Jump to content

User talk:Ruud Koot/2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categories

[edit]

Hi, wrt this edit — avoid putting mathematicians directly in Category:Indian mathematics. There's a subcategory Category:Ancient Indian mathematicians for that (the name is a bit of a misnomer, but the category page says it's for pre-13th century, which includes everyone up to Bhaskara II or so when Indian mathematics effectively ended outside Kerala, and for Kerala we have the subcat Category:Kerala school). BTW, you've been moving a lot of articles to names with diacritics. This is not necessary or helpful; it's better to use common names. There has been a lot of prior discussion on many India-related articles about this. It's enough to have the diacritically correct name in the article at the top somewhere; most readers cannot read (or cannot correctly read) the names with diacritics, so in many cases such changes make the encyclopedia less helpful. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately someone re-categorized most of these articles in Category:Indian mathematicians, making it unclear which are contemporary mathematicians, and which are of historical interest. I hadn't noticed Category:Ancient Indian mathematicians yet, as it is indeed quite a misnomer, so I put some in Category:Indian mathematics (categories are also often used for a related-to relation, in this case biographies being related to the history of Indian mathematics.) Regarding transliteration, for most subjects I agree we should use an informal romanization, however in academic literature on the history of Indian mathematics (of which there is far more than "popular" literature) you'll find the names are consistently transliterated with diacritics, making it the common name. The diacritics shouldn't really cause a problem any more unless you're using a web browser which is by now a decade old. Cheers, —Ruud 05:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Category:Medieval Indian mathematicians to avoid the misnomer. By "most readers cannot read", I did not mean that there is a technological problem, but that the diacritics are simply incomprehensible to most readers, and thus unhelpful. I agree that for really obscure articles where there is so little popular literature (or academic literature without diacritics) that the academic literature with diacritics is more common, it's better to use the name with diacritics (if you can prove that it's more common). I also feel there isn't much of a problem for names where removing diacritics from the IAST transliteration would result in an acceptable normal spelling. But especially when IAST makes counterintuitive choices (such as using c for 'ch', and ṣ for 'sh'), the result is something unhelpful or misleading for nearly all readers. Those who are capable of reading IAST and need the correct pronunciation are sufficiently well-served by putting that transliteration in the first line, without encumbering all readers throughout the article. (Again, there are exceptions such as for articles dealing with Sanskrit literature, where getting the right transliteration is more crucial and is also more likely to be more familiar to a greater proportion of readers.) We're just rehashing the usual discussion at this point, it appears. :p Shreevatsa (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Medieval Indian mathematicians seems reasonable, although I've never seen the adjective medieval applied to Indian. With the possible exceptions of Āryabhaṭa and Bhāskara II (but probably even for those) I'm fairly certain I can give you n+1 IAST transliterations (or a whole lot more) of a name if you give me n romanizations (restricted to reliable sources). These articles mostly do belong to the class of exceptions where the right transliteration is more crucial to many readers. —Ruud 06:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. As I said, it's enough to put the IAST transliteration (and much more usefully, the spelling in some Indian script) to make it clear what the correct pronunciation is. The transliteration is more likely to mislead than clarify: if instead of "Achyuta Pisharati" you name an article "Acyuta Piṣāraṭi", it is more likely to be read as "Acyuta Pisarati", which is terrible. Anyway, this has been much discussed, and the consensus is against such torturing of readers. So please stop. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is in this case not the pronunciation which is important, but the fact that one might be studying original language manuscripts. WP:COMMONNAME actually gives us two test to determine the common name:
  1. Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.
  2. Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most common.
If we consider these two points
  1. Unfortunately most of these articles are currently quite poorly sourced. I hope to improve this over time. As this is done it should become obvious that indeed a majority of reliable sources favour a transliteration.
  2. Regarding other encyclopedia's, we have for example the Dictionary of Scientific Biography which uses an IAST transliteration.
I really think you're underestimating the "obscurity" of most of these articles, fairly little has been written on these historical scientists and manuscripts outside of what appears in academic journals. —Ruud 06:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is important is to help the readers, whom the encyclopedia is being written for. The readers are reading a general-purpose encyclopedia, not studying original language manuscripts. You are welcome to improve the sourcing and prove that a certain spelling is more common; that would be a better use of your time currently than contriving to mislead readers. As it happens, many of these articles currently source something like the MacTutor History of Mathematics, which happens to use spellings without diacritics — so they are using the spelling used in the source. (Even Encyclopedia Britannica tends to use non-diacritic spellings often.) Shreevatsa (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are we helping readers by giving them an ad hoc romanization that differs from the transliteration they will encounter in any material they may wish to consult for further reading? (This is the strongest argument for not using a transliteration in most articles, it differs from what readers will encounter in the larger world, for these articles the opposite is true.) Regarding the other sources your mention: the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive unfortunately has many errors in the names they list and the lack of a proper transliteration is more of a historical technical limitation than a deliberate choice. The Encyclopedia Britannica has certainly recently been using transliterations for historical Arabic scientists in it's electronic version (the paper edition may have done this even longer), but I haven't checked it for any historical Indian scientists. —Ruud 06:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica. Let's take as axiomatic some things about readers: (1) The majority of them are not experts in any topic. (2) If they are experts or enthusiasts, they may be experts in mathematics (who don't know IAST), not experts in Sanskrit (who know IAST), (3) The majority of them will not go looking for further reading, beyond the references in the article. So your argument isn't strong. Moreover, the romanisations aren't ad-hoc (they're lossy and non-invertible, but they're well-defined as maps), and often most readers' reading of the romanisation is closer to the real name than their reading of the IAST transliteration would be. Anyway, the fact that even historians of Indian mathematics like Takao Hayashi who would use IAST spellings in their scholarly works choose to use natural romanisations for encyclopedias should be sufficient illustration of what our guiding principle must be. Shreevatsa (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, if you do improve an article to have dozens of sources, I have no objection to your using whatever name is common. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that still mean we would at times have to "invent" a romanization for a topic which has so for only referred to by its transliteration. We would ideally have a audio recording for pronunciation. If a mathematician, who is no expert in Indic languages, does want to search for material related to the topic, a transliteration will be of much more use to him than a romanization as library search engines usually are unable to match the romanization given as search term against the transliteration present in the text or title of books and articles, or author field of a manuscript or its translation. In the future I will add additional references and reliable material for further reading, before renaming an article. Cheers, —Ruud 07:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Bhāskara II article at Britannica contains several transliterations? The author of Britannica's Aryabhata I article does use use transliterations in this paper. —Ruud 07:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's my point. As I said, the same authors who would use diacritic marks in a scholarly work don't do so in popular work like encyclopedias. This is because the readers of a journal may reasonably be expected to be aware of the field's conventions, while we cannot expect that of our encyclopedia's readers. (I still personally prefer using diacritic marks even on Wikipedia wherever ignoring marks gives a natural romanisation, because even inexpert readers can muddle through, but it must be admitted that readers unfamiliar with the marks will have to stumble over the words.) Anyway, improving sources is the more crucial concern than names of articles, so if there are enough sources in an article to determine the spelling, that's ideal. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

Avicenna

[edit]

Beste Ruud, het beginsel A plus B is C” kan alleen worden gebruikt als deze conclusie al eerder is getrokken in een betrouwbare bron die betrekking heeft op het in het artikel behandelde onderwerp. Ik heb een betrouwbare bron (Encyclopedia Iranica) aangegeven. De geschiedenis van Centraal Asie is divers en niemand mag iets van deze gechiedenis opeisen. Iranica gebruikt echter geen etnische afkomst van Avicenna, want dit kan leiden tot verwarring en misvatting. Groetjes, --Artacoana (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTHESIS allows "A and B, therefore C", only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. My reference to the definition of tajik DOES publish the same argument in the relation to the topic: Avicenna was a Persian, and Tajiks of his homeland are Persian people and therefore Avicenna was a Tajik too.--Artacoana (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting the article before we come to a compromise.--Artacoana (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avicenna ‎

[edit]

User:Artacoana has reintroduced (Tajik) to Avicenna ‎citing trueknowledge.com, an authoress search engine mirroring Wikipedia and other online sources. This is a clear violation of WP:RS. When I tried to correct this, he reverted me, calling my edit "vandalism" , which is also a violation of WP:Civil. [1] I've tried my best to be accommodate this user and his concerns, but his aggressive posturing and editing is totally uncalled for. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism, because he (Kurd777) removed both of my edits. I had History of Civilizations of Central Asia as reference for the Bukharan origin of Avicenna, which is published by UNESCO.--Artacoana (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC):[reply]
I did no such thing. This is my edit [2], I only removed the non-RS trueknowledge.com. And dear Ruud Koot , what is with the new intro "whose native language was Persian". There are thousands of academic of sources about the Persian ethnicity and background of Avicenna on Google scholar and elsewhere. I don't see why we have to use such vague wording for the intro, in order to accommodate a disgruntled editor engaged in WP:Battle, and using WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar results

[edit]

These are the Google Scholar results on Avicenna's background. These are all secondary academic sources, and they all label him as "Persian", nothing more, nothing less. Saying that merely "his language was Persian" is not reflective of the facts. Please change the lead, to reflect the academic consensus on this issue. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Encyclopedias are considered a Tertiary source , and should not be given more weight than academic secondary sources. Kurdo777 (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you search both words "Avicenna" and "Persian", of course you get your desired results where none of them is a valid source. This is not acceptable. The primary sources which are specialized in Iranian and Islamic studies say others:
  • Encyclopedia Iranica: AVICENNA, the Latin form of the name of the celebrated philosopher and physician of the Islamic world (NO REFERENCE TO PERSIAN ORIGIN)
  • The Encyclopedia of Islam: He was born in 370/980 in Afshana, his mother's home, near Bukhara. His native language was Persian. (NO REFERENCE TO PERSIAN ORIGIN)
  • History of Civilizations of Central Asia, V.4: The seminal writings of the philosopher-scientist Avicenna (a native of Bukhara) and the timeless masterpieces ... (NO REFERENCE TO PERSIAN ORIGIN)

--Artacoana (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruud, the term "Persian" creates confusion and let Iranians to claim Avicenna for themselves. It's unfair, my friend. Why not using "Islamic" that includes all people of the region. We have reliable primary sources that use Islamic instead of Persian, so why not Wikipedia? --Artacoana (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ruud and sorry for interference.
User Artacoana, this issue should be discussed in it's place, here, not here. I invite involved users to stop here and resume there. Confusion by using the word Persian is just a self-interpretation; Nowadays there is no country in the name of Persia, but there is Tajikistan and using the word Tajik can be confusing much more than the word Persian!.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fact that Iranica and Encycloapedia state "his native language is Persian" is sufficient. Native denotes ethnicity and should not be deleted. The book of Goodman which is a specialized book (actually better than Encycloapedias) also is clear: "Abu Ali Sina, the Persian scholar, physician, ..."(Avicenna By Lenn Evan Goodman). Even if people disagree withis intrepretation, at the same time, one should not remove other sources that use "Persian" which do not contradict Iranica and Encycloapedia of Islam. Those are scholarly sources as well and meet WP:RS. There are enough sources in google books and scholars with this regard. Also Artacoana's claim: "the term "Persian" creates confusion and let Iranians to claim Avicenna for themselves. It's unfair, my friend.", that is not the case. Check Persian people. One does not use modern nationalities for old scholars, tht is anachronism. The term Persian in its own time is clear (native Persian speaker as is the case of Avicenna even mentioned in the two Encycloapedias Artacoana cites). Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruud, I don't understand your insistence on the application of Goodman's Avicenna as "a reliable source". Jūzjānī (980 - 1037) is a pupil and THE biographer of Avicenna, whose citations have been used by the medieval Islamic bio-bibliographer Ebn al-Qefṭī (in Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā) as the source of his entries on the life of Avicenna. Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā, "The History of Learned Men", was translated by J. Lippert in 1903. NOWHERE IN THIS VERY RELIABLE SOURCE CAN BE SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO THE PERSIAN ETHNICITY OF AVICENNA. As a result, the primary sources such as Iranica and the Encyclopedia of Islam have avoided using the term Persian for the ethnicity of Avicenna. The application of the term "Persian" is unfair and leads to the unfair claim of Iranians for these scholars, as today the Persian speaking Iranians are the only ones who are unfairly called Persian in the official statistics. This unfair application can lead to division and hatred among people of the region. Please let me know where I can complain.--Artacoana (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Iranica has it somewhere else: " Iranica has it in another section: "Avicenna (q.v.) was the first Persian physician to build on the Galeno-Hippocratic tradition rather than dogmatically adhering "[3]. Note Iranica does not even have the ethnicity of Ferdowsi [4].. So lack of something does not mean contradiction of something that exist. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Henry Corbin and Arthur John Arberry (his book is a translation of one of Avicenna's work and so more specialized) and the rest I mentioned are well known scholars. Of course it is better to have books solely on Avicenna(these books include that but sometimes more), but there are not too many in the literature. However, books specializing on Islamic Philosophy written by giant orientalists (Full Professors) on the specific topic (Islamic philosophy) meet WP:RS and are specialized enough. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afteroon, the books I am quoting are very specialized book. See [[5]] (Avicenna on Theology [Paperback]) and [6]. Both of these are also giant orientalits Henry Corbin and Arthur John Arberry and they are more specialized than goodman. thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

imposter users

[edit]

Hi Ruud, can you please check these fake users or IP addresses and see whether they are duplicated?

Many thanks, --Artacoana (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, can you please check the user [9] to see if it's a dublicated one? It must be identical to the above IP adresses who is making new account to leave hateful comments (example) Cheers, --Artacoana (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

Finitism

[edit]

I'm confused by the fact tag you added there - it looks like the source provided is pretty thorough. Could you leave a note on the talk page explaining why you're worried? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

Program analysis

[edit]

I suggest you propose that Category:Static code analysis be renamed to Category:Static program analysis. To do that, see Wikipedia:Cfd#Procedure. (I reverted your edit that added that suggestion to the category page.) --Pnm (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

Computer Science Categories

[edit]

Why did you remove the word Neural Network from the artificial intelligence title and why did you remove software engineering? DMoE (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBC and TRAK

[edit]

Hi Ruud, thanks for reverting all those edits by Architectchao. I guess you are right, that he has been pushing his vision into a series of systems articles. I support the "Articles for deletion-nomination" of the SBC Architecture because it seems to be a promotion stunt. A second look at the sbc-architecture.org website made this even more clear to me.

There seems to be some similarities between SBC and TRAK and the user Wikitect. However at the moment I am quite positive about his work. Now I wonder at the Software architecture article, if you have a problem with the changes Wikitect made there? If not I would like to restore those.

Met vriendelijke groet -- Mdd (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Na bwc) It looks like TRAK should probably go as well. I generally don't worry too much about "non-notable" articles (if no one reads them what harm can they do?), but it seems inevitable that the authors start spamming links to them all over the place. That's definitely not acceptable. Groet, —Ruud 23:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For me there is a difference between those two. Wikitect made (what I consider) valuable contributions to the software architecture, enterprise architecture framework, view model and operational view articles. You are right that Wikitech also added the TRAK article to several articles. But he did a lot more. Personally I think Architectchao's work should be consider POV pushing, for example in the way he changed the lead of the system article. -- Mdd (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit by Wikitect because it included a link to TRAK, I don't have any opinion on the other changes he made at the same time tough, so feel free to restore them. —Ruud 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks I just did. Back to your first statement, I am still not sure I agree. I does look like it that TRAK has little notability. But I did some more searching and found several things: The one website with a wiki; a blog from Tom Graves about TRAK; a discussion group on Linked-In about it; and an other wiki at code.google.com.
Als je het niet erg vind schakel ik even over in het Nederlands. Persoonlijk vind ik het rondom TRAK interessant om te zien hoe zo iets elders opgezet wordt. Je hebt gelijk, dat het niet (nog) wikiwaardig genoeg is. Maar het ziet er in mijn ogen best redelijk verzorgt uit... en als ik me niet vergis kan zo'n opzet wel in Wikisource geplaatst worden. Op de Nederlands Wikipedia hebben we dat recentelijk ook gedaan met een opzet die daar niet paste. Wat mij betreft staat dat geheel hier niet echt in de weg. Met het beschikbaar stellen van ruimte hier, is Wikitech ook gaan nadenken over de algemene representatie hier, en dit soort medewerking acht ik persoonlijk toch ook erg waardevol. Zo heeft het denk ik verschillende plussen en minnen...!? -- Mdd (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ik heb er niet uitgebreid genoeg naar gekeken, maar ik vermoed dat het artikel een verwijderingsdebat niet zou overleven. Ook Wikisource heeft redelijk strikte regels omtrent wat wel en niet geaccepteerd wordt. Misschien dat Wikibooks en Wikiversity hier iets makkelijker mee omgaan. Maar goed, zolang de auteur niet te veel (negatieve) aandacht trekt en niemand op het idee komt om het artikel te nomineren voor verwijdering kan het nog best wel eens een poos blijven bestaan. —Ruud 00:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuses, ik bedoelde inderdaad Wikibooks. Zo'n opzet past inderdaad niet in Wikisource, want het is geen gepubliceerd werk. Nu kan ik dat vermoeden van je alleen maar bevestigen. Met de tijd zal het sowieso wel duidelijk worden of dit nu wel of niet wetenswaardig blijft. -- Mdd (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ruud, could you take an other look at the TRAK article. I think it hasn't improved, but has become worse because several links to commercial parties have been added. On the talk page the creator doesn't seem to see any problem. I could use some advice. -- Mdd (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nog dit. Ik krijg daar echt geen hoogte van wat daar aan de hand is? Of de auteur doet alsof zijn neus bloed, of hij begrijpt het helemaal niet. Het is toch een nieuwe ontwikkeling, die nog niet in de boeken is verschenen en als zodanig niet als encyclopediewaardig wordt aangemerkt hier?? -- Mdd (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive weed optimization algorithm

[edit]

Hi. I was wondering why the article on Invasive weed optimization algorithm was removed? Thanks. - ARM (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any topic on Wikipedia needs to mentioned in several independent publications to be considered suitable for inclusion. Regards, —Ruud 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ruud, Thanks for your response. I believe if you carefully take a look at the references of the article you will "easily" find several "independent" publication in "qualified" and "internationally" accepted JOURNALS which have mentioned and employed the Invasive weed optimization algorithm in their work. In the following I provide you TWO of these publications:
  1. S. Karimkashi, A.A. Kishk, "Invasive Weed Optimization and its Features in Electromagnetics", IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1269-1278, 2010.
  2. A. R. Mallahzadeh, S. Es'haghi, H. R. Hassani, "Compact U-array MIMO antenna designs using IWO algorithm", International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer-Aided Engineering, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 568–576, 2009.
I am sure if you search on Google you will find many other "independent" articles who have used this algorithm. The original paper on this algorithm has been cited 44 times according to Scopus.
Please let me know if you could kindly put the article back. If you have any concerns please let me know. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.- ARM (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those 44 papers citing the original were not cited themselves, so it's a bit of a borderline case. The fact that the article didn't contain much information (apart from the list of papers) didn't really help either, but I see it was more extensive in a previous incarnation. I'll undelete the article and list it for discussion once more. —Ruud 00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ruud. Thanks for your cooperation.- ARM (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thanks for your comments. I would like to mention that a number of "independent" citations have cited other "independent" publications, who cited the original paper. For example, consider the following paper:
- A. R. Mallahzadeh, S. Es'haghi, A. Alipour, "Design of an E-Shaped MIMO Antenna Using IWO Algorithm for Wireless Application at 5.8 GHz", Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 90, pp. 187–203, 2009.
This paper was cited 18 times according to Google ([10])
As another example, the following paper:
- S. Karimkashi, A. A. Kishk, "Invasive Weed Optimization and its Features in Electromagnetics", IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1269–1278, 2010.
is cited for 6 times according to Google ([11]).
Please note that the above-mentioned articles are published very recently. Thanks.- ARM (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to improve the article. But I am a little slow these days because of my studies. Thanks.- ARM (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBC architecture and TRAK

[edit]

Hi! Rudd:

I am sorry... that I may be pushing SBC too hard. I have been working on SBC architetcure for 20 years and have published many SBC architetcure-related books and papers (most in Chinese). If these papers (in Chinese) can be referred, then I may try to keep SBC architecture in Wikipedia. Otherwise, I may not be able to convince you guys that SBC architetcure is so different from TRAK .. or DODAF, or ToGAF .. etc.

I really want to tell you that the method used in SBC Architetcure is so good (all because it integrates structure and behavior, and all other architecture approaches are not able to accomplish this). Please let me know if I can use all those publications (in Chinese) to keep SBC architetcure alive in wikipedia.


Architectchao (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are there any independent publications on SBC Architecture (i.e. books or papers not written by yourself?) There rule of thumb for establishing whether a topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia is if people besides the original author or creator found the topic worthy enough to write about. —Ruud 13:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, 7 papers (in Chinese) and 30 theses are written and published by my graduate students. In such sense, maybe SBC Architecture is not strong enough to appear in Wikipedia. It is kind of difficult for SBC believers (most are Chinese) to edit the SBC architecture in Wikipedia. That is why I, myself, almost spent 6 months to update this title.

Architectchao (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine if you have this title deleted. I think I may try some other ways (instead of using wikipedia) to promote the SBC architecture. Thanks for your efforts.

Architectchao (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Industry

[edit]

Your lucky that I don't mind your structural revert and change in the Computer Science article. I would however still include a section that talks about how computer science is applied in industry. Call it industry I suppose, its one thing to talk about sub-areas, its another to talk about how it applies to different sections of the economy. I know application is probably covered in the sub-articles themselves, but it would be nice to have a quick overview so people can get a sense of what computer science does in a quick glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimoes (talk • contribs) 04:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

pi calculus

[edit]

Hi Ruud. You just moved the pi calculus page to π-calculus. Are you aware that this move was proposed previously and unanimously opposed? The guidelines say "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." ComputScientist (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That debate was a long time ago, the technical reasons for not moving it no longer apply. The standard works on this subject all use π-calculus. Also, as the discussion resulted in the article being moved to "pi calculus" (by analogy with lambda calculus) instead of the more widely used "pi-calculus" I could not take the discussion very seriously. Cheers, —Ruud 13:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

Unclear of purpose of decat

[edit]

Hi what is this decat action you took on Talk:Mathematics in Medieval Islam? -Aquib (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it should be Mathematics in medieval Islam that should be categorized, not the talk page. —Ruud 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see, thanks -Aquib (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI on your page move / lockout at Mathematics in medieval Islam

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. please forward as needed -Aquib (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

[edit]

Consolidating two discussions that we can't seem to ever agree on, here's this. I offered a compromise on Talk:Comparison of Platform Virtual Machines, and I hope you look at it (it's NOT a new comment). Second, on Wikipedia talk:Why create an account?, I think WP:BITE has nothing to do with what I added there.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the situation is exactly equal for VirtualBox and VMWare, adding a comment only for Hyper-V would be factually incorrect and not neutral (see [[WP:NPOV). Secondly, your proposed comment does not make any sense at all (see "not even wrong"). —Ruud 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The struck-out part of your comment is completely wrong-Hyper-V's acceleration doesn't occur to local users. I hope you don't dispute that.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Hyper-V's acceleration doesn't occur to local users" This string of characters doesn't mean anything. It's a nonsensical composition of words. I fail to see how I can give a reply to it. —Ruud 20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me expand it. Hyper-V only provides acceleration to remote users of virtual machines of Hyper-V. There is no source saying that local users-those not connected remotely-will receive the acceleration too. But now, I think we have to define what this criteria is. Does it mean local, or can it include remotely? I would say not because then the same argument can be used to give everything 3D acceleration-I bet you've used Remote Desktop to connect to a computer that isn't Aero-enabled before and received Aero, eh?Jasper Deng (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have no idea what message you try to convey here, appart form the fact to completely fail to comprehend how virtual machines work (see "not even wrong"). Now, you go find a source that states Hyper-V's implementation somehow differs from VMWare's or any other virtual machine. In the mean time I'm going to stop wasting my time by ceasing all communication with you. —Ruud 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to stop accusing me of being dumb when it comes to virtualization. My idea is that, RemoteFX only works with RDP. Is that not clear?Jasper Deng (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good, why didn't you say that sooner? It doesn't work only (remotely) over RDP. It also works locally. Just as seamless as with VMWare and VirtualBox. —Ruud 21:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may have used too much jargon. Can you provide a source? A screenshot would be fine!Jasper Deng (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The other editor already gave a good source that it does. You still claim it's supposedly doesn't. You provide the additional source the prove there is any controversy at all (as opposed to your lack knowledge.) —Ruud 21:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that source proves your comment before the last one. Explain if you think it does.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's blatantly obvious. I fail to see how we would be able to explain/prove it more clearly to you. Bye. —Ruud 21:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source fails to mention what it does to non-remote users of the Hyper-V server.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're now claiming Hyper-V handles remote RDP connections different from local RDP connections? Where does it ever make a distinction between local and remote connections? Prove your claim. —Ruud 21:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that. If you do a RDP connection to the target VM, you get Aero provided your client supports it, and the client CAN be the Hyper-V server. And if you don't use RDP, how does Hyper-V provide 3D graphics? VMWare and VirtualBox provide it w/o the neccessity of RDP.21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Hyper-V provides 3D acceleration on the guest side to the exact same extent as VirtualBox and VMWare do. How this happens to get displayed on the host side is completely irrelevant to this. —Ruud 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that if we allow the definition of 3D acceleration to include RDP, then there's no point in the entire column of the table because RDP can be used to work around virtually any 3D acceleration issue in virtual machines.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you need much more than RDP (a protocol) to get 3D acceleration (namely a paravirtualized graphics driver, Microsoft just happens to reuse their Remote Desktop drivers for Hyper-V, VMWare necessarily had to write their own.) Secondly, do you have a source that states RDP is disallowed? —Ruud 22:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RDP isn't allowed under the purposes of Wikipedia's comparison. And I don't know what you're talking about-RDP connections are what are used to troubleshoot lack of Aero in Windows Virtual PC.
You stopped making sense again. —Ruud 22:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Resetting indentations) I mean, we cannot let RDP count as 3D acceleration on that Wikipedia page. It's been used elsewhere to get 3D acceleration out of non-3D-enabled VMs, like with Windows Virtual PC.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{citation needed}} —Ruud 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[1]Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{verification failed}} —Ruud 22:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That other reference is similar to this one.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
  3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:Ruud Koot (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Ruud 21:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

Hi Ruud

[edit]

Sorry to hve changed your al-Khwarizmi. No harm intended. I have explained my reasons on the discussion page. I promise not to revert again, if you 're really, really attached to the way the article is right now. Ciao. S711 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Optimering

[edit]

Ruud, I would like to make a small 'official' note of our 'relationship' on your talk page because I have been in a couple of edit conflicts lately in which you have voiced your opinion sometimes protecting me or my points of view, which has resulted in you being targeted for criticism as well. Let it be known that I do not know Ruud or have ever met him, I have never communicated with him by e-mail or anything of the sort. However, I greatly appreciate Ruud participating in the disputes because he is considerate and fair. In fact, Ruud is so fair and unbiased that he has also criticized me for being elitist and impolite (which has been duly noted.) If it were not for such intelligent and unbiased administrators Wikipedia would be a Wild West of hearsay. I hope that Ruud will continue participating in improving Wikipedia as his leisure time permits and I naturally expect that he will voice objections to my behaviour or edits if he should see reason to do so, just as he does with other editors. Optimering (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting outside experts

[edit]

Some of the articles I have edited have been criticized mainly by the editors User:MrOllie and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz as being biased and unbalanced in their coverage and inclusion of certain references. I get the impression that the editors are WP:HOUNDING me so they should come across this message as well, in which I propose a neutral resolution to the dispute. I have continually tried to revise the articles in question but it appears that the editors are not satisfied and especially MrOllie keeps reverting edits I make. While I question their knowledge of the subject matter and hence their ability to make such judgments, and I generally believe there is no merit to their accusations, it would be wrong of me to continue posting references to research with certain viewpoints without a review of the disputed Wikipedia articles from neutral and knowledgeable editors. Unfortunately, in the past disputes over those articles it seems that there are not many Wikipedia editors with sufficient insight to give qualified opinions on these particular topics. I would therefore like to propose that we request outside assistance and that you or another official Wikipedia administrator help in this. It will give more weight to the matter if an official Wikipedia administrator politely asks for outside assistance (besides, I never have any luck recruiting expert contributors as they have all turned me down.) I will naturally respect the outcome of an independent and competent review, and I hope the opposing editors will as well.

The disputed articles are:

  • Particle swarm optimization and differential evolution. Here I would suggest contacting the editors of reputable journals and briefly explain the matter and politely ask them to circulate amongst their reviewers a request to review/edit these articles, and if they have no concerns and feel the articles are unbiased and balanced then express their opinion in the talk pages. Although many academics do not wish to participate in Wikipedia because of the inherent problems with an open encyclopedia it might help if you mention that the PSO article is viewed about 10.000 times/month and the DE article about 2.500 times/month. The articles are presumably the first source for novices entering the field so it is in the best interest of the journals that the Wikipedia articles fairly and accurately represent the main methodologies, different schools of thought, etc. I would suggest contacting the editors of IEEE TEC, Springer Swarm Intelligence, and MIT Evolutionary Computation, to name a few.
  • Meta-optimization is a niche and it may be difficult to find qualified people reviewing and editing that article. An obvious suggestion would be Professor Eiben but his work is cited in the article so the opposing editors might question his neutrality. Perhaps Dr. Schoenauer from INRIA can make a suggestion for neutral reviewers/editors. (INRIA has actually published a number of papers in this research field but I never got around to listing them in the article - hopefully they will do so themselves, although the opposing editors might dislike that on COI concerns...)
  • Luus-Jaakola used to be local unimodal sampling and I'm not sure if the opposing editors still question its notability or neutrality, but if they do I would suggest contacting e.g. Dr. Virginia Torczon or maybe Dr. Anne Auger (also from INRIA) who are acknowledged researchers and may be able to provide a sound review of the article and possibly make changes/additions.

With a bit of luck you will be able to recruit several expert reviewers/contributors. In the academic world, reviews can take anywhere from months to years, so we will all need a little patience. Also, the varying schools of thought in this highly experimental research field are more like religions to some, so it might result in some heated debates. But regardless of the outcome I would welcome more expert contributors as it would mean that the burden of editing those articles no longer lies (almost) entirely with me.

Cheers,

Optimering (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Optimering
You seem like a nice person (or you seemed so, until the recent insults thrown at MrOllie, 00:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)). I just think that you have been rushing to create a slew of articles, when a reasonable editing schedule would allowed you to focus on one or two. I understand your wanting to save the local unimodal sampling article, and your having limited time. Rushing things has probably resulted in coincidental edits, that look "really weird" after the fact.
:(Today, I see that Nair has nothing about random sampling, but discusses C^2 functions! What am I supposed to think?)Updated example: The use of articles citing LJ to establish notability of the Pedersen thesis looked weird, imho! (00:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC))
It may still be possible to move the LJ heurstic/method article to the sandbox. I think that you will enjoy yourself more if you give yourself a little more time to develop an article, instead of editing under pressure and feeling scrutiny to develop this whole area.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War, what to do?

[edit]

As you know User:MrOllie is continually reverting edits I make, particularly references to certain work. His/her concern is WP:COI. He does not argue that the work is either irrelevant, biased with weasel-words, or given too much weight thus making the articles unbalanced. He does not tag the articles with his concern and discusses on the talk-page, he just removes text. More importantly, he removes sections or phrases that makes the remaining context meaningless, for example in his recent edit of Luus-Jaakola where he removed an entire section on setting the parameter of the algorithm, without which the algorithm is useless. I have tried communicating with MrOllie several times over an extensive period of time but he continues his warring. I will gladly accept a community consensus or a verdict from an academic review board, but I will not be tyrannized by a random editor with no insight on the topic. Do you have any recommendations on how to handle this as it is rather tiresome that I have to monitor the articles and repair the damage? Thanks. Optimering (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie doesn't appear to be the brightest star under the sky, so I think trying to reason with him will not be possible. Some third-opinion would be useful. I shall think about the most appropriate venue. —Ruud 11:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ruud, the insult about MrOllie should be removed, as you know as an administrator and a helpful editor. Even if it were true, it should be removed.
However, it is pessimistic and unwarranted. You should note that MrOllie did acknowledge his own error, when pointed out by Optimering, and corrected it. He has shown a willingness to learn, and correct his and my errors along with Optimering's.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COIN noticeboard

[edit]

As a courtesy, I alert you that there has been some discussion about Optimering at the COIN noticeboard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]
Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at M4gnum0n's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For your amusement

[edit]

In case you missed it, there is an amusing discussion going on here.  --Lambiam 00:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Screenshot-Adblock Plus Preferences.png

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot-Adblock Plus Preferences.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Peter Landin.png

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Peter Landin.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at AgadaUrbanit's talk page.
Message added 20:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Haskell

[edit]

I concede that you were correct regarding WP:FURTHER. The length of the designers list is an editorial judgment issue; your position is a reasonable one that I'm willing to compromise on. But I absolutely disagree that WP:CITEVAR should be callously ignored. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering

[edit]

What is the point of adding userrights you already have, excepting abusefilter? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edits failed to be auto reviewed. Why? —Ruud 21:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. I just asked because usually admins don't need to add extra those rights. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think so either. Probably just a 1.17 bug. —Ruud 22:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we about to lose the history on Mathematics in medieval Islam?

[edit]

It looks unstable, as you noted. Aquib (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment on stubbing (deletion) of Mathematics in medieval Islam article

[edit]

You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You -Aquib (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done!

[edit]

Excellent work discussing computer science! Keep up the good efforts! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are now four users besides myself who have raised concerns at ANI about the blocking of talk page access. SilverserenC 06:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]

Re:File:Khayyam-paper-1stpage.png

[edit]

I don't remember precisely. I guess someone sent me a file or something like a webpage and said the picture is from a manuscript in Tehran University. I made, probably, a "computer snapshot" of it and post it as "completely my own work". Now that I know more about the meaning of these words and look back I see that it was not a correct thing to do. So please let us delete it. Xashaiar (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing back. I will write an email to my friends to see who did sent me the picture and will ask about the image/its relevance to khayyam/source/..whatever. This may take some days. I will get an answer for that. Xashaiar (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at M4gnum0n's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citeseer

[edit]

Template:Citeseer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: speedy-deletion criterion R2

[edit]

You recently speedy-deleted Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) (2nd nomination). I don't necessarily disagree with the decision to delete it but you cited CSD#R2 in your edit summary. The wording of R2 explicitly excludes redirects to Wikipedia space. There are many legitimate cross-namespace redirects that are not even regular-deletable, much less speedy-deletable, and we're trying to clean up the cites to that clause so that it's not so widely misunderstood by new users. Nothing to be done for this case but if you could keep it in mind in future situations, it would make the cleanup easier. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Web 3.0 at ANI

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Web 3.0. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing

[edit]

Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]

Al-Kindi

[edit]

An editor has asked for a community reassessment of this article to see if it still meets the good article criteria. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Romme

[edit]

Hoi Ruud,

Zou jij mij je mening kunnen geven over de laatste ontwikkeling en discussie op het George Romme artikel. We hebben daar een conflict (gehad) over de vraag of je dat artikel al dan niet volgeplakt moet worden met tags. Ik ben gewend, dat je met twee onafhankelijke bronnen de notability bevestigd. Ik heb daar zelf nu de indruk dat die discussie een gebed zonder eind wordt, omdat de ander gewoon niet wil toegeven. Een second opinion van jou stel ik erg op prijs, want dan kan ik er zelf een punt achter zetten. -- Mdd (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Tag bombing, which is considered disruptive behaviour. As there seem to be a number of independent sources not even all tags apply. If the other editor still thinks the person in question is not notable enough, he should nominate the article for deletion instead of repeatedly tagging the article with a tag requesting other editors to edit the article to establish notability. —Ruud 13:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]

Islamic mathematics

[edit]

Hello Ruud. Thank you for the reminder, I'm actually still working on the categories, there is still a lot to do and I hope the renaming issue doesn't slow down my work. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I know why are you reverting the work I've been doing for weeks ? A decision is being made on renaming those categories Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still hadn't re-categorized all those biographies of mathematicians as I requested a few days ago. —Ruud 13:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes were really not needed Ruud. The categorization of content under "Islamic mathematics", "Islamic astronomy" and to some extent "Islamic medicine" is more difficult than say "Islamic geography" and I couldn't proceed until we settle the naming issue, so any new categories I might create would follow the new name. And for that, I've been working on the categorization of other stuff Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the confusing part here, is that I removed "Persian astronomers" and "Arab astronomers" from "Islamic astronomy" (as both categories included modern astronomers), so that each astronomer would have to reference both "[Ethnicity] astronomers" and "Astronomers of the Islamic Golden Age") but haven't yet decoupled "Persian mathematicians" and "Arab mathematicians" from "Islamic mathematics". So really, the articles that didn't have both "Islamic mathematicians" and "Mathematicians of the Islamic Golden Age" actually still belonged to "Islamic mathematics". I'll fix this tonight and sorry for the delay.
Another issue I've been meaning to ask you is the use of modern categories such as "Iraqi mathematicians" to medieval mathematicians. Jagged redefined "Iraqi mathematicians" to include mathematicians born and raised in Iraq or were originally from there but this is really confusing and often the mathematician's ethnicity conflicts with the parent category of "Iraqi mathematicians" which is "Arab mathematicians". The same goes for "Syrian mathematicians" which includes ancient Greek mathematicians !
So would it be a good idea to restrict "Iraqi/Syrian/Egyptian/... mathematicians" to modern scholars only, and use "People from city/town" for medieval scholars instead? Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied here. —Ruud 11:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

[edit]

Nomination of Analytica (software) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Analytica (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analytica (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

[edit]

Adolf Yushkevich

[edit]

I moved the page back per WP policy (see link on the talk page). In the future, please do not move Russian people's pages, or at least discuss first - it's a bit of a pain to move them back. Mhym (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please rv the moves. Please read [12] the portion about Patronimics. Please make sure the correct name for the page is Adolf Yushkevich. Mhym (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Hard disk drive article

[edit]

As you are involved in the discussion (dispute), I feel it is inappropriate for you to use your admin bit to edit the article when no one else can. Jeh (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were unrealted to the current dispute. You can use {{requested edit}}. —Ruud 04:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I disagree with your change. It is true that Ubuntu does not use "terabyte" or "gigabyte" but it most certainly reports capacity in powers of 1024. That's what the IEC prefixes are - prefixes that represent powers of 1024. Jeh (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "your change" refers to [13]? This is a factual error I introduced myself. Explained here. —Ruud 04:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constant ANI incidents

[edit]

Hey Ruud? can you put in a word about these constant ANI incidents?

Every few days Greg and friends have been posting my name to WP:ANI and then piling on. Of course, nothing ever results from these, but it's getting extremely tedious. Now they've posted an incident about how they think I have too many incidents (and a bunch of random stuff).--RaptorHunter (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The latest: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unstable_behavior_by_User:RaptorHunter

I agree with what Chris Cunningham said at the ANI thread. The admins get more annoyed with the people posting these complaints than with you. Just ignore it. They are only putting themselves in a bad position if this ever goes into arbitration. —Ruud 16:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Documentaries about psychology

[edit]

Category:Documentaries about psychology, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yr Unlocking HDD page

[edit]

I really think, in light of the clear lack of consensus, your announcing intent to unlock at 10:13 and then unlocking at 10:14 is an abuse of your power as an administrator and hope you will take corrective action without making it necessary for me to take this to the next level, whatever that maybe. Tom94022 (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom94022 the clear strong valid consensus is against your point of view. If you insist on taking it to the next level I think you stand a good chance of being blocked for WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Glider87 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Record your cleanup

[edit]

Hello. Could you please record your work progress at the newly created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Top edits and, if you haven't done so yet, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists. The first link lists the most frequently articles edited by Jagged 85 by number of edits, the latter by total number of bytes added by him. As you know, keeping track of the cleanup effort is paramount to avoid double work. Thanks and regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

Sock, meat or joe job?

[edit]

[14] vs [15]? Tijfo098 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to say, you might try WP:RFCU. The text contains bracketed number, so I guess it was copy and pasted from somewhere else. —Ruud 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer graphics

[edit]

Hi Ruud,

If it's ok with you, I will like to remove your merge proposal from 6 feb, which hasn't lead to any discussion (yet).

I also suppose you put it there because at that time the difference between the two articles wasn't clear, because the general introduction of the article was missing since the last edit by User:Shobhit jaiswal at 09:05, 9 December 2010.

I didn't notice that untill now and now I have restored it. I guess it should be more clear why there are two articles. Mvg -- Mdd (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there currently is too much overlap between computer graphics, computer graphics (computer science) and computer-generated imagery, although the term "computer graphics" can refer to more than any of the two latter. I'm not going to try and edit them any time soon, so if you'd like to remove the merge tags, feel free. Perhaps a hatnote should be added? (Nevermind, it's there already.) Cheers, —Ruud 18:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. You are right that there is much overlap, but there are also some significant differences. I will try to keep a closer watch, that the hatnote doesn't disappear again. -- Mdd (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)

[edit]

Hi Ruud Koot. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter, which was closed as delete. The closure was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has been amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

[edit]

Recursion

[edit]

"Spoilsport" is hardly an attack. Putting Category:Recursion inside itself is a cute little in-joke that does no harm to the wiki. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

[edit]

Block of French IP editor

[edit]

Did you see that the editor has two IPs (acknowledged by him in good faith), which I noted on his talk page?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a dynamic address, we'll what happens next. —Ruud 01:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, you are a computer scientist, and understand what that editor wrote about dynamic routing/addressing ....
:-)
I hope that he will relax with a good night's sleep. I hope that, after the IP reconfigures itself, like a staircase at Gryffindor, he edits other articles. He seems like a smart guy, who can probably contribute to the project. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

[edit]

Semantics of programming languages

[edit]

My mistake. This edit marked as minor and without an edit comment would be inexcusable, had I noticed it. (I think I'm going to disable the pop-up rollback tools in my Watchlist page, they don't mix well with my newly acquired budget Android touchscreen tablet). You could as well have reverted my deletion asking for a reason there instead of at my talk page, and I wouldn't even have known about it. Diego Moya (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

[edit]

Could you help with a translation?

[edit]

[16] seems to say some unflattering things about version 6.0 of foxmail (phones home or something like that). FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Foxmail is een uitstekende mailclient. We maken voor deze test niet gebruik van de nieuwe Chinese versie van Foxmail 6.0 - dit programma is sinds een overname in dubieuze handen gevallen en stuurt zelfs af en toe data over uw emailgebruik naar 'datacollect.foxmail.com.cn'. We blijven liever bij de oude vertrouwde Foxmail 5.0.8, die ook in het Nederlands is te downloaden via fm.mozeskriebel.com."

translates to

"Foxmail is an excellent mailclient. For this test we don't use the new Chinese version of Foxmail 6.0 - this application has fallen into dubious hands after a takeover and even sends data about your e-mail usage to 'datacollect.foxmail.com.cn' at times. We rather stay with the trusted old Foxmail 5.0.8, which is also available for download in Dutch through fm.mozesfriebel.com."

Cheers, —Ruud 20:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at Jasper Deng's talk page.
Message added 02:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jasper Deng (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein's talk page

[edit]

Hi Ruud!

Please review the edits of User:95.48.70.154, who was blocked for vandalizing (possibly unintentionally imho) the COI noticeboard. Thanks!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed broken-record harassment

[edit]

Please look at the talk page for David Eppstein.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I would have removed the comment except that it already had a reply. If they post again, I intend deleting it all. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, again, Ruud! Thanks for archiving the page.
Maybe you should consider leaving a block-template on the editor's talk page?
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khayyam-paper-1stpage.png

[edit]

Dear Ruud,

I do not handle those talk pages in wikipedia so well, I guess it's ok to put my comment in this place(?). I saw your inquiry relating to the picture of the first page of Khayyams manuscript from the Tehran library (File:Khayyam-paper-1stpage.png). I am not the one who put it online, but it seems to me that it is a photocopy taken from the book by Mossaheb, "Hakim Omare Khayyam as an Algebraist", Tehran (1961). I couldn't find that first edition, however, I was able to obtain the second edition dating 2000. This is the bibtex entry for it:

@book{Mossaheb, author = {Mossaheb, Ghulam Hasayn}, title = "{Hakim Omare Khayyam as an Alebraist. Texts and Translation of Khayyam's Works on Algebra, with introductory chapters and commentaries}", address = {Tehran}, year = {1961}, note = {This edition couldn't be found. We cite from the second edition, edt. by the ``Society for the Appreciation of Cultural Works and Dignitaries with the collaboration of Iranian National Commission for UNESCO, Tehran (2000).} }

In that book, the facsimile of the first page of the manuscript in question here appears on page 484. In the weeks to come I would like to edit the Khayyam page in what concerns this small treatise of his, there is some additional interesting info to add. Cheers,

Sebastian — Preceding unsigned comment added by P0lise (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

[edit]

Comment

[edit]

Your call, but I think you might be inviting people to think you were unnecessarily harsh here. Sometimes even truth isn't an absolute defense. :) Msnicki (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-native speaker I often find it difficult to express myself both concisely, clearly and eloquently at the same time. I guess I felt the first two were the most important here. —Ruud 17:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]

Bogosort scholarly articles

[edit]

Hi Ruud--

I found a few more scholarly articles on Bogosort to back up claims that it was used in academia, and have listed them on the AfD page. Although the sort is not the focal point of the articles, they are used and used by different computer scientists than the one in the first article mentioned on the page. I hope it's enough! I don't suppose you have any other text references of bogosort in, say, textbooks or other reference books do you? I Jethrobot (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

[edit]

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I Jethrobot (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TXT e-solutions

[edit]

Hoi Ruud, kun jij een blik werpen op dit artikel. Ik heb sterk het vermoeden dat de aanmaker direct bij dit bedrijf betrokken is, daar hij hier alleen dit artikel bewerkt, en al tot twee keer toe een geschiedenis-sectie uit een jaarverslag uit 2006 hierheen heeft gecopieerd. Ook betrouwbare derde partijbronnen zijn door hem gewijzigd. De COI tag die ik hierom geplaatst heb is door hem echter weer verwijderd. Persoonlijk twijfel ik ook of zo'n middelgroot Italiaans bedrijf eigenlijk wel wikiwaardig is. Ik heb hem zelf al eens op een artikel gewezen, waarin staat dat personen als hij zich beter tot de overlegpagina kunnen beperken. Hier trek hij zich niets van aan, en schijnt te denken dat hij het artikel kan gebruiken als verlengde van de bedrijfswebside. Ik zou het op prijs stellen als jij hier eens naar kijkt, en wellicht enige actie kan ondernemen. Alvast bedankt. -- Mdd (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De meeste beursgenoteerde bedrijven lijken mij impliciet wikiwaardig, maar daar ben ik niet geheel zeker van. Is er een bepaald stuk tekst waarvan je denk dat het niet in het artikel thuishoort? Over het algemeen is herschrijven van het artikel of eventueel een verwijderingsnominatie een wat constructievere oplossing dan het aanbrengen van {{notability}} of {{COI}} tags. Het is voor de andere auteur dan vaak onduidelijk wat er precies wel moet gebeuren aan het artikel voordat deze weer weggehaald kunnen worden. Ik kon in de geschiedenis even niet zo snel vinden waar er met bronnen werd geknoeid, heb je hier de link naar de diff van? —Ruud 17:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt voor je directe reactie. Die TxT lijkt mij een kleine speler: die andere beursgenoteerde bedrijven aan de Borsa Italiana hebben alle een miljardenomzet, terwijl TxT rond de 50 miljoen zit. Maar als dat klopt, wat je zegt over beursgenoteerde bedrijven, dan heb ik daar vrede mee. Ik heb zelf ook geen vorostander van tags, maar die zijn denk ik wel op zijn plaats als er toevoegingen worden gedaan als "While the world was struggling for the crisis TXT e-solutions managed to launch a new Software product for Product Lifecycle Management...". In dit geval laat ik het wel los, en laat ik het oordeel over aan anderen. Die vermoedelijke copyright schending had overigens op deze divs [17], [18] betrekking, maar dat ter zijde. Mvg. -- Mdd (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Om mijn geweten te sussen, heb ik die hoera-stemming aangepast, met iets wat onder het tafelkleedje was geschoven. Ik ben benieuwd of die kritische noot overeind blijft. -- Mdd (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Server 3.1.
Message added 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]

Blue Whale Clustered file system

[edit]

Ah, you caught me, I should have kept my mouth shut. :-) Seriously, I get frustrated trying to rescue marginal articles that deletionists just remove anyway. Now and then I like to work on articles that will stick around. But I guess I am a softie and will take the bait again.... Thanks for the article link you added to the Ethernet page by the way. It gives a nice overview and is very readable. It is embarassing to me how bad the computer networking articles are, so any help is appreciated. W Nowicki (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Cerejota (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

[edit]

Vinum volume manager

[edit]

Hi Ruud. I note that you reverted the redirect from Vinum volume manager to RAID#Vinum. There had been a discussion on Talk:Vinum volume manager which indicated that people felt that the material was better placed in RAID - indeed, the material is still there: RAID#Software-based_RAID, and has been edited since the merge action so the material is well embedded in the article - [19]. What has happened since the merge is that the section name has changed so the redirect no longer goes to the appropriate section, but to the article as a whole, so a reader may miss the relevant material. What we have currently is the same material in two places, and a restored request to merge the material to RAID, and a restored request to split the material into into a new article titled Hardware RAID compared to Software RAID (which redirects to the RAID article).

I suspect that perhaps the solution is to update the redirect target, and then anchor it, to RAID#Volume_manager_support. Either that or open up a new discussion on keeping Vinum volume manager as a stand alone article, perhaps by initiating a split discussion on the RAID page. The option you have gone for of restoring the old article is also viable, though I suggest that the old dated split and merge tags are removed, as this would be essentially a new discussion based on the situation as it stands today, and people would need to consider that the material in Vinum volume manager is duplicated in RAID#Volume_manager_support, and consider what is to done about that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I see the situation people felt the section "Software RAID vs. Hardware RAID" should have been merged somewhere else, and I agree with that. However, the whole article was redirected, leaving only a single sentence behind in RAID#Volume manager support. I don't think this was ever the intention of the merge tags that where place on the article after the talk page discussion. Cheers, —Ruud 14:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, I'll sort it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flylanguage

[edit]

Hi,

I see you've indef blocked user:Flylanguage for his behaviour. This user has nominated a bunch of programming language articles for deletion. The first set were borderline pointy, and were not properly nominated. I corrected the nominations, and gave him instructions for doing a proper nomination as well as letting him know about WP:POINT. This was all apparently ignored as he then created more deletion discussions improperly. These AFDs are still not listed properly. Should these just be closed off? What is the appropriate action? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these articles probably should be deleted, despite that they where nominated in bad faith. I'd just let the nominations that are already at AfD run their course. For the incomplete nominations, I'd suggest either completing them or removing the banner/tagging the nomination page for speedy deletion, depending on whether you think it's likely the article will get deleted or not. Cheers, —Ruud 17:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note from an outsider to this. I think Flylanguage needs removal of talk page access if possible. Just a note.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he cools down and decides to apologize in a few days time, so as long as the nasty comments don't get too excessive... On the other hand, he would have to choose a different user name anyway. —Ruud 20:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, another admin has already removed access in any case.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 15:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

causa sui (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion involving you

[edit]

Don't panic :-) I brought up the issue of what to do with pointy AFDs from Flylanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at ANI. I'd like to hear your opinion. Regards, causa sui (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

[edit]

Rollback

[edit]

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Hi, these edits do not appear to be an appropriate use of rollback, especially given this discussion on MrOllie's talkpage. In the future, please discuss things like this before reverting, or revert with an edit summary, instead of using rollback. ThemFromSpace 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

Thanks

[edit]

Hi Ruud,

thanks for your hearty welcome.

--Cobalt pen (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you...

[edit]

Would you be willing to identify the editor you referred to at ANI. I'm surprised to hear one could have an ArbCom cases without prior DR, but if it happens, perhaps I have a misunderstanding of community conventions.--SPhilbrickT 21:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. —Ruud 21:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 22:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any value in a side conversation?

[edit]

I'm stunned that we seem to be so far apart, when in fact, we are very close on many relevant points.

  • Does CD misunderstand OR? Yes?
  • Is CD impervious to understanding our concerns? Seems that way.
  • Should CD be allowed to contribute in the same way he has been contributing? Absolutely not.

As far as I can tell, the only thing we disagree about it whether a editor has the right to be told formally (as in final warnings, on a talk or escalating blocks, or RfC findings) that failure to change will result in a ban. I say we owe that to editors who are attempting to edit on good faith (as contrasted to an editor who physically or legally threatens another user, which reserve immediate action without warning.) Even obvious vandals get more polite treatment. You take a different position.

I fear I am posting too much on the ANI page, so I wondered if a side conversation would be helpful. If you'd prefer to keep it all on the ANI page, I'll understand.--SPhilbrickT 16:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world, I would agree with you. We just don't live in an ideal world and everything has costs an benefits. The fact that CD seems impervious to understanding our concerns makes the benefit, certainly if you're only speaking about benefits for the project, negligible. On the other, there is a real cost to giving a formal warning over the informal ones that have already been issued: it drains time and energy, limited resources, of a number of editors who are of clear value to the project. From my perspective you are probably overestimating the benefits and underestimating the costs. But yes, this isn't an exact science, mostly just intuition based on the time I've been around here. —Ruud 08:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think you're overestimating the severity of a topic-ban: any block or ban is easily lifted for anyone who makes a sincere apology or convincing argument they will change their behaviour from now on. What it does do is force him to make the initiative instead of the community and that is, in my opinion, a good thing. —Ruud 09:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

wikipedia cannot be a reference

[edit]

Hi - Please don't use wikipedia in references - also each use of the <ref></ref> tags should be for a single reference.--Cameron Scott (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"He's a nice guy" - from your edit summaries, I doubt it. Have a nice day. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

DigiNotar : Using sources and references

[edit]

Hi Ruud, Volgens mij heb jij de referentie toegevoegd aan het artikel van Diginotar mbt stappen die de staat heeft ondernomen (referentie 2) die verwijst naar http://www.govcert.nl/dienstverlening/Kennis+en+publicaties/factsheets/factsheet-frauduleus-uitgegeven-beveiligingscertificaat-ontdekt.html

Je hebt alleen deze link gegeven tussen een <ref> {{de url}} </ref> maar dit geeft een slordige referentie die niet echt lekker leest en vaak ook helemaal geen beeld geeft van waar de referentie over gaat. (Valt in dit voorbeeld wel mee omdat de omschrijving in de URL staat, maar vaak is het ook alleen maar een database-index. Het leest prettiger als je de referentie opmaakt door de URL zelf tussen enkele vierkante haken te zetten en na de URL de titel van het artikel te plaatsen en buiten de haken om waar het vandaan komt en data. Zie ook nl:Help:Referenties en voetnoten en nl:Wikipedia:Bronvermelding.
Linked to the Dutch explination how to add footnotes and references. For English Wiki the rules are a bit different see: Help:Footnotes and links from that page. Alvast mijn dank. Tonkie (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Tonkie. Ik ga er vanuit dat de meeste links naar Nederlandstalig webpagina's vervangens zullen worden door links naar Engels-talige pagina's als deze beschikbaar komen en dat de tekst nog een aantal maal herschreven zal worden omdat het een actueel nieuwsitem is. Ik heb dus inderdaad (nog) niet veel aandacht besteed aan de opmaak van de referenties. Groet, —Ruud 09:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

WP Computer Science in the Signpost

[edit]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Computer Science for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

Reversion of the king cobra article

[edit]

Sorry to disturb you. Please do not revert the king cobra article as I have scanned the book and added to the reference to further support the statements. The reasons are stated in the discussion page as well and I have informed two managers Jasper Deng and Mokele about these. Thank you! User:Fearingpredators (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fearingpredators seems to be engaged in an edit war and doesn't understand certain aspects of Wikipedia. Be careful not to bite him.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ei R. Koot

[edit]

Preciso de sua ajuda com as barras de navegação. Eu tentei instalar em uma Wiki mas não funcionou muito bem. eu testei a template com a skin monobook e funcionou como eu queria, mas mudando para o visual da Wikia não funciona. o que tem de errado? Você entende português? eu não entendo muito bem Inglês.
Alysson Zero (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Você deve copiar o conteúdo de MediaWiki: monobook.js para MediaWiki: Common.js. (Especificamente hasClass as funções, collapseTable e createCollapseButtons.) —Ruud 08:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


Categories: Computer science departments in Great Britain & Computer science institutes in Great Britain

[edit]

Renaming proposed for Category:Computer science departments in Great Britain to Category:Computer science departments in the United Kingdom & Category:Computer science institutes in Great Britain to Category:Computer science institutes in the United Kingdom as "the United Kingdom" is the usual term, other than for a few mainly historical categories Hugo999 (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template for AI Genealogy Project

[edit]

Hi Ruud, on Academic genealogy of computer scientists I saw you recently adding an external link to the AI Genealogy Project.

For your information, I have created a template for adding entries to the AI Genealogy Project, based on the one for the Mathematics Genealogy Project, and used it already for some AI scientists. -- SchreyP (messages) 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

Hie Ruud

[edit]

thanku very much. Please keep on suggesting for improvement. REGARDS, Pranav Manghat (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C reference imports to Wikibooks

[edit]

Hi Ruud. I saw you've imported quite a lot of pages for C reference to wikibooks. Have you finished your work? I ask because I want to start the cleanup of these pages, as the consensus at Talk:C standard library#Pages for each function and WP:NOTMANUAL seems to be pretty much established. Thanks! 1exec1 (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that will probably take a while longer. Could you keep a list of all the articles that you merge/redirect/nominate for deletion? Then I can still transwiki them at a later date. Cheers, —Ruud 10:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I've only started discussions about specific actions in the talk pages. I think there will be some time until the discussions conclude, so most pages won't be touched for a while. There's already a page in which the status of the articles is tracked.1exec1 (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I saw that you haven't had time to do the imports yet. Maybe it would be better if I asked for import permission and did bulk of the work myself? I think there's no reason to wait any more, since the consensus over the cleanup to be implemented is pretty much established. Also, Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Data Structures and Algorithms has extended the deadlines, so I think they should be able to complete their work in Wikibooks. 1exec1 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can import them right now. Most of the work is actually in polishing the articles after the import. I didn't want to let that part slip. I guess it might indeed be better to do the import first and have some more people help with the copy editing. —Ruud 15:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can help with copy editing too. 1exec1 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

message

[edit]

the image that i have uploaded isn't a scan of any book but created by my own in MS ppt but needless to say i made the same by consulting the book mentioned and then uploaded it --Aamiya cchakraborty (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.tif is an unusual file format for export from PPT, but common for scanning. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CV Article for Deletion

[edit]

Looks like just a coincidence, and should probably be deleted as per consensus. Thanks for pointing it out, though. – Ilyanep (Talk) 08:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feeedback

[edit]

I am working on the page Double-ended priority queue under the India Education Program. Thanks a lot for your feedback on the course page. Pratik Lahoti (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Hi Ruud!

Thanks for your signature, which means a lot to me, especially since we have sometimes disagreed about content and tone, and you have an annoying habit of being right in those disagreements.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those were mostly collegial disagreements. You're a great writer and always speak your mind honestly. I can appreciate that. Cheers, —Ruud 17:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netra Nahar/Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining

[edit]

I have just blanked User:Netra Nahar/Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining. They have now re-posted there all the material that you rev-deleted as copyright violation from Artificial Intelligence in Data Mining. I left them a warning but the user page may need rev-del too. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

Re:Articles moved to Wikibooks

[edit]

Hey thanks for your concern. I appreciate that. Okay got it now. And thanks for the link, din't know the path format to get to these articles. aηsuмaη ༽Ϟ 11:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reopening of Shell sort move

[edit]

I have no problem with you submitting a new RM for Shell sort, but you should not reopen the previously closed discussion and modify it. You took a position on the move. Glrx (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:GTBacchus#Talk:Shell sort.23Requested move. Continuing the current discussion instead of starting a new one seems more appropriate to me. Opinions voiced in that discussion are still valid. —Ruud 08:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GTBacchus or an uninvolved admin should have reopened it. You should have at least cited GTB's permission. Even then, the comment you added had already been made by MC before GTBacchus closed it; you didn't add anything new to the discussion. Note that I'm objecting to your actions and not the final result; I changed my mind on the issue because a Knuth abstract used lowercase "shellsort". In truth, I'd be happier with a capitalized "Shell sort"; we don't call the Berlekamp–Massey algorithm the "berlekamp–massey algorithm" or the Risch algorithm the "risch algorithm". But that, sadly, is going against WP:COMMONNAME. - Glrx (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem Kafkaesquely bureaucratic to me for such a trivial matter, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion. —Ruud 22:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!!

[edit]

{{science}} Hi Ruud, I am trying to make an afrikaans version from the Template:Science, but for some reason it is not showing [show] and [hide] (in afrikaans it will be wys and versteek), but it is showing [undefined]. So know I am wondering if it has to do with the coding from the common.js page? I am thinking that the code from template does not match with the code from common.js.

I don't see anything obviously wrong. af:Sjabool:Wetenskap is still using NavFrame, you might want to try using Collapsible tables instead. Otherwise try asking at MediaWiki:Commons.js or Wikipedia:Village pump/Technical. —Ruud 21:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a problem with the commons.js code because the "Dynamic Navigation Bar" is written first and the "Collapsible tables" second. If I am right the computer must read the "Collapsible tables" first because it is where the variables "show" and "hide" are stated and this variables are carried over to the second pieces of code as "collapseCaption" and "expandCaption". So if I am right this will have an effect on the function of the template, but I only know a bit about c++ and not the css. I am now talking about the afrikaans version af:MediaWiki:Common.js Stefandprins (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

New Page Patrol survey

[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Ruud Koot! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not Java?

[edit]

Hello, Ruud Koot.

Could you please state your reason for this edit: [25]? You have not supplied an edit summary.

Regards,

Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popular software products implemented in Java often tend to flood the related changes list, while only being tangentially related to Java (unlike library or tools for Java, such as Apache Maven). Should have said that in my edit summary, sorry. —Ruud 08:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I'll bear in mind that the WikiProject Java does not cover every software implemented in Java. Thanks. Fleet Command (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's okay

[edit]

Hi Ruud Koot,

I didn't want them to make a huge deal out of it. I'll let the admin know that you and Parsons43 meant well. The best way to avoid situations like this is to always use the "Preview" button first. Hopefully nothing like this will happen again. Have a nice day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadiomals (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you are referring to? —Ruud 16:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign languages assistance

[edit]

Hi! I noticed you are listed at Wikipedia:Translators available. Could you please take a look at a post at Talk:Battle of Vukovar#Next steps: a call for assistance and advise whether you might be able to help in terms of a Dutch translation of summary of the article lead? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. nl:Slag om Vukovar. —Ruud 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at Manishearth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 10:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dependently typed formal languages

[edit]

With respect to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_13#Category:Dependently_typed_formal_languages renaming from Category:Dependently typed formal languages to Category:Dependently typed programming languages, note that while all the entries are formal languages, they are not all programming languages. Some are specification languages. This error needs to be tidied up so misinformation on this common misunderstanding is not propagated on Wikipedia. In the circumstances, I would recommend a new Category:Dependently typed specification languages for the specification languages, perhaps under an umbrella category of Category:Dependently typed formal languages, which would cover both. Would you like to do the honours since you created the new sub-category? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By virtue of the Curry-Howard correspondence, all dependently typed languages are both specification and programming languages (although several of them are primary used as proof assistants and not to develop executable programs). Outside of Wikipedia I've never encountered the terms "dependently typed formal language" or "dependently typed specification language". While some of the languages in this category are primary used as proof assistants/specification languages and others primarily used as programming languages, yet others (e.g. Coq) fall somewhere in between. I'm therefore now sure if making this distinction would be very useful. I do think that "dependently typed programming languages" was for the same reason perhaps not a very well chosen name either. Would you agree with renaming the category simply to "Dependently typed languages"? —Ruud 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:Dependently typed languages would be an acceptable name and solve the problem since it would cover programming and specification languages, if you are willing to do this. I agree that one category is easiest, but it needs to be named with a suitably wide scope. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a request for renaming the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 1#Category:Dependently typed programming languages. Cheers, —Ruud 18:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi

[edit]

Can you tell me wether my carg functions page exists in wikipedia or notMadhusudan 05:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it at Wikibooks:C Programming/C Reference/complex.h/carg. Cheers, —Ruud 08:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from Database. Why?

[edit]

Hi,

I do not quite understand why

12:34, 31 October 2011‎ Ruud Koot (talk | contribs)‎ (103,570 bytes) (remove inappropriate self-referential example)

I do not care much about the removal, but does it violate anything? What have you meant by "inappropriate" ?

Thanks, --Comps (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Wikipedia" makes a particular good example as a database. It probably wouldn’t have been given as an example if this didn't happen to be an article on Wikipedia. Also linking from articles into the Wikipedia: namespace is strongly discouraged, see WP:SELFREF. —Ruud 14:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a database. But it is an excellent example for a prod that uses a database. I really cannot see the problem, if it well serves the purpose, like linking any other fact in Wikipedia. Why is it a problem? I'll return the original sentence which did not have the reference (i.e., without mentioning a specific prod; I agree here: It is a kind of prod-advertizing which somebody else has put). Thanks, --Comps (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Got it. Even just mentioning Wikipedia as an example is not desired, though it is a good example, well understood by readers. --Comps (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please explain your edits

[edit]
  • [26] its not the same subject at all. The same for the other articles you did the same with. Do you really mean that C mathematical functions is the same as math.h? Please explain why you WP:Reverted this edit?

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

[edit]

ERCIM

[edit]

Thanks, I had missed that. I think I've undone the duplication now.  --Lambiam 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Fragmentation (computing)

[edit]

Hello, Thanks a lot. No I am not, I am using Duplication detector for copyvio. But how to find the URL ?? Is there any other way other then Google Search ?? aηsuмaη ༽Ϟ 16:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used Google. Especially large pieces of text that are written in formal English, without spelling or grammar mistakes and without any Wikilinks, are suspicious. You can often then easily find the sources by Googling one or two of the sentences from that text or comparing it to and references or external links that were added around the same time. —Ruud 16:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is easier to check the difference between the article right before the students started editing and their last edit to the article than simply the current version of the article. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fragmentation_%28computing%29&action=historysubmit&diff=457099863&oldid=453657529. —Ruud 16:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, I din't know about the history checks. now onwards I can do better :) aηsuмaη ༽Ϟ 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

[edit]

GNOME proposal

[edit]

I moved the discussion on the GNOME project to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnome#Discussion. I wanted to let you know as a courtesy in case you wanted to adjust the language for the change in context, or remove your other comment. Hope the move doesn't seem overly disruptive. Thanks. --Pnm (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wanted to say this was fine, but now I read the comments again, all of them (including those by Dmitrij) only make sense in the context of the original talk page. I would feel a bit silly rewriting those. —Ruud 18:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I was reading for the content and skipped over the part where Dmitrij addressed the venue. I think if he just lines out the "Anyway, could I ask You to mirror..." sentence it'll make sense. I just suggested that. The rest seems to makes sense in the context of the GNOME proposal, though it's certainly relevant to the ongoing discussion, too. --Pnm (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

[edit]

WikiProject Cryptography

[edit]

Apart from the fact I see no concensus for the move to Computer Science on the Cryptography wikiproject talk page, the move is wrong. Cryptography should be put under Mathematics. Crypto was being used about 2000 years before computers came about: Caesar cipher. Are you claiming Caesar did Computer Science? --DanielPharos (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you are referring to? Could you clarify? —Ruud 09:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about Template:WikiProject Cryptography --DanielPharos (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was "moved"? I added WPCS so the articles show up on the related changes list there (as most of the articles are relevant to that project). In theory WikiProject Mathematics could be added as well, but the good people at that project prefer to use {{maths rating}} only for assessment and not tagging (they have a bot to keep track of their articles). No need for the silly hyperboles about Roman emperors. —Ruud 12:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the hyperbole, it just seemed very weird to me at the time. Okay, I also added Mathematics to the template to the best of my abilities. --DanielPharos (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm not sure if the people at WPMATH will be very happy with that (see Template:Maths rating#Usage). The template should added only if it has its assessment data filled in, and that's currently the case for none of the articles tagged with {{WikiProject Cryptography}}. —Ruud 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't like the way it works now, it's their responsibility to take care of it, since Cryptography is their sub-wikiproject. --DanielPharos (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs

[edit]

Hi, when you PROD an article, could I trouble you to provide an informative rationale for the benefit of any newbies who may not understand, for example, "nn/or", and for the deletion log. Even just links to the relevant policies, like WP:NN/WP:OR would be more helpful. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll try not to forget in the future. —Ruud 17:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

[edit]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I saw you proposed a merge for Template:DBLP and Template:DBLP name. Is that technically possible? Debresser (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? It might require a bit of rewriting of the template and perhaps even assistance of a bot, but it can - and in my opinion should - be done. —Ruud 10:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will not be needed, I think. If there had been a documentation, I'd have been able to do it myself. But without documentation and without knowledge of how that specific database is organised, I couldn't risk it. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could expand the documentation a little. Like with explaining what variables 1 and 2 stand for. And what is "Hoare"? Debresser (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, all done now. That was easier than I expected. Is the documentation sufficiently clear now? —Ruud 10:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Thank you. I saw there are less than 100 instances of {{DBLP name}}. What would you say if I were to overhaul them and make them like {{DBLP}} (in other words, get rid of the id parameter)? Debresser (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do so ;) —Ruud 11:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shall. And I am planning another surprise for you. Have a look in another two hours. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All instances of {{DBLP name}} have been changed to {{DBLP}}. And the name parameter is gone. As is the need to add the first letter of the name as a separate parameter. This has been avoided by using code {{lc:{{padright:|1|{{{id}}}}}}}. But the downside is that now the use of an "id" parameter is mandatory. The technical reason is that a page link with "Hoare:C=_A=_R=" e.g. is seen as a parameter called "Hoare:C=". In addition, I have fixed many incorrect usages, most of them connected with adding ".html" to the parameters. I have added a warning against this in the (adopted) documentation. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks, —Ruud 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Met plezier. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Time: India Education Program Learnings

[edit]

Hi. I'm writing to request a favor. The India Education Program pilot is concluding in Pune, India. It has been extraordinarily challenging and a series of learnings have emerged from the pilot that we intend to take on board to inform the way forward. I had promised an honest, open and comprehensive review. There are multiple ways that we are trying to collate and distill these learnings. One of these is that the Foundation has commissioned a study to do in depth interviews with a wide variety of folks who were directly or indirectly involved in the pilot. The include discussions with students, Ambassadors, faculty as well as members of the global community such as yourself. I thought it would be really particularly useful if we could get your views. You have been involved in the project (albeit not as part of the formal project structure.) I thank you for your involvement. You have made some interesting and insightful comments in the discussions you have participated in. Would you be willing and available for the person working on this study so that she can get your feedback and suggestions and comments? If so, would you let me know on my talk page? Do also let me know how I can have her reach out to you. Many thanks in advance. Hisham (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conjugation

[edit]

Yes I know my edit edit (I thought I had corrected it, but that was another one). Your edit is wrong (it doesnt follow the policy too, especially wp:PIPING#Section_and_anchor_point_linking - I am no expert in disambiguation pages, so I have asked an member of the project to help Christian75 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Section and anchor points in links should not be visible to the reader". I don't know what you fail to understand about that sentence? —Ruud 10:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(First: Please read a little further then the first few worlds you meet (wp:PIPING#Section_and_anchor_point_linking), sir!) Afterwards it says "For linking the subject, link to a redirect to the anchor point (or leave the subject unlinked and move the link to the description)." Do you think that you did that? No you didnt. The subject is conj. I moved the link to the description, where you are more free to pipe as you want ("For links in the description, link to a redirect or use an anchor-point link with piping to display text similar to the article title."). But you still have to follow: "When piping is used on a disambiguation page to link to an article section, the link should be in the description, and should avoid surprising the reader. The text of the link should not be the title of a different article." Christian75 (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right (in your last edit, not in the earlier ones). I don't think your updated description was an improvement, though. I also don't think it's a good to mangle the description because another redirect, the preferred option of linking through, happens to be in the way. —Ruud 15:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

[edit]

Computer Science

[edit]

R, please comment at Talk:Computer_science#Feb_2011_re-org. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Shellsort/GA1

[edit]

The editor had not touched the review in a month, and when it takes that long to get anything started, the review is considered abandoned. If he returns at some point and the article's still waiting for review, that user can always start it then. There's a review drive going on though so someone will review it quickly most likely. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see now; I restored the talk page. However, Vaughan has clearly been editing the past month, so something should have at least been started, so my point stands. The other review should be at least decent since we're keeping a close eye on them, but it's not going to be from an expert. He's more than welcome to add comments about the article, even if it's after a GA review though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pune pilot analysis plan

[edit]

Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
A barnstar for our one and only type theorist from Utrecht :-) Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —Ruud 15:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comps puppets

[edit]

Are you sure you've tagged those properly? Shouldn't they be puppets of ERfan111? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are one and the same, and as Comps was the oldest and most actively used account, it seemed the most abvious account to label as the "puppetmaster". —Ruud 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I just wasn't sure, since the SPI was under the other heading. Should it be renamed to reflect Comps as the puppetmaster, then?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's already archived, so I'd say it better not to move it around, but you can probably get a more definitive answers from a SPI clerk or CUer on that matter. —Ruud 19:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Software license agreement restructuring

[edit]

I noticed this discussion didn't result in any action, but I think there's consensus to restructure the article as you proposed. Are you comfortable moving Software license agreement to End-user license agreement? (There's a talk-page conflict.) If not I'll post a formal move request on Software license agreement. – Pnm (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the 5 year old comments there seems to be support for that, yes. I've renamed the page. Let's see if this will eventually lead to some improvement of the content. —Ruud 20:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope so. Organizing can only go so far. :-/ – Pnm (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

[edit]

help needed at template:MacTutor

[edit]

Hello,

could you please have a look at Template_talk:MacTutor#A_proposal? We would like to downgrade O'Connor & Robertson to editors, and add an author field. Is this possible/reasonable?

Another option is to set OC and R to be the default values of the author fields, with the possibility to modify them.

Thank you very much, Sasha (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:1911 POV

[edit]

Template:1911 POV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

[edit]

Comps and ERfan111

[edit]

Quite wierdly, the latter was the sockmaster in the SPI, but the real sockmaster is Comps.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A complaint about you

[edit]

A complaint about you related to your conduct with Commitment ordering has been posted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 89.138.17.92 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

↑ Abusing multiple accounts and the boomerang is coming back to you. Nothing to see here.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snapshot isolation -- neutrality disputed?

[edit]

Hi, Ruud. Could you add a comment on Talk:Snapshot_isolation explaining why you added the "neutrality disputed" tag to the main page? I'm sure you have valid reasons, but in their absence it's going to be hard to know how to resolve the problem. --Chris Purcell (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I think I've worked it out. I assume the tag you added was supposed to link to the discussion on Talk:Commitment ordering, but actually only linked to a non-existent subsection of Talk:Snapshot isolation. I've made the latter link to the former. --Chris Purcell (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

[edit]
  1. ^ http://www.programmerfish.com/windows-aero-not-supported-get-full-visual-effects-via-remote-desktop/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruud_Koot/2011&oldid=1144610472"