythewhite 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is very seldom any benefit in linking years. MoS policy is ambiguous on the subject, but Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context seems to imply having few or none linked. --Guinnog 01:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Roses

This is more of the same the last editor asked about: why are you removing links from all the years, such as you did here [2]? Please point me to the part of manual of style you are gettting your guidance from and I will read up on it. thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]