User talk:PeterStJohn: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:37, 7 November 2007 editJc37 (talk \| contribs)Administrators48,969 edits response - from my talk page← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:45, 7 November 2007 edit undoPeterStJohn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,909 edits →"endorse" vs "overturn"Next edit →
Line 131:		Line 131:
	::::No, I think that those who are not regulars at DRV may have been confused, and so requested clarification, and offered to clarify my own comments.		::::No, I think that those who are not regulars at DRV may have been confused, and so requested clarification, and offered to clarify my own comments.
	::::And while you may note that my comments above stayed neutral on whether your notice was proposer or not, I don't think it was. "Mathematicians are getting slammed..." and "...we need help." are just two examples. It clearly shows bias, and an intent towards a specific outcome for the discussion. It's a common mistake, and imho, no big deal, but I wanted you to be aware of it, for future reference. - ] 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)		::::And while you may note that my comments above stayed neutral on whether your notice was proposer or not, I don't think it was. "Mathematicians are getting slammed..." and "...we need help." are just two examples. It clearly shows bias, and an intent towards a specific outcome for the discussion. It's a common mistake, and imho, no big deal, but I wanted you to be aware of it, for future reference. - ] 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

			:::: Ok, good answers.
			* first, yes, I'm used to the confusing style of dropping notes at each others' talk pages. Deleting the item from your page, and moving it to mine, lost me. But I see what you are doing now and indeed, no context is lost.
			* yes, I favor "overturn" and I'd be dishonest to appear otherwise, just as Kbwhatever favors "delete". I was surprised by his voting on his own closure, but it's not really a vote. I would have to grep for precedent. In this case, the deletionists have gotten out their vote big time, witness three nominations to delete, of which only the third attempt suceeded. A view on the math pages is that we are being spammed into submission. I'm willing to take a certain amount of risk to myself to agitate for standing up for ourselves, but your point is well taken and I appreciate it. ] 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:45, 7 November 2007

Welcome!

Hello, PeterStJohn, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Hu 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re: Neuron article

Thank you for alerting us to the vandal edit on the Neuron article. I have reverted it. You can too, as with experience you will recognize it quickly. The great majority of vandalism is done by anonymous IP address editors. Hu 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

SQL Mirror

It's not a bad idea, but we already have something similar ;) Have a look at meta:Toolserver. Bjelleklang - talk 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What about IRC? Have a look at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bjelleklang/pjirc/, and join me and others at #wikipedia-bootcamp, or if you use another client, #wikimedia-toolserver. Bjelleklang - talk 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Temporary bug report

{{helpme}} the page Special:WantedPages or appears to down; it shows zero counts. There is a note on the talk page from yesterday, so the failure seems to be about a day old. I don't have access to IIRC from this machine and didn't know a better mechanism for bringing this to the attention to someone more clueful, other than 'helpme'. Thanks. Peter H. St.John, M.S. 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The best place to aim messages of this sort is probably the technical Village Pump (WP:VPT). --ais523 17:36, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

move

I have moved PeteScratchPad to User:PeterStJohn/ScratchPad. Personal pages are perfectly OK but they must have the correct names. -- RHaworth 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I did remember to thank you :-) at Your talk page --Pete

Example

Responded here. ike9898 04:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to cleam up the article per your critique and discussed it some, with links, on your Talk page. Pete St.John 17:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making me laugh

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded to Pete St.John for making me laugh out loud. Great humor and witty observations are always appreciated - keep it up! -- Satori Son 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still laughing about this one! Keep up the good work and feel free to move this to your user page if you'd like. -- Satori Son 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks! --Pete

Blue Collar Computing

Peter, I'm also concerned about the Blue collar article, as I think it may be a direct cut and paste from the website about it. This could be a copyright violation in addition to sounding like an advertisement. What do you think we should do?--Analogue Kid 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied at OSC item on your talk page. I think you are helping them out, by editting their POV advertising before someone who doesn't care just reverts or deletes it. Pete St.John 15:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

Just so you know, you don't have to pipelink every time you link to everything with spaces in the name. Sample Article will land at Sample_Article, and doesn't require any piping. And mass will go to Mass just fine. The Wiki software always assumes an initial capital, so you don't have to worry about that either. ♠PMC♠ 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was suspicious (because I noticed the typography you used) but didn't take the time to check it out. Pete St.John 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Shelob and probability theory

you’re right, intuition is tricky. even having slightly “improved” my intuition based on already knowing about the birthday paradox, mine still broke down, i guess due to the size of the numbers. there are, according to the main page, 1,653,406 articles. i hit “random” roughly 250 times. if you want to test your own intuition, guess what the odds are for a repeat? the answer (assuming i did the math right) is visible if you highlight between the two x’s below.

x 1.88% x

not too likely, but not lottery-ticket-buying-inducing, either.

thanks for the interesting comment. -barneca 02:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bunker - Live Music Venue

Nope, this was a regular article in regular article space when I deleted it. NawlinWiki 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: this refers to User:The.aldgate.bunker; may as well forgot it unless/until they ask for help. Pete St.John

Operating System

I understand. Thank you for your help. I was only looking at the last part of the sentence rather than the whole. The only thing I don't think is good is the pronunciation of GUI because there's really the spelling it out technique, and that's what got me. It's more of like a region's pronunciation rather than a generic one. Also, there's only one GUI per operating system. Other than that, yeah, it was a sticky fix and I've learned from it, and will let it be. Thanks for notifying me so I would know in the future to look at the whole rather than just a part of the sentence. --Bookinvestor 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied at Book's Talk page.Pete St.John 13:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand how there can be two GUIs in an OS. Thanks for your explanation.

One thing that's strange, though, is that I'm an American, and I've been taught to say "gee-you-eye", spelling out the letters rather than trying to pronounce it. SCSI I pronounce the general "scuzzy," but I spell out OS, PCMCIA, and all that is less renown or hard to interpret. I guess, though, that it's learned from the street, and I just thought the exact same in "gooey."

I know a little more on the way pronunciations go. Thanks for your help. It's been a great discussion. --Bookinvestor 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Links or links?

I changed the capitalization, as it appears to be standard on wikipedia for the links section to be headed "External links". It is stated in wikipedia's Manual of Style.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wp:external_links

TubularWorld 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Leigh

I did a quick fix to the article to give his exact position & show his awards--articles like this are likely to be deleted by some of the people around here these days--you should probably add some refs to his best known papers. DGG (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Watergate

Thanks, I was feeling a bit befuddled by the continued insistence that I was being biased when I'm keenly aware of issues in biographies of living persons and try to report only what happened in the most neutral voice possible. Honestly, I wasn't even alive when Watergate happened, and I'm not that interested in it or anything. Just trying to keep things up to date here. I appreciate you backing me up, guess we'll just wait and see what happens.--Analogue Kid 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Go

Thank you for alerting me to my error. I hope it is repaired now. Larry R. Holmgren 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. When I give a 13-stone handicap as the corners are still open with only the hoshi point covered, the bells are covered with #10 through 13 to give the novice a chance to win. Larry R. Holmgren 22:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PR edits

Thanks for the comments. I might apply the knife a little too liberally, but if it's worth expanding, someone else will come along and expand it, and hopefully that person won't be in the PR department. :P I cut Blue Collar Computing way back, as well. The text added had been somewhat de-POV'd, but it still read like a press release, if a slightly less enthusiastic one. kmccoy (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:199.72.115.66

Thanks for the heads up. The first block was only for 3 hours. This one is 24 hours. Kukini 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

5 Good

Glad you spotted the edit conflict and fixed it up. Cheers. Robert Brockway 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Columbus

I watch the Columbus article, so I've been seeing this develop over some days. I decided that it was time to jump in, since both sides had some good points but I agreed with the majority — not to mention the idea of consensus :-) Nyttend 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"endorse" vs "overturn"

Mathematicians are getting slammed at the Deletion Review for Erdos Numbers, because people are voting to "endorse" (erdos numbers) but "endorse" means "endorse the deletion". I think you want to overturn, but only for Erdos numbers < some maximum. Thanks at least for caring, it's a mess and we need help. Pete St.John 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the well-meant notice.

But, no, I posted what I intended to.

Also, while I do appreciate notices and comments, not everyone does. And there are those who frown on such as improper canvassing. Please take a moment to read Misplaced Pages:Canvassing so that you're at least aware of what's generally acceptable, and what's not. - jc37 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First, your deletion of my comment here on your talk page removes some context. Apparently you accept that your vote at the deletion review could be misinterpreted, to have been the same confusion as an earlier vote above it.

Second, thanks, I read just now the canvassing item, and without having read it previously, I plainly comply with every single point of it. I'd be happy for any exception to be brought to my attention. Pete St.John 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In response:

What context do you feel was removed by unifying the discussion?

No, I think that those who are not regulars at DRV may have been confused, and so requested clarification, and offered to clarify my own comments.

And while you may note that my comments above stayed neutral on whether your notice was proposer or not, I don't think it was. "Mathematicians are getting slammed..." and "...we need help." are just two examples. It clearly shows bias, and an intent towards a specific outcome for the discussion. It's a common mistake, and imho, no big deal, but I wanted you to be aware of it, for future reference. - jc37 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good answers.

first, yes, I'm used to the confusing style of dropping notes at each others' talk pages. Deleting the item from your page, and moving it to mine, lost me. But I see what you are doing now and indeed, no context is lost.
yes, I favor "overturn" and I'd be dishonest to appear otherwise, just as Kbwhatever favors "delete". I was surprised by his voting on his own closure, but it's not really a vote. I would have to grep for precedent. In this case, the deletionists have gotten out their vote big time, witness three nominations to delete, of which only the third attempt suceeded. A view on the math pages is that we are being spammed into submission. I'm willing to take a certain amount of risk to myself to agitate for standing up for ourselves, but your point is well taken and I appreciate it. Pete St.John 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)