User talk:Hydnjo/Archive09

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 December 2005 and 31 January 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Reference Desk

You, Ec5618 have posted the following on my (hydnjo's) talk page and I'll respond as best I can. Ec5618's comments are indented and in italics and hydnjo's comments are double indented without italics:

I'm having a hard time following you, I'm afraid, but it seems you opose most of my suggestions. Perhaps I should clarify my position then. I understand that you have been actively maintaining the Reference Desk for a while now, but I feel my contributions (or attempts at same) are ignored or brushed away with sarcasm. A few months ago I tried to make sense of the Reference Desk, and failed. Recently, I again took an active interest in the Reference Desk, and tried to explain my views. In my opinion:

1. silly questions should be curbed

I don't know what you mean by "silly questions". I have often bypassed a question thinking it to be silly only to come back later and find that another user has not only answered the question but made me realize that the question wasn't so silly after all. Also I don't know what you mean by "curbed". If you mean to delete the "silly" question then I will strongly disagree. I don't bebeive that any person should censor or alter the RD questions except to format or edit for legibility (obvious vandalism and obscenity are excepted).

2. the Reference Desk should be 'staffed' by a large number of people (with diverse interests and abilities)

I believe that is the the case. We do however welcome others to contribute so long as they're willing to put up with or ignore questions that they deem "silly".

3. the archives should be useful.

The archives should be exactly what the definition of archive is. A storage site for the preservation of material that is no longer current, ie: "stale" and no longer being responded to.

I hope was agree on these points, if not on the solutions to these issues.

In the absence further discussion, I'm not sure whether we agree on these points or not.

I suggested ways of reducing the impact of silly questions, for example, by using templates to automate certain responses. I felt that this would get the point across without sarcasm, while freeing up time so that more time could be spent answering actual questions. You responded by saying "scolding is not helpful", which really didn't address my points. You later made snide remarks, such as "That's some some freaking smart bot" and "Right on Sir", which I percieved as hostile. Perhaps it was not your intent, but you came across as positively obstinate.

"That's some some freaking smart bot" was in direct response to your suggestion that: When archiving time comes along, this question needn't be archived. I am deeply concerned about editing or censoring or otherwise restricting questions from the archives because of someone's opinion regarding the merit of that particular question. I ended that comment with "Right on Sir" as a jestfull response to the "authority" which has the power to decide archive worthiness - those with that power would definitely prefer to be addressed as Sir.

I used harsh tones in response, for which I apologise.

It seems our discussion escalated from there, to the point where you finally suggested we stop resorting to sarcasm, to which I agreed. Your next post has puzzled me since, and I hope that you can see in retrospect how it could be perceived as hostile or obstinate[1].

I can understand how my responses could be viewed that way, that was not my intention.

You have suggested that templates are 'curt'. I suggested that sarcasm could equally be seen as uncivil, especially since people who are not fluent English speakers might not understand the sarcastic undertone. You never responded. Could you please explain your views on this?

Sure. A thoughtful and individualized response always trumps a template response which smacks of "we're blowing you off because you don't meet our standards" or "you have been neglectful of our rules here" or some other transgression".

My current suggestion, for the record, can be found under Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Restructure with subpages. I would appreciate your input. I suggest to create a Best-of-Reference-Desk page, on which useful questions that are correctly and collaboratively answered can be displayed. Note that I don't suggest a massive bureaucracy, I suggest a collaborative effort. It seems a number of other editors agree with me.

I have no problem whatsoever with a "Best of the RD" compilation and would be delighted to participate. I'll help with the set-up and guidelines in any way I can.

For the record, do you object to the use of templates to respond to silly questions? While you say at one point "Wha! I have no objection to anyone using a template shortcut to express their position with regard to any question." you had previously stated "I'm against template replies."

You misquote me by ommision. In direct response to your statement ...and I don't see why you can't seem to see that many personally added comments are in fact more uncivil than any template. and ...I don't see why templates need be uncivil, and I don't see why you can't seem to see that many personally added comments are in fact more uncivil than any template... my complete response was "Wha! I have no objection to anyone using a template shortcut to express their position with regard to any question. My personal feeling is that it is unwise to do so. " My previously stated comment that "I'm against template replies" stands.

I ask you to please reconsider your stance, and to re-read the discussion as I have. You initial hostility (or apparent hostility), and my response in kind, seems to have made our discussion useless, which ultimately damages the project. I'm sure we can agree on things. -- Ec5618 12:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I will indeed re-read the discussion and reconsider my stance as you request. I apologize to you for seeming hostile whereas my intent was to vigorously defend my stance with regard to not picking and choosing which questions should be allowed to stand at the RD and further not trying to choose which should be allowed into our archives. --hydnjo talk 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Some final points then, if I may. We can then continue this discussion on the reference desk talk page.

Silly questions, in my view, are questions that would not have been posted had the person who asked it read the rules. This includes, for example, one word questions for which the only answer is "See [[onewordquestion]]".

There is precedence for not archiving at all: The Village pump is not archived in a strict sense. And on Wikipedia, Talk pages are archived so that editors can read up on previous discussion. Such is not an issue here. I simply cannot imagine anyone going into the deep catacombs that make up the reference desk archives.

Still, I'm glad we can agree on a Best-of approach, as compromise. I'm confident that it will produce some interesting reading material, at least. -- Ec5618 09:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. :) Somehow, those little pictures really make a difference. P.S. You're off on the name. I'll probably tell the story some time. --Superm401 - Talk 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ec5618

You voted oppose in my request for adminship. Since it seems that I might narrowly fail, and since each oppose vote weighs significantly more than a support vote, I would like to explain my views, in hopes that you remove your opposition.

You cite the diffs as provided by Durin as part of the reason you voted oppose. While I applaud Durin's willingness to delve into my past, I feel his interpretation of the situation is somewhat one-sided. Yes, I added a reference to a Talk page, and yes, I did it twice. However, I feel that an editor's Talk pages aren't theirs, as much as they are a forum through which other editors can quickly contact the editor. Removing any reference to past (mis)deeds is purposely deceptive. Know also that according to policy, technically, instead of reverting, I should have sought arbitration, which I should hope to have need for only in severe situations.

You can read part of my discussion with the editor by following the archive link I created: Archive 02. Note that another user suggested nominating this editor for Adminship. As I didn't understand the RfA process then, I was afraid that this editor might actually be given Admin powers, which is why I tried to leave visible evidence of criticism of this editor.

If memory serves, we have run into eachother on the Reference Desk twice now. The second time, we got tied up, somehow, in sarcastic remarks. Still, in the end I feel the Reference Desk has been improved. The dated supersections seem to be working out wonderfully, the search box added to the main page has not been opposed (and may have helped some people, though there's no way to find out), and the Best-of concept has been approved by a majority, though it's not very active yet.

Again, I hope you'll reconsider. Thank you. -- Ec5618 12:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship Vote

I want to sincerely thank you for voting on my adminship nomination. Whenever I mess up, please let me know. I want to learn from my mistakes so they don't become patterns. Superm401 - Talk 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia widow

Hi, ran across your deleted article on "Wikipedia widow" after my spouse asked me to google that term. It's pretty funny! I'd like to post it to metawiki, unless you have an objection. Babajobu 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

Thanks for trying the communication channel open. The females have currently circled the wagons, so this might take a while to work out. There is a probably a problem with the Judge being male. We will see how it works out. Andrew William Morrow (amorrow@earthlink.net).

wikiwax

I wrote to let them know; it's back up now :-) Thanks for the ping. Love that thing. +sj + 22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. They were excited to get positive feedback from me, so I'm sure they would appreciate hearing from you as well. By the way, any chance you two are coming to Wikimania this summer? Cheers, +sj + 03:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Time machine

Hi, I saw that you reverted my entry for "Time machine". I assume that you saw my request on the help desk? Unfortunately, the article still redirects to "Time travel" instead of the "Time Machine" disambiguation page. Any suggestions? Clarkbhm 00:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be sure to make the additional change you suggested the next time. Thanks for your help! Clarkbhm 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Second search box

Some of the comments from folks voting for a second search box leads me to suspect that they don't realize that it's a Mainpage only thingy. Perhaps that should be added (Mainpage only) as part of the descriptors. If I wasn't following this I could easily misread this as a referendum for having a search box always available at the upper right. (nb: yes votes #7, #8 and #9) hydnjo talk 19:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory message.

Thanks but it renders badly (overlaps here but ok here) in Classic. I was thinking of something more direct such as adding (Mainpage only) to the selection links such as Second search box (Mainpage only). Perhaps I'm wrong on this but it seems that a several are voting for an upper right always search box. hydnjo talk 20:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you mean now. I've added such a notation, and I modified the existing one to address the incompatibility with the classic skin. If something isn't quite right, please feel free to fix it.  :-) —David Levy 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

re: apology

no no! not at all :)
I'm glad for any additional steam behind any of the 3 alternatives (anything to dissuade the second-search-bar proponents..~!).
(and i updated the image that you had linked to, to the newer screenshot i had taken with the yellow background, for consistency) --Quiddity 01:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep a (special) watch on Monty Hall problem and talk page?

69.180.7.137 (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing the talk page and looks like he's likely to violate the 3RR on the article itself (he's already been warned about it.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Thank you for supporting me in my RFA and your kind note on my talk page. The rollback button will definetly be useful in dealing more swiftly with vandalism. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

References for ...

...hmmm. That's a very interesting question: how do you provide references for something like that? The numbers are based on the twelfth root of two, assuming A=440, but they were put there by the anon who started the article (I'm not sure they've even been checked, but I vaguely remember doing that). The piano keys refer to, well, a piano. Does using Excel to calculate frequencies constitute original research? ... ::Antandrus fears ending in Wikipedia Hell after all:: ... Antandrus (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Tip of the day

Hey, I just came across this project, very nice idea. Where are you planning to plant the links to it? Also, I notice that WP:TIP is available, do you like it?  :-) hydnjo talk 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'll snag that shortcut. Thanks again! --Go for it! 08:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Search box focus

[Copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft.]

I've seen this discussed in several places. See here and here. It is a scroll vs. autotext issue combined with using the arrow keys vs using a mouse scroll wheel. There are two workarounds that I have seen people mention (and I've added them to the FAQ entry) - some systems allow use of a keyboard shortcut like Alt-F to focus on the search box. There is also the option of using www.wikipedia.org which defaults to the English search and is focussed on the search box. Carcharoth 10:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, In my browser, Alt-F works (which by the way works on _any_ Wikipedia page - handy if you are a long way down a page and don't want to scroll back to the search box). The "find text" function is Ctl-F. Maybe another shortcut will work for you? As for how I search, I often use a Firefox plug-in and highlight a word with the mouse and then use right-click to select and carry out a search on that term in the search engine of my choice (with or without Wikipedia included in the search parameters). In fact, I sometimes go further because I often have a long list of terms I want to get Wikipedia pages for, and I set up an URL generator (I actually use Excel, cos I'm too lazy to set up a proper program) and end up with a list of URLs that I click through, read the page, and then grab the page if I need it for the work I'm doing. I just hate typing the same things out again and again... Carcharoth 17:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The tab key did eventually get me to the search box, but only after switching between all the links on the page. About 50 keypresses... Carcharoth 13:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll Talk In More Detail Later

Hydnjo, ultimately i'm not doing this 1,000 edits in one day for anybody other than myself, but we'll talk more later. Thanks for letting me know about the FA today, I think i've mentioned before, but i'm Portuguese, so that makes me sort of proud.

Ok, more later, for the next hour, i'm in quantity, not quality mode. Karmafist 23:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Yeah, it's definately not a big deal. Most of the admins and their accolytes either are children or act like children, so i've learned not to worry about them too much. However, i'm a politician. I've changed my entire life to run for State Rep over here in Merrimack, because I want to change the world. I want it to make it a better place, and right now I feel like the only way I can do that is by being in public office. I may be wrong, maybe the journey towards that goal is the thing that'll actually make things better from me, maybe something along the way will happen and hit me and i'll change my path, all I know is that I am who I am and I have to stay honest to that.

As for trying to get 1,000 edits in one day(I still could technically do it in regards to Eastern Standard Time, but I got 819 edits in the wiki-day), that was ultimately similiar to the reasoning Sir Edmund Hillary gave when he tried to climb Mt. Everest. Primarily, I wanted to do it to see if I could. I still think I can, so i'll try again on another day. Granted, I am still a flawed person, so saying to those who think they can try and get rid of me that i'm still here and stronger than ever is satisfying, but it's gravy.

Once again, I thank you for your friendship. I need to pry myself away from this computer to go do laundry and shovel. Karmafist 00:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)