User talk:Icairns/archive/archive 02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] List of islands of England

Moved to Category_talk:English islands

[edit] Thanks

Hi, I noticed that you had cleaned up the categorization of stuff under Category:Stars and I just wanted to say thanks. It's been a real mess for a while and I'm glad someone was brave enough to do it! -JYolkowski 03:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Most of it went through well. Ian Cairns 11:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WWII ignorance?

Hi Ian Cairns, do you happen to have any references handy on the studies you mentioned that found 'many youths have little understanding of what WWII was'? Thanks, --Nectarflowed 19:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Nectarflowed. This was formed from my recollection of various surveys that have been reported in recent years. Looking at Google, I can find:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=871 for Canadian youth
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1275989,00.html for UK youth

for starters. Is this OK? Ian Cairns 20:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ukrainian mathematicians

Hi there. Looking in the log for Category:Ukrainian mathematicians, I see you apparently listed the page on December 17 on CfD, claiming it was a typo for Ukranian mathematicians.

I actually think the opposite: Ukrainian more common and correct than Ukranian. I'm just curious about what happened about this, as I can find nothing useful in the CfD archives. --Saforrest 10:18, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies - I think I was incorrect. I do not remember any feedback on this - perhaps it is in abeyance? Ian Cairns 12:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbass

Dumbass is a classic candidate for speedy deletion - there's no need to trouble the vfd process. It was also deleted already on the 23rd of January, and again the following day. -- John Fader 01:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm still feeling my way around all this extra sysop responsibility. I thought I ought to involve at least one other in the decision process. Thanks again, Ian Cairns 11:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myriametre

Hi! You reverted my edit to Orders of magnitude (length) in which I added the prefix "myria-", meaning 10,000. I assumed there must be some good reason for this, so I did a bit more research than I had originally in order to confirm my addition to the article. Now I find that it is a deprecated term. Would you consider it acceptable if I added myria-, with the precaution that it is an archaic term? I'm sure there are plenty of older texts in which this unit can be found. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:18, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Hello. I'm happy that myria- (and myrio-) is an archaic / obsolete / historical term and must be identified as such. It would appear to be relevant to an article on the history of orders of magnitude or history of prefixes. Surely a _current_ statement on the orders of magnitude would keep to the SI prefixes, which would be relevant to readers' experience? Thanks, Ian Cairns 23:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say historical - it's valid in any document prior to 1982 (in the United States at least). So I thought maybe it could be useful for people to know what it means, in case they ever come across it in a document. How can it hurt to have it in the article, if I put "(deprecated)" next to it? — flamingspinach | (talk) 06:15, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

I think that deprecated means that the term is still being used but is no longer welcome / recommended. This is not the case. I think these terms are not being actively used today, and are either historical or obsolete. Myria and Myrio were first used systematically as prefixes by the French in the 1700s. However, they failed to make the grade in 1960 when the SI prefixes were agreed internationally. The only references I can find from Google are from 1913 Websters. There is no Wiki article on myriametre. If such an article were created suggesting it was an historical term, fine. If it were created suggesting it was current, then my guess is the article would probably be voted down. Please see the article SI prefixes and note the use of the word Obsolete Thanks, Ian Cairns 16:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for that article link (SI prefixes). I see, you're right. Thanks for your advice. :) — flamingspinach | (talk) 21:41, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid categorization

I believe that it is not redundant, but for a subtle reason. Check out Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorisation FAQ --- note that there are two types of categories: lists and topics. Categories that have plural titles are lists, categories that have singular titles are topics.

So, it seems to me that Category:Asteroid groups and families is a list and should contain all articles that are about asteroid groups and asteroid families. Articles about single asteroids wouldn't belong (directly) in that topic, but could belong to children of that topic. So, an article about an Amor asteroid should live in Category:Amor asteroids, Amor asteroids can live in both Category:Amor asteroids and Category:Asteroid groups and families, while Category:Amor asteroids can live in Category:Asteroid groups and families and other places, like Category:Near-Earth asteroids. Category:Amor asteroids would not live in Category:Asteroids directly, because Category:Near-Earth asteroids contains lists of individual asteroids and Category:Asteroids contains lists of individual asteroids.

See what I mean? I'm distinguishing between categories that contain asteroid articles and categories that contain articles about families of asteroids. It may seem odd, but I believe that is what happens with categories that are comprised of lists.

I'll stop re-adding family articles to Category:Asteroid groups and families until we reach consensus.

-- hike395 21:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Errrr... no, I don't see the difference. I agree that category Asteroid groups and families should contain all asteroid groups and it does. However, it does this by articles, sub-categories, sub-category articles, etc. etc. Thus Amor asteroid is an article within a sub-category within a sub-category etc. of Asteroid groups, and is therefore a member of this larger category. Providing more than one route for this categorisation is the redundancy that I was mentioning. Thanks for holding off. Ian Cairns 23:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the FAQ article you quoted, I find:

There are some natural hierarchies of lists. One example is the scientific classification of organisms, which would only place an article in one category.

This is what I was trying to describe. We have a hierarchical classification of Asteroids. Aten belongs to Near-Earth whic hbelongs to etc. etc. There would be no point in categorising Humans as both Primates and Animals, when Primate is automatically an animal. Ian Cairns 00:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I concede the point --- asteroid families are much more like taxnomic families than separate aspects of the same topic. I'll revert. hike395 14:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Degree categories

Hi Icairns - I've just come across a group of categories on higher degrees you created late last uear as stubs. Just for future reference, a category can't be a stub (by definition, stubs are articles). The template you should use is Template:Popcat (And don't worry - I changed 'em! :) Grutness|^hello? 09:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Ian Cairns 10:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mars' Natural Satellites

Hi Ian. Shouldn't it be Mars's Natural Satellites? Cheers TigerShark 10:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as someone whose surname ends in S, I believe that either form ..s' or ..s's is acceptable. e.g. St James' or St James's. Do you know a constraint on these forms? Thanks, Ian Cairns 10:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Further research shows that both are acceptable - as in

http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_7.htm

However, I'm happy to change if s's is more common in Wikipedia Ian Cairns 10:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes you're definitely right that both are acceptable (I had always believed that only s's was correct). I am not sure what is more common on Wikipedia, but I can see articles on Nasa.org that use both. Perhaps you should leave it as is, and maybe create a different redirect if you think it might be useful. Cheers TigerShark 10:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks, Ian Cairns 10:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reading Bridge

Hi Ian.

You write:

Chris, I've edited Reading Bridge to try out a possible box to tidy the upstream and downstream crossings - a la Railway lines next and previous station boxes, which now stretch from Paddington to Goring and beyond. I would value your opinion - is it any use? Does it need removing? Can it be rescued, edited, etc.? Let me know what you think.

It looks good to me. I assume that the intention is that this will eventually replace the textual information that you have left in on the Reading Bridge article; I don't think I'd want to see it duplicated. -- Chris j wood 18:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, it was only experimental - I just wanted to see whether the layout could be more compact. I'll go ahead with this shortly. Thanks again, Ian Cairns 18:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Black dwarfs

I noticed that this category you created is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, on the grounds that no stars fall into that category. I just wondered if you thought there were any particularly good reasons for keeping it (say, that there is are several articles about the theory of black dwarfs that would fit into it) or would it just remain unpopulated if kept? --VivaEmilyDavies 03:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for letting me know. I'll investigate shortly. Ian Cairns 12:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reading to Guildford by South West Trains

Hi Ian.

I notice you have added a SWT's service from Reading to Guildford stopping at Earley to various station articles. When does this run?. I've just queried the National Rail journey planner for a journey from Earley to Guildford for tomorrow, and all the journeys it offered me involved changing from SWT to Great Western Link at Wokingham, apart from a couple of late evening journeys via Virginia Water, Woking and somewhere else I cannot remember. -- Chris j wood 19:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ps. I've removed the Waterloo service qualifiers from Bracknell railway station, Martins Heron railway station and Sunningdale railway station, both because there is no ambiguity between services at thos stations, and also to ease the transition at Ascot railway station, where the ambiguity is not to do with the inner terminal but rather the outer one. -- Chris j wood 19:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chris - Many thanks for all that. I thought I knew the situation, but am most grateful for your corrections. BTW, was that you in the local papers the other day? Regards, Ian Cairns 13:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Depends what you saw. I write a advertorial column for the Reading Chronicle's monthly business pages on IT Security; I also wrote a letter to the Chronic on car parking at Reading station. -- Chris j wood 23:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queens Regnant

Greetings! I noticed you were the one to create the "Queens Regnant" page. That is a great resource page. However, could it be titled something more broadly? Like Women Rulers? the reason I ask is because there are many historical heriditary rulers that were not queens per se, but reigning Princess, Duchesses, Countesses, ect. Even if we do not change the name of the page but include in its introduction that this topic includes reigning monarchs of lesser titles. Your thoughts?Drachenfyre

Hello Drachenfyre. Thanks for your note. I would have thought that Women Rulers sat nicely as a supercategory above Queens Regnant. I would be loathe to change Queens Regnant since it also fits within the Monarchs category, which would be inappropriate for Women Rulers. To save you the bother, I've just created a category Women rulers which sits within Women and above Queens - i.e. above Queens consort and Queens regnant. I hope that has helped. Regards Ian Cairns 13:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casablanca

Hi - I notice you recently changed the stub template message on Casablanca from "AfricaN-geo-stub" to "African-geo-stub". AfricaN stands for Northern Africa. There are also AfricaW, AfricaE, AfricaC, and AfricaS geo-stubs. There is no "African-geo-stub". (The reason for this combination is to avoid confusion with the separate South Africa geo stub.) Grutness|^hello? 01:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Duly informed. Ian Cairns 06:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category main articles

Ian.

You write:

There are special rules for the 'name' article of a category; it can (and should) still be in the base categories Chris, please can you provide a source for this guideline - I've checked the Wiki Category FAQs etc, but can't find this. Also, most articles seem to have any stubs above the categs and interwikis. Do you have a source for the placement of stubs after these? Many thanks, Ian Cairns 18:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite convinced that I have read both in policy or mos, but can I find them now?. Sadly no I cannot.

The 'name article category' thing I remember reading some while ago, and I guess might have changed in the meantime; I will revert my change to the University of Reading.

The putting stubs after categories I read quite recently, and remember it because it surprised me too for exactly the reason you point out. The reasoning was so that the stub category links in the displayed article ended up after the 'substantive' category links. This seems eminently reasonable, and perhaps I'm just not looking in the right place for the source. I'll keep looking.

-- Chris j wood 14:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd millennium

In response to your message on Dtobias's talk page: "Let me step in here to point this out. That a new millennium begins in XXX1 is not a "viewpoint," it's simple reasoning based on the observation that our calendar system has no year zero from which to begin counting, so the start dates of centuries and millennia (and decades, but that gets pretty widely ignored, I guess) are a year off. The Wiki article Millennium has a good quote from Arthur Clarke: basically, "Would you accept it if a store clerk used a scale that began at one, and claimed to have sold you ten kilograms of tea?" If the scale doesn't start at zero, the first unit is skipped and you get nine kilograms. See also 0 (year). Mr. Billion 20:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)" Ordinality and cardinality and all that.

Well, never mind. I see the contrary argument is based on use of the Common Era calendar, which also works. Cheers. Mr. Billion 21:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reading through to the end. Regards, Ian Cairns 21:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:¸

Thanks for blocking this guy. If you don't mind, I'm going to change the block to indefinite. One, I believe that a username consisting solely of a nontypeable character is not an appropriate username. Two, he impersonated another user. Three, edits were only vandalism. Four, I believe this is a reincarnation of Himself! (talk · contribs). Please change the block or let me know if you disagree. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be my guest. I'm just sorry that I fumbled trying to find the block. I could have stopped this a couple of minutes earlier.... :-(( Oh well. Thanks again, 21:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ian Cairns 21:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you use the (default) monobook skin, you may find useful User:Korath's User:Korath/blockip.js, which should be copied and pasted in User:Icairns/monobook.js. It adds two tabs to user and user talk pages: a "block" tab which brings up the block screen with the username or IP address already filled in, and a "blocklog" tab which shows the blocking history for that user. I've found them to be incredibly useful. If you want more information or have questions on how to "install" it, let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanical energy

Please see Talk:Mechanical work#Unmerge?. --Smack (talk) 21:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calendars

I see that at last someone else has noticed the dogs' breakfast that was the Calendars section in Wikipedia. I was going to organise the calendar categories better, but being a novice at the creation and maintenace of categories I had set it aside. Looks like you beat me to it :)

What further plans have you for the maintenance of the articles on calendars? I feel that the Calendar Reform article is rather sketchy and could do with more detail. Calendar reform has a surprisingly rich history, but alas little of it has made its way into the article on calendar reform. -- B.d.mills (Talk) 00:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind comments - yes, there was a glut of calendars without an overlying structure (current, proposed, obsolete, etc). I'd like to see the Astronomical year numbering and ISO 8601 articles brought together into either a new Astronomical calendar article or more likely a new Astronomical calendar category (alternative names?). I must admit that it would be good to take quick stock of my recent changes before the next change. Thanks, Ian Cairns 09:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation

Just for your information, the issue of punctuation at the end of math is discussed extensively at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. The almost unamimous decision was that one should follow the printed mathematics style, which calls for period at the end of formula if formula is at the end of sentence. I assume that applies to commas too. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 19:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank for that. Ian Cairns 20:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freeware != Free software

Your recent creation of Category:Free Windows web browsers is totally unnecessary and your definition of "free" is seriously wrong. The word "free" refer to free software (open source), not freeware or proprietary software available free of charge. Hope your understand the problem. :-| --minghong 08:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are incorrect. I have answered this on the CfD page for the category. :-| Ian Cairns 09:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of Robert Burnham, Jr. article

Hi Ian. Please see my note under the heading ==Category Astronomy== at Talk:Robert Burnham, Jr.. Thanks --DannyZ 00:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Unsolved

Hi,

I see you've been replacing uses of {{template:unsolved}} in list-of-unsolved-things articles (such as unsolved problems in physics) with chunks of HTML which comprise instructions on how to use the "unsolved" template. Is it your intention that you or someone else will edit these later?

What is the problem that has caused you to do this? I can't find a description anywhere. Could it be resolved with a separate {{template:unsolvedlist}} or similar?

-- JTN 11:21, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Hello JTN. I found an 'Unsolved ...' article / category that had a category 'Unsolved problems in' - just that. It came from an incomplete usage of the template. Also, usage of the template was giving the wrong positioning in the supercategory (everything went under U). I was therefore trying to sort out the categorisation, while showing the template box. HTH, Ian Cairns 18:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the list-of articles can't stay in their current state. I'm still not convinced I fully understand the problem(s), or your solution. Would you object if I replaced the chunks of HTML with a new template {{template:unsolvedlist}}, similar to {{template:unsolved}} but with more appropriate categorisation (using sortkey " ", for example)? -- JTN 16:35, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

You're most welcome to do whatever you think best. I found an article with a non-existent category attached to it. This was caused by the template with a missing parameter. I attempted to circumvent further instances by inserting code rather than the template. Thanks, Ian Cairns 17:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Auftragsarbeiten

Can you give me an accurate translation of this word into something that makes sense in English. And, if you have some free time, can you translate the lead section of this page. I'm thinking this system would be a nice addition to the English version. -- BRIAN0918 20:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Replied on Brian's talk page Ian Cairns 11:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Euro Committees

I was about to write to thank you for making the stubs! I'm thinking, tho, that the pages should be moved to "European Parliament Committee on...", as I'm sure some of the names are common to many governments. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 00:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right on that. However, there was only one name clash with an American committee of the same name - you can see this in the EU committee category listing - look for (EU). Even if the pages are moved then the remaining redirect should remain or become a disambig page as necessary. The reason for creating them with those names was to satisfy the links pointing to 'most wanted' articles. Each of those articles had dozens of existing links. Come to think of it, if you do move them, then you may get dozens of links to each disambig page that will need resolving .... Ian Cairns 00:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Point taken! -- BD2412 ^talk 01:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians in Berkshire

Consider me nudged. :-) -- Chris j wood 20:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billion

The American usage is not unknown in Britain and some of the lower grade aspects of the media incorrectly use it though in general a billion is the logical million million here. Its the way it has always been, its the way I have been taught in school since I started up until the current day (covering all levels of the British school system in the process). -Josquius

I disagree. Discussion taken across to User talk:Josquius and possibly onwards to Talk:Billion Ian Cairns 17:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Chief Justices?

Should that not be 'Lords Chief Justice'? David | Talk 23:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're right. I'll correct - Ian Cairns 23:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians by number of edits

What is the purpose of this supposed to be? There's only one page on it.--Pharos 21:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

From here Wikipedia crashed twice tonight.... I was in the middle of updating this. I'll finish. Thanks, Ian Cairns 22:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myle

FYI, 66.200.223.113 appears to be Rktect, an editor who appears to have an extreme metrology viewpoint which he appears to want to push on Wikipedia. I'm trying to open up lines of communication, but he isn't very responsive so far; he just repeats basically the same general arguments. For further details, look at the recent edit histories of such articles as Mile, Eratosthenes, Ancient weights and measures, etc. Also see the request for mediation I filed on behalf of a user even less able to communicate with Rktect than I have been, for other articles. Pretty much everything Rktect touches seems to acquire a sheen of metrology.

I am nearly at my wits' end on this. If you have any advice you can offer, I would be more than happy to entertain it.

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 03:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ken, Thanks for that. I hadn't seen the whole picture - I think I have already been involved on one side, so am reluctant to assist in the mediation. There are two issues that I see:

multiple copies of the same article filed under different names and spellings. These should be reduced to a single copy under an appropriate name.
progress on layout and content of the single article. This will need sourcing (for the accuracy of the article) and an agreement to indulge in communal improvement.

How this comes about I don't know. It may be necessary to seek some article protection from an uninvolved sysop.

Good luck! Ian Cairns 11:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

How about instead of unilaterally reverting pages without discussion, marking pages for deletion before they are finished, making bogus claims of copywright infringement, deleting sources and references and networking others to revert after one persons reverts are used up that you take the time to post reasons for a revert or deletion and discuss them before actingRktect 14:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Part of what I'm attempting to do is pick up red lines and turn them blue cross referencing as I go. Putting some information in to start a page and then adding and editing more information as I go along. So far I see the process as not helped much by having each brick removed as I place it. Rktect 14:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why? suppose I type in st3t looking for information that you have moved to say 3ht or khet because you don't understand the system in which the Egyptian standards of measure operated.

Why can't I have a page that puts up some information that is common to several things and unites several units as a system?

I have gone on to develop the pages in more detail, picking up how crop rotation combines 3 st3t of side 1 khet into 1 3ht of 300 royal cubits in an article on 3ht.

In another article I focus more on how a khet which is a measure of lenght and area and volume was used in the rhind papyrus to facilitate unit fraction calculations.

In another artcile I discuss how an itrw or river journey of 1 hour which is comparable to an hour of march of 21,000 royal cubits is a Greek schoenus of 1/10 degree and how that can be divided into 700 stadia of 300 royal cubits of 157.5 meters to give the staidia Eratosthenes calculations are based on

Having multiple copies isn't going to stop people finding and redirecting all his efforts

There is no need to redirect my efforts. If you back off and let me work for a while you might learn something, maybe not but that's on you.

One mediator is already involved. I don't know if anybody follows the rules around here but it would seem like a good idea to cease and desist with the vandalism until you actually know what is going on. Rktect 14:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not use perjorative words like Vandalism unless you are prepared to substantiate these. As an elected sysop, I know the rules and I follow the rules. I have been involved with some of your pages as a copyeditor.

I'm sure you hold yourself to a higher standard. You tell me you

follow the rules. I thought the rule was supposed to be to try

and discuss things and build consensus, then act. Basically the

good old golden rule. Are you and Ken and Gene and Egil setting

a good example for how the process works here?

Under Wikipedia policy, I can not therefore become involved as a mediator, which was my comment to Ken. If you have a problem with my copyediting, then you are at liberty to complain formally.

How about rather than complain to somebody else, we just discuss

the networking. Egil goes to Ken and Gene, Ken goes to you, I don't

know how many others. As a result I have had maybe a dozen pages

marked for deletion withing hours of my starting them in some cases

as I'm still in them, one marked for copy infringement because I cited

a dead author with a quote in quotations, perhaps a hundred coordinated

actions taken by a group acting in concert all told this week

I will justify my copyedits with respect to existing policy and guidelines. I did not see benefit to Wikipedia in having half-a-dozen articles with identical or very similar content.

There is a limit to how much stuff you can sensibly put on one page.

I'm trying to avoid doing one big data dump by breaking it up into pages.

One page is addressing crop rotation as a factor in the size of fields,

another the use of measures to make calculations, yet another

geocommensurate standards.

That is why I converted several of the articles to redirects towards a general article that was suitably named to deal with most if not all of the areas you inserted.

Most pages discussing measures in Wickipedia are decidedly Eurocentric

Among the deleted and redirected pages have been some on

standards of measure in the Pre-Contact Americas and the Medieval East

Eurocentric discussions of feet and miles appear to want to focus on

Modern Western Civilization. That might not be the right place to

redirect a discussion of the Japanese Ken System.

Your redirects have had an adverse affect on the logic of the entire

systematic presentation

A foot is divided into 12 inches and 3 hands

A pes is divided into 16 fingers and 4 palms

A pes is divided into 15 fingers and 3 hands

There is a reason for making the distinction

I did not post any of your articles for deletion. You may be thinking of another copyeditor.

I'm thinking of Ken with whom you appear to be working closely.

Regarding backing off while you finish your work, please bear in mind

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

I'm just asking, politely I hope, for a head's up if you have a problem

with something, and a chance to either correct a deficiency or discuss it.

Your work should be reasonably well layed-out - possibly in your own sandbox - before pasting into an active article. Obviously, this not always possible - hence so many stub articles, but they are usually reasonably well layed-out. The active article is the place where other Wikipedia contributors assist the development of the article.

Your position is clear, we'll see what happens.

BTW, it is usual to indent your comments to someone else's comments. In that way we can tell who wrote what. I've managed to rescue Ken's and my original comments above from your interspersed comments.

Ian Cairns 18:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction Rktect 21:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

May I make it clear that I haven't ever communicated with Ken until his unsolicited message at the top of this talk page earlier today, and I haven't ever spoken with Egil to my knowledge. Much of what you may have thought was action in concert was actually independent people working in parallel, attempting to keep up the quality of Wikipedia's articles. Ken and Egil may have reacted slightly more abruptly than I would have done, but they are both acting well within my experience of normal behaviour of Wikipedia contributors and well within the policy and guidelines.

Clearly discussion helps. Hence the talk pages. Also, look at other areas of Wikipedia. You should find either multiple articles each on a separate narrow topic, perhaps collected by appearing together in a Category. Otherwise, you may find a central article that discusses several closely-related topics, with multiple redirects from each of the topic names to the central article. This was the target effect / improvement that was being attempted.

If I haven't been clear, I welcome you to Wikipedia. It will be the better for your presence. If you look at the page history of Wiki articles, you'll find lots of exampels of people trying to re-establish Wikipedia in their own mindset. The wonderful 'pedia' that is being created is the sum total / consensus of everyone's experience, approach and effort. This is a huge learning curve - but well worthwhile. HTH, Regards, Ian Cairns 22:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I got back from a week in Marana, AZ today and saw your welcome message. Positive vibes go a long way, Thank you for that.

You are probably correct that there are many independent people working in concert. My observation that it ceases to be parallel when its connected in series is a negative vibe and needs to go away.

We all tend to evaluate criticism as constructive or not depending on what we see in the model. Going to the reverters pages to see what they have contributed is instructive. Those people who spend most of their time focused and positive I respect and attempt to listen to attentively. Those who make it their business to destroy because they lack the ability to create I have less respect for. Rktect 23:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Hello Ian! I saw that you were trying to fix those red links at George Byng (the battle links). I actually tried wording those in every different way, but finally resolved to leave them as they were so I could write something in article space concerning those battles. I'll do it soon, I promise. As I say on my user page, I usually just write new articles when I am shocked that there is no existing entry on a particular topic. George Byng was definatly one of those. Well thanks for the effort at any rate! See you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 21:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Hamster Sandwich - Thanks for that. Most battles I've seen as articles just start Battle of... so I thought they would probably fix up quicker eventually with my changes than without. Thanks again, Ian Cairns 22:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buckinghamshire

You have contributed to Buckinghamshire in the past, so may I invite you to contribute to a dispute that is breaking out. Some guy who is obsessing about the traditional counties has plonked a great big infobox in the article. It's not useless stuff, but in my view it belongs in History of Buckinghamshire, not in the current main article. But I'll leave you to make your own mind up. Have a look and contribute to talk:Buckinghamshire, please. --Concrete Cowboy 23:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rktect's additions

Rktect has accused me of vandalizing his edits. So I've started collecting evidence that the consensus on his material is to be removed. Please see [1], I'd appreaciate feedback or information I'm missing. -- < drini | ∂drini > 21:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It might be of interest to someone who want's to see what's going on to have a look at Drini's contributions and maybe Egil, Ken and Gene's as well. For someone to mark a page vfd, falsely characterize it, then revert its wikification, selectively remove a large part of its content, tag its images, delete its references and generally make it appear substantively different to increase the likelyhood that it will be voted against is just plain slimy.Rktect 03:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Egil appears to be tagging every page related to measures with a disputed tag and no discussion,

I know that you occassionally do keep an eye out for that so it might be nice if some of those tags got removed Rktect 20:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

If you check on Egil's talk page, you'll see that I've asked him to discuss a dispute (the one I spotted) - as I've done on your talk page. Same Wiki policies / guidlines for everyone. Ian Cairns 02:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration, rktect

For your information, I have now submitted a request for arbitration: User:rktect -- Egil 11:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Ian Cairns 11:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Touché!

[2] -- Egil 16:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks and a request

Thanks for fixing my typos at Biblical scientific foreknowledge in the vegetarian lion section. I apppreciate it.

Here is my request. A bully boy was supressing the content so the pro Bible scientific foreknowledge info was hidden deep inside of footnotes or erased. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated. Keep an eye on the page if you could be so kind.

ken 00:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Thanks for the kind words Ken. I'm happy to keep an eye open from time to time. However, my own background is scientific, so I can only check that Wiki NPOV is happening. Ian Cairns 00:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.