User talk:R. S. Shaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is R. S. Shaw's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to R. S. Shaw. I will normally respond here.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Contents 1 Commons 2 Word size 3 Re: Autocoder 4 Good work 5 Scholarpedia 6 Vandalism on mitosis 7 Categories Computing, Computing by Operating Systems, Operating Systems 8 Re:Template:Navigation and common.js 9 Decalcomania links 10 Quadratic Equation 11 Byte-order mark 12 Wikiproject boxes go on Talk pages 13 Cleanup sorting 14 Template:Dmoz 15 Epinephrine

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Commons

I am Commons:User:R. S. Shaw and vote for #10. -R. S. Shaw 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word size

Please look at my comment and whether you agree. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.93.218 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Autocoder

Sorry for not giving you a heads up on the deletion requestion for the Autocoder article. Look I have an article written by Alick Glennie in 1953 where he talks about Autocode and I don't see him mention Autocoder anywhere. I also have an article by Campbell-Kelly about early programming for the Manchester Mark 1 where he uses the term "autocode" everywhere, but never uses the term "autocoder". Also, I've tried a couple google searches on autocoder and can't find any mention that it is a generic term for assembly language, other than FOLDOC and web pages that are clearly just scaping FOLDOC. There are a couple of other entries in FOLDOC that I find suspicious so I'm not completely trusting it.A B Carter (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've copied your comment to Talk:Autocoder and responded there. -R. S. Shaw 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Just read the complete rewrite you did for Autocoder and it's excellent. Fairly short but well foot noted and extensive references. A B Carter (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarpedia

Just read your article and wanted to warn you to watch it carefully. I got very angry when my article on scholarpedia was deleted on grounds of notability and I had no possibility to comment in time. Izhkevich has some problems making it tip in fact if you check scholarpedia longpages. Just for the record, I think it is noteworthy as a project and I think Izhkevich could make it if he had some support. Ben ^T/_C 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on mitosis

Hi, I have just cleaned up multiple vandal edits on the mitosis page and noticed you recently reverted an edit with the note "Reverted 1 edit by 63.215.27.201 identified as vandalism to last revision by 75.4.45.137". Please note that 75.4.45.137 is actually vandalizing the page and 63.215.27.201 was reverting part of the vandalism. Therefore, your reversion resulted in accidentally restoring part of 75.4.45.137's vandalism. Please check multiple preceeding edits before reverting edits on that page. There are often multiple anonymous edits in quick succession and not always is the latest version before an edit a good one. This article seems to attract a lot of kids frustrated with having to learn the stuff for biology class. - tameeria 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories Computing, Computing by Operating Systems, Operating Systems

Would you know what the difference is between 'computing by Operating systems' and 'operating systems"? Not obvious to me, why not just eliminate it and add the computing category to the operating systems category page? tooold 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I was unaware of the Category:Computing by operating system until now. It seems to be a redundant subset of the Category:Operating systems. Perhaps it should be proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. -R. S. Shaw 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Template:Navigation and common.js

There seems to be a problem with Template:Navigation, common.js, and/or some related mechanism which is causing templates using Template:Navigation to intially show the wrong word out of the ("hide"/"show") word pair. Someone took your suggestion and modified Template:Navigation to cause a default hidden state (a default I like, BTW), but it seems that the result is currently that the using template, although in fact hidden, shows the "hide" button name rather than the "show" button name, which is the appropriate name to cause the body to be shown. (Toggling the button gets them into proper sync; it's the initial display that's the problem.) I don't know where this is going wrong as I haven't found where the hide/show text is coming from, but it smells to me like the area you changed in common.js may be involved. Could you investigate and resolve? Thanks. -R. S. Shaw 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked for the behavior you describe but can't find it. Please tell me a specific page that this occurs on (back on my talk page.) Also, remember to clear your cache as I'm sure you've already done by now. ←Ben^B4 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sp100 nuclear antigen and Anti-ballistic missile are two pages using templates which use Navigation, and for me have "hide" text although hidden. (I'm using firefox 1.5). I tried "?action=purge" on these pages with no effect. Is there some other type of cache clearing I should try? -R. S. Shaw 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of those look fine to me with Firefox 2, with all the boxes hidden and [show] links. Try exiting your browser and restarting it? I can't imagine what's doing that. ←Ben^B4 22:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decalcomania links

Apologies, I just restored a link in the Decalcomania article, but didn't leave a proper comment. I wanted to suggest that the museum article link is more appropriately about the decalcomania/industrial transfers early design movement, as opposed to decals in general. Fingal 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange, to me it seemed a much more appropriate link for Decal than Decalcomania. The latter article is pretty much about the technique to produce a one-of-a-kind result, especially in fine art. This is pretty much the opposite of the industrial printing technique of producing many copies of a graphic, i.e. producing 'decals' or 'transfers'. The museum link is pretty much about the history of that industrial technique in Canada, and thus seems more appropriate for Decal. I think I'll copy this discussion to the Decalcomania talk page. -R. S. Shaw 03:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quadratic Equation

Hey, I just saw the change of mine that you reverted and I'd like to say I did it by accident and I wasn't trying to vandalise the page - I think fatigue may have overcome my senses at that point. Thank you for reverting me. asyndeton 11:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Byte-order mark

The original text was correct as it stood: adding "(BOM)" wasn't necessary to make the point that U+FEFF is a character that serves also - depending on context - as a byte-order mark. Adding more words doesn't improve clarity. To make the point that 88.114.151.210 was trying to make might be better be done by splitting the compound sentence up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedickey (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject boxes go on Talk pages

Please don't put wikiproject templates on articles as you did with Template:Cell Signaling Project on Juxtacrine signalling. They do not belong there. Put them on the talk (discussion) page associated with the article. -R. S. Shaw 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I've checked "What links here" on that template page, and moved the template to the Talk page of all the articles I found where the template was transcluded into the main page. - Biochemza, 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What about when placing the Project Banner (with class=Category) on Category pages? I mean, really, who looks at Cat:Talk pages? Biochemza, 11:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this question addressed directly in any of the Wikipedia guidance pages; you may be the first to want to persue it. (I know I haven't seen WikiProject boxes on category pages or on category talk pages.) I would advise against using the category page, as a WikiProject reference is what is called a "self-reference" - that is, a reference to the Wikipedia project mechanisms (rather than encyclopedic content). Categories are considered part of content, like articles, and unlike talk pages and "Wikipedia:" pages. See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references#In the Template and Category namespaces. Another piece of related guidance is Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#What goes on a category page?. I think someone interested in participating in a WikiProject's activities will find out via article talk pages; categories aren't really useful for advertising the project. If you are trying to "claim" the category (which one can't) or inform maintainers, the category talk page is a good place. -R. S. Shaw 19:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup sorting

Hi. I keep seeing your name in the edit history regarding Wikipedia:Cleanup sorting and Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, so I figured that you must be the contact person. First of all, what is the status of cleanup sorting? If this "project" is active, which bots are running the tasks? I would like to run a job for Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/Hawaii but I can't tell if this is an active project or not. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the bot was User:Pearle, last run by User:Beland on 29 May 2007. Is this true? —Viriditas | Talk 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside trom the date, that's right. I don't know the date that Beland last caused Pearle to update the Wikipedia:Pages needing attention pages. I was thinking it was more like a year ago. Only Beland's computer has the setup, and it depends on a WP database dump, I think, which may be difficult to come by. So the PNA pages unfortunately seem to have been left high and dry. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If the project is inactive, do you know if Beland or anyone else is willing to help decentralize the project, and begin the process of helping WikiProjects deal with cleanup sorting instead? I need a bot to sort through all articles within Category:Hawaii and its subcats, identify maintenance tags, and flag the project template as needed for category sorting. I think if we put the onus on the projects rather than a centralized task force, we'll see some progress. The problem is, we need bots to help us sort the articles. —Viriditas | Talk 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much Beland can do for this; contact him to find out. It's true that some wikiprojects have made use of the PNA pages, and might help with maintenance. But a bot or bots are needed, and I don't know where they would come from. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. May I ask if you have an opinion about cleanup sorting? Am I crazy to think that each project should be responsible for cleaning up their own articles? —Viriditas | Talk 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup sorting seems useful to me (which is why I got involved to the extent I did). There are over 30,000 articles marked as needing cleanup; being able to access them by topic seems extremely desirable. People have areas of interest (as well as sometimes enjoying random browsing), so may want to work in those areas. This goes for people participating in projects as well as those not so formally involved. Topic-centered projects naturally tend to assemble lists of pages in their topical area, especially those they think should be improved. They may do this through use of the PNA pages or entirely separately (more the latter since PNA/sorting has been so inactive). It's not crazy to view project as responsible for cleanup of the relevant areas. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you comment here? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 10:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Dmoz

Hello. I see your vote at the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15#Template:Dmoz. I agree with you.

Best regards, nejron (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epinephrine

Hi. Recent editor of the Epinephrine article; have just registered after correcting what I saw as a typo. I see that you've reverted my correction of "Ampulle" to "ampoule" back to the original. In North American English at least, I've only seen "ampoule" used; the word "Ampulle"(especially when capitalized as is in the caption) is only used in other Germanic languages. For the sake of clarity, I argue that my correction should stand, at least as far as the English version of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrotjuliettthreeoneone (talk • contribs) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see I missed the double-l misspelling. I've changed it to 'ampule'. I was unfamiliar with the ampoule spelling. I see the image name is ampulle, which is wrong from my ref. The 'ampule' spelling is given as the main entry on dict.com and is the one I am most familiar with (U.S.). -R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)