User talk:Dank/Archive 1

Hard spaces

You're doing well, Dan. I like the way the discussion is going at ActionMOSVP. I'm just holding off a little, till others have come in to have their say. Glad you're enjoying making your contributions!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nowrap

",," has been proposed as markup for the no-break space. Wikipedia has always been "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The markup for italics, bold, links and references can all be guessed by inspection, and those are all things that new users would want to do anyway. The meaning of ",," for a no-break space won't be clear from inspection, and it's not something most new users would want to do on their own. I notice that new markup for the no-width spaces, m-dash, n-dash were also proposed in the same discussion at Noetica/ActionMOSVP. I think if you fill up pages with markup that newer editors won't know until they read a markup manual, then we're no longer "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Worse, this markup doesn't consist of paired, enclosing symbols like all the markup I mentioned above, so to people who haven't read a manual, it's more likely to appear to be a typo or a remnant from previous editing than markup. We could of course force everyone to learn it before they do any editing, but Wikipedia hasn't done that before.

It seems to me that if more-experienced, higher-volume editors want markup that's easier on the eyes and fingers than what they've got now, they can use bots or keyboard remapping (I currently use abcTajpu for Firefox). Better yet, why not give everyone what they want, and make the edit screen user-toggle-able between "heavier" and "lighter" markup? I'm sympathetic to high-volume editors who would like special tools, but new users are very likely not to care, and to get distracted by the new markup. Anyone clued-in enough to understand the fight over no-break spaces can be clued-in enough to use a bot to help them edit.

If we can talk the techs into accepting a solution that will require more pre-processing, it would be really nice to join the modern world and have Mediawiki software calculate correctly where the lines should break. That is, there would be some page where we argue over the rules for no-break spacing, and those rules get applied to all pages. (So, p. #, # AD, # sq ft would all be examples.) Dank55 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard spaces again

Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces. I hope you will join in again now, as we approach a crucial vote.

Best wishes to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Robot

'Nabend, Andreas...I noticed your deletion of the "Applications of Computer Vision" category at Robot. I notice we have some things in common, I am currently staffing the #wikia-de channel, I adopted robots.wikia.com, and I used to play chess :) So...freut mich, dich kennenzulernen. Back to the question: robots seem to be an application of computer vision to me, why do you think not? Since you didn't give a reason for the deletion, someone might revert it. — Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dan! I added category 'Applications of computer vision' to category 'Robots'. Since the article Robot belongs to category 'Robots', it doesn't need to belong to category 'Applications of computer vision' anymore. I hope this is fine. Schöne Grüße! Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dan! I looked robots.wikia.com, I like you idea to collect information and advices about robots, which can be used at home. I actually don't have any experience with home robots yet. One topic what I interested in is if Lego Mind Storms robots can be made to do something useful, or they are still just toys? I started a new topic in your forum [1]. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Andreas, I answered over there. Dank55 (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which was unsuccessful with 19 support, 18 oppose, and 5 neutral. I have signed up for admin coaching and will retry later on in a couple more months.

I look forward to working with you in kick-starting WP:ROBO. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Dan. I see you're back now. Hope you had a good break. Things have moved along with the hard space push, but it's never going to be simple, is it? Have you looked through the recent discussion at WT:MOS? I hope to see you there.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Noetica, yes I'm following the discussion. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Usage of {{WikiProject Robotics}}

{{WikiProject Robotics}} should only be used on the articles' talk pages. Please do not tag them on the article itself, as it is unencyclopedic. Please review project tag placement guidelines. I'll revert your edits regarding those errors. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My preferred edit speed is fast and semi-sloppy, then I look at what I did and fix it if I screwed up...I got interrupted and missed this one, sorry. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The current mini-drama at WT:Wikiproject Robotics

Sometimes being a roboticist is like being the only representative of a minority in a small town...all your neighbors seem to have an opinion on what your life means, and for some reason, they have no inhibitions about sharing. Can people understand that some of us are just trying to slog through a difficult subject and build useful gadgets that help people? It's really kind of annoying that, when we talk about what we do in a public space like Wikipedia, there are an endless stream of people who share some opinion that implies (or blatantly states) that we're responsible for the coming end of the world, or we're the geekiest of geeks, or any number of other half-assed opinions. There's a time and place for all those discussions, but many of us are just interested in doing something useful and don't really feel an obligation to heal the rift between technophiles and technophobes or walk people through their futureshock issues. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

re:rv at Robot

I actually saw it when I was reverting vandalism; I wasn't looking for grammatical mistakes, it was just one of the diffs the anti-vandal programme I use pulled up :) --Farosdaughter (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch! -Dan

Didn't get that

"If any of you have any examples" at WT:WikiProject Robotics...I don't follow what you're saying. I repeat that I have read your userpage and seen your contributions many places (I've only been hanging around WP about 2 months, but I'm a fast reader), and I have enormous respect for your viewpoints and your contributions to WP. But I'm not entirely sure you get my point...it has nothing to do with robots, per se. It's about improving the quality of robotics articles on WP, and about not offending the people who have the talent to do the work, so that they stop cloistering in their own users groups and come over here and brave the WP-and-sister-sites culture. You may or may not have been calling me a dork for thinking this, I couldn't tell (which is certainly true sometimes.) When I talk in any forum where roboticists can hear me, I attempt to represent their views...partly because I think they don't do that great a job of representing their own views, they tend to simply withdraw, and I'm trying to lead by example. In other forums (like here), I'm more open to different viewpoints. Possibly I might even exhibit a sense of humor. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not a dork. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Your attempt may or may not be successful:

• It might be totally unsuccessful, because good editors do not have greater authority on Wikipedia than fairly irrational mobs, provided that the mobs aren't blatantly silly and follow the rules.
• It might be partially successful, because good editors can sometimes have small wins, here and there, and from what I understand the first person to write an article generally has the most power.
• It might be successful since, to be honest, I can't really see there being that many mobs gathering around anti-technology or anti-robot POVs.

On that last point, though, it certainly is possible and if it happens, I'd like to see diffs. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawnbott

Hi Fabrictramp, and I hope you're feeling okay. You may have just tagged Lawnbott because it's the right thing to do, given that I haven't added any links supporting notability yet, but now that you're involved, I'd appreciate your help in figuring out which robotics articles are notable, how best to support notability with links, and how to open lines of communication between roboticist and non-roboticist editors. Regarding Lawnbott, I created the article because there was a broken link to the non-existent article from Autonomous robots. I had already written a short article on the Lawnbott over at Wikia, because I considered it to be one of many "useful robots".

For a discussion about the needs of robotics editors, you might be interested in today's conversation here.

As an appliance, I suppose a Lawnbott might be no more notable than, say, a brand of washing machine. I note that Kenmore easily makes the notability requirement, so the question would involve sales figures and how well-known Lawnbotts are...and this is a very hard question to answer. There are several users groups for Lawnbotts, which I suppose makes them more notable in a way than Kenmore washing machines, but sales figures for Lawnbotts are not available, the best I can tell. But there's a different lens to view Lawnbotts through, as a representative of domestic robots. Are they a notable step from where we are now to what's coming next, or are they unimportant? That's probably a question best debated by roboticists, although of course the usual rules about doing it with the proper links apply. (copied at my userpage) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A long road ahead but I think we're winning

Btw, thanks for that fantastic banner and for adding it to the random banner collection so everyone sees it. I've gotten a lot of nice support for our project today, notably here. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your complement! I'm glad people are noticing our WikiProject, and I agree - most new WikiProjects generally receive the same kinds of roadblocks in the beginning, but what I'm hoping is that if we can hammer down with the core of the project in the beginning, we can have the project take off without too many technical troubles. I'm glad people are commenting...and I agree with Keeper76, you are definitely one of the most well-spoken roboticists I've seen in a long time! I'll be enjoying my new age for a little bit more this weekend, but if you need anything, please let me know. I'll be working on some standard on the infoboxes and the rest of the red-linked categories. Also, I'll be working on a new static banner (just a .png file) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (copied at my userpage as well so that the archives make sense). - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ROBO

OK... so I've began to assess the robotics articles. Please review the article assessment guidelines and help this WikiProject out by helping out with the following:

• Adding Robotics-related articles to the WikiProject
• Assessing robotics articles listed in Category:Robotics articles by quality
• Helping out with giving comments to individual articles after assessment, pointers, comments, etc. (basically, don't just give an article class and move on, let people know what led you to give such a rating when necessary.

We need to get this article assessment drive going first before peer reviews and collaborations programs can be made.

Note: advertising for this WikiProject:

Static Banner

If you want to use it for our WikiProject advertisement, simple paste [[Image:Wikiprojectrobotics.png]] to use this static banner.

Animated Banner

Our ad is now in the Wikipedia Ads circulation. Help promote WikiProject Robotics by displaying this image on your userpage, or to place Wikipedia Ads to your user page, you may add {{Wikipedia ads}}.

• Display only certain ads: Here's the script to only display certain ads (so you can have people see our Robotics ad more often (or just only display this ad only). Note: WikiProject:Robotics Ad is #116.

{{Wikipedia ads|ad={{#switch:{{#expr:{{NUMBEROFEDITS:R}} mod 12}} <!-- mod 12 is the number of ads total-->
|0=24  <!--Change the the ad number of your choice here.  Remember, -->
|1=45  <!--this is an array, so the count starts with 0, and ends   -->
|2=73  <!--with one number lower than the total number of ads.  :-) -->
|3=77 |4=86 |5=94 |6=104 |7=106 |8=116 |9=116 |10=116 |11=116}}}}

Please let me know if you have any questions. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think a better color for the word "robotics" should be? (# Color would be great) I've actually tested this banner on TFT, LCD and CRT monitors before deployment, I guess I missed a category? Thanks!- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I just sent you an email with a new version of the file with "robotics" glowing orange. I hope that works. Please let me know what you think. If it's good, I'll upload it as a new version. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawnbott, Google Sketchup

Thanks for the references David, I will fix Lawnbott tomorrow. Btw, I saw the reference to Google sketchup for dummies on your web page...thanks, I've ordered the book, I need to improve my skills. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad for the chance to help your work here and elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (copied at my userpage) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Article importance tag

(I'm keeping copies on both John Carter's userpage and mine) John Carter and Phoenix-wiki, I'd like to ask you both about the utility of the "article importance" rating that I recently commented-out of the Wikiproject Robotics template. My instinct is that the very last thing I need to hear is "Dan says my article is more important than yours". Did this fill any essential function in any previous Wikiproject? Is there some mistake we're likely to make because we misjudge the importance of Roomba or Robot? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The importance rankings serve two functions. One, they permit the project to "prioritize" its articles, and perhaps give a bit more attention to the more important and less attention to the less important articles. Also, they are of use to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which expects to use importance rankings in the future to help determine which articles are included in future release versions and possibly as candidates for their collaboration. That's all that would be missed by not having them, though. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to support Version 1.0 any way I can, please alert me if we're reaching the point where you guys would like a list of suitable robotics articles, and I'll propose to the Wikiproject Robotics guys that we come up with a list for you. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

John, Jameson's opinion is different than mine, so I'm asking for more input if you want to give it. I know the "importance" tag has been useful in other wikiprojects and could potentially be useful when Version 1.0 needs input. Regarding Version 1.0, it seems reasonable to me to answer that question when we're actually faced with the question. Regarding former wikiprojects, a difference here is that we are currently having success with pulling new people into Wikipedia who have expert answers to the questions that need to get answered. This includes students, hobbyists, househusbands, academics, and professionals. For people who we really need not to annoy, but who are relatively new to Wikipedia, I think it would be counterproductive to slap a label of "low importance" on their article, no matter how careful we are to explain what it means. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Low" importance ranking and the like, you have a real point. One thing that several projects have done is only assess for Top or High importance, or even just Top importance, leaving all the others blank. That way, a new editor might think that it just hasn't been tagged for importance yet. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection at all to using a separate template to denote high importance, top importance, or suitability for Version 1.0...and btw, I would totally support the idea of Wikiproject Robotics people stepping aside and letting Version 1.0 people make any or all of those determinations...you know your audience, we don't. Top ratings would be for a small minority of robotics articles, better not to rub everyone's face in that by putting it in the main template. Also, most of the new editors are wonderful people who have great wiki-values in general, but I just cringe a little bit when I consider giving them to-do lists, they're not going to be receptive. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't always agree with article importance ratings, but it can be useful to assess some articles as more important than others because we'd like to get the VIP articles up to scratch first. I've yet to see someone say anything like "My article is more important than yours" though. WPP:BIO has just a top importance rating for stuff like George Bush and David Beckham and nothing for other aticles.--Phoenix-wiki 20:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) FYI: I undid your comment-out on {{WikiProject Robotics}} since articles listed with importance=blah still registered on the bot retrieval process regardless of the visual display of importance on the project tag, so I just undid it until we have a clear set of article guidelines to follow. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I don't care how other projects do it, only Wikiproject Robotics, so I guess that would be the right forum...specifically, the page for admin issues, WP:ROBO/AEL. However, I personally think the arguments might be generally valid, and if anyone wants me to argue my points in any other forum, please tell me where to go (haha). I haven't really heard any argument here in support of putting this information at the top of every robotics page, instead of using a separate template on those articles we want to rate highly, which would have the advantage that it would let the Version 1.0 people make Version 1.0 decisions, so I'm not sure what the state of the argument is. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The main arguments against a separate template are that (1) I've never seen anyone else do that and (2) the importance parameters for 1.0 are generally set by the projects themselves. The 1.0 people, including me, don't at this point presume to know enough about every subject to be able to make those determininations on their own. Also, the new program being set up to assist in helping choose articles for the release version which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot depends to a degree on the importance parameters from the individual projects. Unfortunately, it's obviously the case that any given article will be of differing degrees of importance to different projects, so we would need the separate Top or High importance parameters for each interested project to help out the process. Obviously, if a given FA is of Top importance to one project, Low importance to another, the Low importance rating probably isn't that required, but the Top importance rating would be one of the few ways to give a given article a high enough "score" for inclusion in many cases. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, time for context. A year from now, I hope to see a definitive encyclopedia on robotics and an active community of roboticists that relies on this encyclopedia and feels supported by it in an essential way. If I am successful, I might be a small piece in that puzzle, but an essential piece, because I have some skills, resources, and a focus that no one else has at the moment, specifically, building community. There is only one thing that I feel passionate about at Wikipedia, but I feel very passionate about it: I don't want to lose a single new person that we need for this project because we screwed up and didn't make them feel welcome. (People who are here already and have already "bought into" Wikipedia don't need to be treated so gingerly.) The idea of inviting people to write articles here, and then slapping a label at the top of every article, not just saying how good a job it does of following WP guidelines, but on top of that, saying how "important" it is, just smells wrong to me. I will vigorously oppose this. I still haven't heard an argument for why we feel a need to point out on every article just how unimportant we think it is, by virtue of a template that says it rates the article on importance, but doesn't say what that importance is. What is the downside to only putting a "Top importance, under consideration for Version 1.0" or something similar on those articles for which that is in fact the case? If the distinction doesn't seem important to you guys (I can't tell, I'm asking), then you're not talking with the same guys I'm talking with. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether we use a separate template or not, I'm not trying to saddle Version 1.0 guys with anything, and I appreciate your explanation.

Um ...

I don't know what to make of your strong expression of support when I see a similar posting on the talk page of this Geometry person, who has just tried to sabotage the whole process. Very strange behaviour on your part. Tony (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at MoS

[copied from Geometry Guy's page] I strongly support your take on things. Keep it up. If I had discovered WP two years ago, I would be giving you (and a few others) all the support I possibly could. I'm so involved with robotics now that I don't have the time to get into every conversation I want to, but please call on me for support at any time. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the encouragement: I have been keeping it up this evening (UTC!). Your comments at this proposal were very valuable: it is so important at these discussions to have editors who look at all sides of the argument, and make general comments. In the meanwhile, the discussion has set my neurons firing and generated an idea: that WP:MoS is desperately lacking a WikiProject to oversee it, and consequently, too much discussion takes place on WT:MoS and coordination between this and talk at other style guidelines is very difficult to achieve. I made a fledgling post here and would be very interested to hear (either here or there) what you think. Geometry guy 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm delighted to hear I was helpful, thank you. I posted two comments, one in each section. I guess my basic reaction is that, on the one hand, you're right, these kind of problems are often tackled with a WikiProject. On the other hand, I'd kind of like to see evidence that people can solve this one problem...that is, stick with it until we all understand each other...before we all decide to debate these problems on a nightly basis. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Those comments were both helpful too and I commented further under one of them. Thanks for replying again here. Geometry guy 09:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Please use your own sandbox to perform your own sandbox operations. Not only were you on the wrong Sandbox, but you were attempting to edit an archived backup of the old assessment policy that I was attempting to keep. I will undo the revisions you have made. Please do not attempt to revert my changes again. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't edit in your sandbox again. I must have misunderstood your instructions. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Newbies and Assessment

[Copied at G-Guy's userpage] I mentioned that I had questions about how to do assessment on newbie articles...all solved now. I didn't realize there are 160 active wikiprojects on science, engineering and technology...they had all the answers I needed. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. For what its worth, I think self-assessment is a good idea at the Stub-Start-B level. If someone else labels your work as a Stub, it can be unencouraging, whereas if you label it so yourself, it feels more like: good, I made a decent stub, now lets see if I can flesh it out to Start class. It can also be more accurate, as good editors are often their own best/worst critics, if you see what I mean. Geometry guy 11:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I do! - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Spyder

At Wikiproject Robotics, we always welcome input from everyone who reviews new articles...we've got a bunch of newbies on the way (heads up :) and we'll need you guys to be on your toes. Why do you think the article about the Spyder is promotional? How would you review a robotic lawnmower that has not yet been released in a way that is not promotional? Btw, this is just a stub...extra information from a guy who has actually tested the product is on the way. Granted this article is the worst-sourced new article I've ever written...and I can't see how to avoid that with a consumer product which has not yet been released. But if you like, I'll be happy to dig harder. I combed the usual sites with not much luck. And P.S. ... issues about what sources are and are not valid for robotics articles is a subject that was recently discussed over at WP:AN ... if you're going to be reviewing our new articles often, you might want to read some of the discussion at WP:ROBO/ADMINLOG. I've copied this to my userpage, reply there please. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Did you see my comment about the reliability of the source?

P.P.S. Hm, Orangemike, I see now it wasn't just speedy-deletion, but speedy-deletion for blatant advertising. I have been the main person reviewing new links and edits on robotics articles for almost two months now. I have worked in a law office for a living and have no connection to any robotics company at all. I'm not attached to any article, and wouldn't be offended if they're deleted...but don't call me an advertiser or spammer please, because there's no evidence of that and lots of evidence to the contrary. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the process of trying to gather more references and also add some details to the review. If you guys get here before I get back, please note that our Wikiproject is trying to increase the number of technical articles on robotics, including and especially on home robotics. We create articles about products from all manufacturers, including (in this case) products that have been tested but not yet released, because that's what we study. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This comment was and is in the text (and I was copying it to the talk page as well when I got speedied): <!-- Note: Editors who do not use sources which tend to cover only one manufacturer's products are advised not to use RobotStockNews as a source for IRobot products; however, their reviews are highly regarded and therefore entirely suitable as sources for other companies' products. Their reviews of IRobot products are also highly regarded, and could be used to research an article. --> - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dank55 - You're an experienced editor. You've been around a while, it looks like. You should know that articles are required to meet notability guidelines. That means "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject." In the case of Spyder (lawnmower), that would mean the article should have multiple reviews of the product that aren't done by the manufacturer. Until and unless that can be found, I recommend keeping the article within your userspace. Try to find some reliable sources, some independent references - then publish the article. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Satyr has pretty much covered everything I was going to say, Dank notability, notability, notability. These articles are promoting non-notable products, so I feel that the spam speedy applies. No offense, and without intending to "bite the noobs", I would say that the Wikiproject sounds like its entire purpose is to create articles destined for rejection. Not every clever new concept and interesting project is notable; most of them are bound for the dustbin of history. I would advise a robotics project to switch to improving the existing articles, and not creating all these articles about products that have not even been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a recently relevant discussion over at WP:AN (which I referred you to), and this feels like part of that discussion to me, so I'm going to continue the conversation over there...even though WP:AN is usually for disputes and I'm not disputing what you did. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is a disparity in priorities. You are passionate about robotics; just as other editors are passionate about Sufism, or Montenegrin independence, or Pokemon, or... Wikipedia is designed to be a dispassionate system, and thus frustrates the passionate advocate. There is no way in which the Wikipedia standards of "No Original Research" and "Verifiability trumps truth" and above all "Notability" can be waived in order to make us more hospitable to the robotics (or Sufi, or Montenegrin nationalist...) community. I genuinely sympathize with you, but it's the way we keep from driving each other crazy around here. If I had my druthers, 99% of the TV/pop culture/videogame stuff here would be discarded, and 99.999% of the sports stuff; others see things the other way around. Instead, we all operate clumsily, but (mostly) with good will, around the same set of standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

userboxes

Hey Dan, take a look at User:Jamesontai/Sandbox15. If you like this setup, I'll deploy it to actual templates. Also, these userboxes will automatically place the user into Category:WikiProject Robotics participants, so that page will no longer be empty! :D - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, Jameson, yes, we really needed that. Deploy! - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's some advice

Peter Kyberd is a marginally notable, but notable in my view, roboticist. He's worked with Kevin Warwick, for example. The checklist is:

• Independent sources, which are
• Primarily about the subject and
• of demonstrable authority, either peer-reviewed or with a proven reputation

I mention this case because in my view the subject is on the very limit of notability; in a deletion debate it could go either way without affecting the value of the encyclopaedia as a reference. Useful, somewhat interesting, but in the long tail of importance.

You need to make sure that your subjects are art least as well sourced as this, and with an emphasis on independence in the sources. Nothing based on press releases.

Otherwise you could try for a list of robots with a short para on each of them. Cruftbane 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mate, the Peter Kyberd article already exists :-) Cruftbane 22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Engineering! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all engineering related articles.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Issues of ongoing concern is an area where you can list concerns related to engineering articles.
• We are currnetly developing a manual of style for articles within our scope.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Have a look at our tips for new articles.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Have a look at our assessment department.
• You can vote for the Engineering portal's selected article and selected image of the month here.
• Submit your interesting Engineering facts at Portal:Engineering/Did you know for our portal.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any fellow member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Orangemike and Jameson

(copied at his talkpage) I got the nicest email from Orangemike today, "I'm relieved to see that you will still be around, Dan. We need your kind of passion around here." Right back atcha, and please see my (short!) apology here. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, thank you kindly for the apology, Jameson, and please keep up the good work. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Accusations"? I've heard no accusations from you, Dan. Concerns, frustration, distress, yes; and all highly understandable. I've seen no accusations for which I perceive any need to apologize. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I wasn't sure how it would be perceived, I thought some might see what I was writing as at least a challenge to authority or something. Personally, I agree with you, I felt all those things, but was not challenging you. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

copied from SatyrTN

To be honest, I'm not thrilled with any of the links or references on that page except the two university links. Let me recommend WP:PSTS for a discussion of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The links to agvsystems.com and the other companies are all primary - they are written by the people making the AGVs. If at all possible, find links in books, newspapers and magazines that talk about the AGVs, comparing and contrasting, and explaining the systems to outsiders. Those would at least be secondary sources.

And as far as your original question goes, I can understand why a video would be instructional and helpful to the article - seeing one of these bots in action would be great! Is it possible to find a video in the public domain? Perhaps find a gear-head that's caught some of them on cam at a show or convention? That way you can get them at least PD and not advertise for the specific company. Knowing the audience, I bet you can find dozens without even looking far :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENGINEERING

Hi Dank55. I noticed you added your name to the paricipants list at WP:ENGINEERING and then later removed yourself. Can I ask if that was a mistake and you still intend to be part of the project or if you left. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Manual of Style

I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. Your comments on whether and how such a WikiProject might work would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style. Geometry guy 19:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up, and updating the tally! Much appreciated. I hope the participants can make the project really work well. Geometry guy 23:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Robotics

I'm going to leave wikiproject robotics. It's not a problem with Jameson, it's just that the wikiproject doesn't do what I hoped...I wanted to iron some things out in a general discussion rather than individually in each article, but I don't think it's going to happen, and judging from the histories in the articles I patrol, the issues tend to be different from article to article anyway. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So should I bring down the Home robotics task force then? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I already deleted the link. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Jameson's talk page) Recent Email conversation with User:Dank55

Dank55 <undisclosed email address> wrote:

Jameson, why not keep the few hundred articles you've tagged for your wikiproject, and let me work on the few articles I care about without having to explain to people why the article does or doesn't belong to wikiproject robotics, and is or isn't "low" priority? It just muddies the water...and you've got your hands more than full already with the stuff you've tagged. If you'd rather we talk about this on talk pages instead of email, I'm fine with that, I thought you might prefer email.

Before you tagged the lawnmowers and vacuums, I wasn't thinking a separate project would be necessary, but I can go that way if I need to.

Dan

Dan,

-Yes, I'd prefer to continue this conversation on Wiki talk pages.

• I didn't know you had personal interests in those articles.
• I didn't know there were boundaries of what I can work with.
• The project banner is not supposed to mark territory. It only means those who belong in the project should focus on this article.
• There's nothing wrong with tagging existing articles that fit current project scope.
• I really hope we're not getting territorial.

A copy of this conversation (I'll leave your email addy out of it, don't worry) is now on my talk page. Please continue the discussion there.

J (Copied to talk page). - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have edited Robot, AGV, and some of the articles about vacuums and lawnmowers...not much more than that, related to robotics. You've tagged several hundred articles as belonging to your wikiproject, without editing any of them, at least not the ones I'm watching, which is most of them. I'm not criticizing you...I think it's possible that tagging a bunch of articles could be helpful, it might get more people to sign up for WikiProject Robotics and share experiences first, and then edit. On the other hand, it might mean that people who would otherwise edit won't edit, out of a sense that the article belongs to some other group, or they might misunderstand the "low" priority. I haven't been around long enough to know what works and what doesn't, I guess we'll see. I will look around for some other kind of tag to stick on the articles I'm interested in, and if someone tells me that the two tags are confusing, I'll pass the information on. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect from WP:HOME

[copied from Diligent Terrier's talk page] Why would someone typing in "WP:Home" be looking for homeschooling? Wouldn't they logically be looking for information related to a home? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No they would be looking for Homeschooling because that is the shortcut that is mentioned on the Homeschooling project page. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

First...nice work on your wikiproject. Wikiprojects are a sometimes thankless and always bold thing to do...best of luck.

>It says on the Homeschooling project page that WP:HOME is a shortcut.

Right...that would be because you wrote that a couple of minutes before, not because "WP:HOME" was already taken and referred to your wikiproject. Early this month, I redirected WP:HOME and WP:Home to Category:Home automation, intending to change the redirection to whatever Wikiproject or guideline is most relevant to both "homes" and "wikipedia", because it wasn't clear yet, and I've been asking around a lot, trying to get the answer to that question. It's true that "getting there first" is not the only factor in deciding where a word should redirect, but it's one factor, the other one being the likelihood that someone is actually looking for what you're redirecting to. From what I've read so far, my guess is WP:Semapedia would be most appropriate for the redirect, and I'll go ask them if they agree. If your goal is to provide something shorter to type than "homeschooling" to get to your Wikiproject, that makes sense to me, and you've already created other shortcuts to do just that, shortcuts that seem to be more logical abbreviations of "homeschooling" than WP:HOME. I originally made the redirect because a variety of projects, including Semapedia, are gearing up fast to make connections between the real world and Wikipedia, and I think it's likely that people typing in WP:HOME several months from now will be looking for one or more of them, not for help with homeschooling.

If you still disagree, then let's take this to WP:Third opinion. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Let me know if you're ever interested in joining the WikiProject. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, WikiProjects are not for help with homeschooling, they are to improve articles related to it. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks, and the distinction is understood. I'll add your wikiproject to my watchlist but I won't join at the moment, I've got a lot on my plate! - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was actually going to create WP:HS, but that was already taken. Oh well, I guess it was have to be Wikipiedia:Homeschooling. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOME

I really don't think i'm the best person to ask - you may wish to bring up the question on the Village Pump. And when I posted that question, WP:Semapedia was an article, not a project page. —Random832 19:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still kind of wondering what WP:HOME has to do with Semapedia. Considering that Template:User home is used for homeschoolers, WikiProject Homeschooling may be the most related project page to WP:HOME. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it, I was talking with Wikimedia folks today. There are a number of projects being talked about, some will be discussed at Wikimania, that make connections between the real world and Wikipedia. There's actually a reason why "home" is so important...it's because everyone is in favor of having convenient tech in their own home, but people start to get nervous when other people start to use new technology...so we have to focus on uses in the home to get people interested. I hope to have a specific project for you to look at and a better answer than that in a day or two. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks re thanks

Dank, thanks for the note (regarding the MOS) at my talk. Since you offered :-) my biggest problem is at the admin who blocked me regarding a long running feud e.g. here. It just goes on and on forever, even glossing it is unreasonable. But you might take the time to read the item at the admin's talk, that's where the next shot will be fired if I interpret the ...aphorism? parable? correctly. And, go Duke :-) Pete St.John (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Zigbee

I've done some work on it, any objections to removing your cleanup tag from last April? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it from the page and added a source tag. Cheers. --Lendorien (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree

After reading your ideas, I was going to suggest the same, Geometry guy 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fleshed out nicely now. Technical suggestion: could you/I move the essays directory to a User subpage, so that the corresponding User talk subpage is free for discussion about the essay? Geometry guy 11:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'm happy to receive messages by email, but I try to avoid using it myself, because I want my contribution to the project to be as transparent as possible, so I appreciated your position about posting your message. Thanks again, Geometry guy 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

G-Guy is referring to an email I sent him saying that I support his work at the Good Articles wikiproject and his attempts to stay neutral in current MoS issues. I wasn't sure if lending support to any particular person at this point would be seen as taking sides, but now that it's out in the open...you're doing a great job G-Guy, keep it up :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VI (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

MOSpage auditing

Call me dumb, but I don't understand your conclusions from your last post. Does it mean that some/all of the issues, or even the whole proposal to audit bit by bit, is inappropriate? Can you be more explicit on the page? Tony (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I answered your question, I hope, at WP:WPMOS.

I'm not going to call you dumb. I'll say it again: I have not been rational. I am conflict-phobic, and I sometimes deal with that by whistling a happy tune and painting a picture of a happy land where all our conflicts are resolved and pushing everyone in that direction. I didn't realize that's what I was doing, in a variety of places (the hard-space debates, WP:WPMOS, WP:ROBO); now I do. I will do a better job if I don't try to solve any problems or draw any conclusions. In WP:WPMOS, I'm going to aim for just two things: WP:SPADE (that is, if people seem to be sort of saying something but not quite, I reserve the right to invoke WP:SPADE and say it), and listing discrepancies in style pages without pushing hard for any particular resolution. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs / web forums

You kindly answered my query on the talk page of WP:CITE. I did reply there, and would appreciate some feedback on how to resolve the problem. There is a fair amount of info out there I could use, but the problem is the source. Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS about primary sources. See WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV for the three core content policies. If I understand you right, that source doesn't comply with any of them. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Review help

Hi Dan, and thanks for offering to help with WP:1.0. Sorry I haven't been so active on wiki, I've been pretty busy behind the scenes lately, especially in chemistry - not many edits, but lots of emails and phone calls! I'll try and focus some more time on the style issues you mentioned soon. We should probably discuss this issue, so maybe I'll set up an IRC discussion with the publisher on this topic once things seem to be coming together. We should perhaps brainstorm some things first.

Right now we're looking at bot-assisted selection of articles, which has generated this list, based on quality and importance (more emphasis on the latter). What you think? (It's hard to jump into this right in the middle, but I'll explain it anyway in case you would like to try and pitch in.) Some WikiProjects assess for importance, but others don't, and we dealt with that by setting them all as "Mid" importance - but the net result is that important topics from non-assessing projects are receiving too low a score (see Camel or Rabbit under the Mammals project). I have requested that we adjust the formula so that we compensate for that better. Here are the formulae I'm proposing:

• If importance assessment is done by the WikiProject, then leave the formula as it stands: Importance = WikiProjectImportanceRating + 50*log_{10}(hits) + 100*log_{10}(linksin) + 250*log_{10}(interwikis)
• If no importance assessment is done by the WikiProject, then use: Importance = (4/3)*(50*log_{10}(hits) + 100*log_{10}(linksin) +

250*log_{10}(interwikis)

In other words, if all four parameters are available, we use all four. If the project assessment is not available, we use the other three and multiply the score by 4/3. This is not as crude as it sounds - the four parameters were designed to be fairly balanced. Walkerma (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Martin, either having a page for brainstorming or setting up a chat with the publisher sounds good, I'll be happy to participate. Do you want to mention that at the conversation in WP:VPP?

I agree that article selection is tough. I'll help with that and with upgrading articles and recruiting editors as soon as I finish with the style guidelines project. I'm talking with style and policy wonks about resolving disagreements among style guideline pages, and between style guidelines and policy. Something I'd love to hear your opinion on: would you rather we have some kind of "Style Guidelines 1.0" set in stone well before 1.0, or would it be better for the applicable style guidelines to be changing as long as articles are changing? I don't have a strong preference, but my instinct is that editors will want to know what the guidelines are well in advance of deadlines. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and create a page such as Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Style_guide, if this will help things move along. Please can you look at how the articles appeared in Version 0.5 (which can be downloaded from here) if you haven't looked at that yet, even though the "look" of the interface is going to be very different for Version 0.7? Being a wiki, we can let that page evolve a the versions evolve, I think. It is about time we did this anyway, so I appreciate you taking on this job. It should also be mentioned on WP:VPP, and I will add the page to the WP:1.0 template once it is mostly written. We can brainstorm awkward issues there, though I think we can only really get consensus for 1.0, not for the whole of Wikipedia (not to deny that we may influence debate elsewhere, though). Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dashes

Umm, that's really screwy! Here is what the proposal says:

I now propose that we change the guidelines to favour only two kinds of sentence-punctuating dashes: spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes, consistently in any given article.

Since I am not in favor of having "only two kinds of sentence-punctuating dashes" (because I am in favor of only one kind—unspaced), I voted "oppose".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I most certainly don't want that :) However, by the looks of it, I can't vote "support", because that wouldn't be what I want either (once again, I want unspaced em-dashes and unspaced en-dashes). Any tips? Perhaps it's not too late to split the proposal into several and sort existing votes into the corresponding buckets?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but same here—I'm still not sure what so confusing about my reasoning? The proposal calls for spaced en-dashes—and that's the part I don't support (I want them unspaced). Since the whole proposal is a logical conjunction, disagreement with any part of it would result in an automatic "oppose". Perhaps I'd better withdraw my vote altogether, because by the looks of it I ain't gonna get what I want no matter how I vote. Which reminds me of something :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting consistency was my only reasoning. I realize that spaced ndashes are recommended by the style guides, but I could never force myself to see something like "1911 – 1925" as "professional". Anyway, I'll tweak my vote to "support", because, as you correctly pointed out, this would be closer to my preferences. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, by the way!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

The end? I responded on my talk. The only reason I am writing this is because you may have unwatched it, assuming that our conversation was done. As far as I'm concerned, it is as of my last posting, but I would be happy to continue conversation with you if you have more to say. Please post there or e-mail me if you so desire. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo

I meant WP:STYLE1.0: Many people, including Jimbo, have previously concluded... Any reasonably civil name is acceptable for me, but I don't know where you got Rich; it ain't my name, and I've never used it. Septentrionalis was intended to be my username, and Pmanderson my login. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, oops! At some point I saw "This is Rich Dengrove" at the top of your talkpage and thought that was you, I must have been half-asleep. Okay, if Septentrionalis is your username, that's what it is, I'll cut and paste. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sept is fine, Anderson is fine, PMA is fine. Suit yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VII (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Interesting thread

That's an interesting thread you started at MoS. As in any good marriage, Sandy and I have frequent rows, but rumours of a divorce have been greatly exaggerated. Unless there is something that Sandy is not telling me... :-) Good luck with the thread: you may need it! All the best, Geometry guy 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on citing

I'm responding here rather than on that page to a question you asked. The scientific citation guidelines do cover the case of putting inline citations at the very beginning of the article to indicate general references. It's the section on uncontroversial knowledge; I think the example used there is the aldol reaction article.

There's a lot of good practice described at the SCG. In some cases, such as results named after individuals and experimental data, the guidelines go beyond WP:V by asking for additional inline citations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Populism

I have responded briefly; if you want more detail, let me know. Even briefer: you are ascribing to me things I did not say, or mean.

The position of moderates is just now difficult in most of the English-speaking world; but don't automatically see it here. (And it has been known that for moderates to get much of their program through by pointing at the radicals; if Gimmetrow and I did not exist, you might be being abused as an insane saboteur.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your reply, and I responded at WT:MoS. I don't know what to say; although you and I are offended by similar things, I still have this vague impression that most of the things you say at WT:MOS have more of the appearance of political rhetoric than the appearance of the search for a path to create a superior product to WP:MoS. It may be that it's not anything that you say, but just the perception that it hasn't worked, for whatever reason. I could easily be wrong. I lived my life by WP:AGF long before I encountered it as a guideline on Wikipedia, so I certainly won't tell you what's in your head. My hope is that everyone putting energy into trying to slay the perceived dragons at the FA level will devote at least a tenth as much effort to exploring and promoting tolerance and diversity at the GA level. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tony's relentless insistence on framing this in political terms is working then; this carries with it his view that MOS is a government, entitled to permit and forbid, instead of editors coming together to say in one place what they have found themselves saying repeatedly in several places.
• I gave up on GA long ago, but Geometry Guy tells me it's improved. I'll make you a deal; if you come in and help keep FA from embarassing us by deciding that poorly written, abominably sourced, articles belong on the main page because their dashes and dots are right, I'll take another look. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think GA could improve in many ways; I think everyone thinks so. If you have any insight on why wikiprojects feel divorced from WP:GAN, I would love to hear it ... I think GA absolutely should be more responsive to wikiprojects. I'm wondering if the "A" rating on Version 1.0's quality scale should be merged in some useful way with GA; the two ratings seem to be aiming for many of the same things, but perhaps this signifies some frustration that could be successfully addressed.

Is there some contribution you think I could make to improving FAs? If it's a matter of giving an opinion, you know me, I'm always happy to do that. If it's a matter of reviewing articles, I'm up to my neck already in WP:GAN and WP:GAU, although of course I should learn as much as I can from the FAC and FAR processes. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops ... I misspoke, I didn't mean "most of the things you say...", I meant "most of the things I was talking about that you said"; there's a big difference. Your contributions are helpful, in general, as everyone knows. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

summary updates

Ah, you were offering to help, I see now ... I didn't presume that. Let me see how it goes preparing Sandy's requested three-month list (Jan–Mar). If you're willing, I'd be most grateful if you were able to—say—identify styleguides you think are important enough to include. At the moment, my list is:

MOS main; MOSNUM; Layout; UE; NFC; FA Criteria (and instructions); FAR/C instructions.

I'm hoping that most will present nothing or little to note in the summary. Your feelings? Tony (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it; I responded at WT:MOS#Monthly update of substantive styleguide and policy changes. It would be nice if all the people currently active in WT:MoS could agree on which guidelines we're most interested in; it would be great if we could get some kind of Wikipedia-wide consensus on the subject, too; I'm thinking notices at WP:COUNCIL#Current notices and WP:VPM would be necessary and sufficient, but we could do more. But even if none of that happens, I understand you and Sandy need to be kept up to date on changes on at least a few pages, and I'm happy to do it; I already keep up with MOS main, MOSNUM, Layout, UE, and quite a few other style pages. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this; as someone told me lately, my talk page is like Village Pump Central, and I don't need more content there that is already being discussed elsewhere (same for the post just ahead of yours ... ) Sigh, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

I hardly think anything is permanent, though. And I don't really intend to "diligently" pursue this if the community decides to keep it. It's only the (possibly temporary) removal of two words, that i only commented 2 or 3 times on, not a major policy change, but thanks anyway. Amerique^dialectics 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right that nothing is permanent around here, we'll see. The "diligent" wasn't just for your contribution to the language change, it was because you've been making similar comments in a similarly gentle but effective way for a long time, the best I can tell from your userpage. Also ... we're not done yet. This does seem like a significant change to the "tilt" of a core content policy page, and that doesn't happen often, but I think most of the point isn't the change itself, but that it enables wider discussion about when and which cites are needed. When we're done with changing the language, I'll suggest a survey. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this enables further discussion on that page to focus on sourcing matters, rather than rehash the "not truth" debate, that would be a definite improvement. Thanks again for the barnstar. I do appreciate it. It was just just kind of humorous from my perspective, you see, I must have put thousands of edits into getting University of California, Riverside to FA, and nary a barnstar, and then make a total of 6 edits to a policy talk page and get one. Relativism in action. Amerique^dialectics 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Think of it as a lifetime achievement award :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Robotics

Hi Dan, sorry that no-one answered your query in the aircraft project, perhaps they did not know what to say. I would disagree that airliners or indeed most aircraft are robots, from quickly reading the robot and robotics articles the definition seems to require artificial intelligence. Modern aircraft are highly mechanised, computerised and complicated but almost always controlled by a human being either onboard or on the ground. Perhaps the nearest thing to a robot in the aircraft world is a cruise missile which guides itself to a target once fired. Robot or robotics are not terms used in the field of aviation (at least not in my experience). Hope that helps. Nimbus (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for thinking about it and reading the articles. You guys do a fine job with your WikiProject. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

wunderground.com

My blog is WeatherBoyKris. I don't update very often this time of year, mostly during the hurricane season. What is your's, if you have one? TheNobleSith (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a blog there, but I keep up with Jeff Masters during hurricane season, and use wunderground to check on local personal weather stations. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

feet vs. meter! (Talk:Geyser)

so what do you want! shall we use reversal of units. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your justification! would you anyway suggest something. :) Sushant gupta (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

okay! Sushant gupta (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 17:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

CSS Question

Ick... hidden keywords...

What do you need those hyphens and nbsp's for? If you want a keworded setup: <span id="anchor id" style="display: none;">Keyword</span> However I would suggest you don't use the Keyword and just stick with hunting down anchors. <span id="anchor id" />. Dantman (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

abbreviations

Hi. I proposed these changes because those are the correct abbreviations as laid out in the Oxford English Dictionary, the supreme authority in the English language. I have seen them used in many academic works, so they are standard. In general, the guidelines should, I believe, follow standard practice. Cheers EraNavigator (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you're thinking, using a style guideline and dictionary, but the problem is that we haven't gotten everyone in the world to accept any one dictionary or professional manual of style as the supreme authority on anything. Wikipedia has 2.34 million pages so far, and no one so far has volunteered to go back through every page changing "c." to "circa" in order to make room for a new use of "c." - Dan (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the two do not conflict: circa is "c" without a dot, century "c." with a dot. It seems to me that as a public work of reference, Wikipedia must use standard abbreviations and not invent its own. Oxford English Dictionary is widely regarded (not only in England) as the gold standard in English usage, but I'm sure you'll find the same abbreviations in other major lexicons. As for retrospectively changing all the previous entries, that is quite unnecessary, as it is clear from the context which one is meant, since circa precedes the figure, century follows it. However, if you really think it's confusing, then go ahead and erase century. But do not put a dot after c for circa, as that is incorrect. Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The place to argue for this change is on the talk page of the relevant style guideline, which is WT:MOSNUM, which covers both "c. for circa" and how to represent centuries. They love to discuss things like this :) - Dan (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll post a notice there now. EraNavigator (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the FA-Team

I'm glad to see you have joined and look forward to working with you on a mission soon! Geometry guy 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Spies are us! - Dan (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Dank, as my original post stated, all I have been trying to prove is that the current Wikipedia guideline is incorrect in two of its assumptions. First, that the use of lower cases letters to start French titles does not accurately represent the way those titles and styles were viewed in 17th and 18th century France. The way the present MOS is written states in a very rigid way that only one way of capitalization is correct. All it takes is a few samples to demonstrate how that type of blanket, absolutist statement is incorrect. I already had provided three examples of writing from the era in question to show that the people who actually possessed those titles did not follow present Wikipedia policy, and Hans provided the link to show that certain authors of published works from that era also did not use Wikipedia policy. I do think that his addition "clinches" my argument. In two different areas of French writing, personal writing and published writing, I think it has now been established that there was no hardcore rule in line with current Wikipedia policy. That is all I meant by my comment.

As far as modern usage goes, I recognize that at some later point French usage changed. My assumption is that after the change certain English-speaking academics jumped on the band wagon to enhance their academic credentials. Academics are constantly trying to re-invent history in order to attract publishers and gain tenure. Unfortunately, I think at times this leads to an unnecessary revisionism. In this case, I see no reason why the original methods of capitalization can't be used. Rather than distorting the information, it makes it more authentic. An academic might insist on a new methodology, whether in France or an English-speaking country, but that doesn't make the new methodology in line with either the original circumstances or with the methodology employed in popular English-language biographies where most English-speakers will get their information. BoBo (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

BoBo, the people who had those titles don't follow present Wikipedia policy because they've been dead anywhere from 200 to 300 years before Wikipedia existed. We don't right for the past, we write about the past and we follow present-day writing conventions. In the French language today we use lower-case letters for titles. Where a few examples to the contrary exist is not indicative of correct usage. Where things do vary we go with one standard (hence the MOS) and it isn't based on how things were centuries go. The reason why the MOS speaks of noble titles is because today that is how they are written. This isn't even a recent convention, take a look at the Almanach de Gotha[2], the Holy Bible of European royalty. As early as 1910, and probably earlier, I haven't checked them all, they use the lower case letters. The talk of reinvention, etc, doesn't cut it, I think you are saying that to serve your POV on the matter. The original circumstances have not changed, we didn't change the titles at all, just how they are written. After all, it isn't the 1700s anymore and we don't write in Old English either. Should we speak of Henry VIII as the kynge? Charles 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Charles. I'm hoping there is a clear and easy answer on the capitalization issue, but it might be quite hard. Please read the comments in the current discussion at WT:MoS#Appropriate use of capitalization in French titles and style from 1589 to 1830 and feel free to join in. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Have done so, thank you for the note :) In summary though, it does vary, but we do at least have an official standard (French) and if we are borrowing their titles it makes the most sense to follow that, rather than both which lets chaos ensue. The wording should be changed to both have been used but we will use one (the lower case, as indicated by proper French usage since English usage isn't definitive). Charles 22:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Hello. I was just wondering what this survey is all about that you posted on the Campus of Texas A&M University talk page. Someone else posted it on another talk page, and no one ever leaves their username stamp. I don't know if this survey is legitimate or spam. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for letting me know my sig got left off, I have been copying from my clipboard, and somewhere I lost my sig! I'll go back and add it. Yep it's legit, see discussion at WT:WGA; also see results so far of the first 19 surveys at WT:GAU. (And there was a longer discussion at WT:MoS). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Where should answers be posted? --Efe (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone so far has been posting answers in the blank spaces in the survey, it will probably be easier to keep track of them there. Thanks for responding. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: GA Survey

Question, it's sort of confusing on the survey note you left on Battle of Verrieres Ridge, so I'm just gonna ask: Where exactly are we supposed to reply to the survey? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone so far has been posting answers in the blank spaces in the survey, it will probably be easier to keep track of them there. Thanks for responding. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get the questions.

"Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?"

There's been no feedback yet, so it's hard to know how what to specify in the way of additional feedback.

"Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?"

I am a participant in a pile of WikiProjects, but they don't have writing styles, so I don't get what to say about this one, either. Please advise. Lawikitejana (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (re: survey on the article Stanley Marcus)

There are guidelines that apply just to specific areas or wikiprojects, for instance, WP:Scientific citation guidelines. And people tend to write like their friends, and for their friends. This question is for the education of the people who work on style guidelines, so that we can find out if there are writing trends we didn't know about, either inside or outside Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

MOS archiving

14 days better? It's far too long. Tony (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this days after last activity in a section? If so, His Grace and I think 10. Tony (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Same or whatever you think for MOSNUM, puhleasse! Tony (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are right, and I would also prefer 10. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Third of May 1808

Hullo. I think the c/e is largely done on this page; would appreciate if you could revisit and indicate one way or the other. We are not all that senisitve, so it doesn't really matter what you say, we'll still be here when the sun rises again. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be brutal. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, replied

I think I even went into BOLD CAPS range there for emphasis ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your general thrust, as always, but I'm a bit confused on what you're saying, I replied there. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Way cool. In other news, you have a pretty cool username. In Dutch and German, it means "thanks" or "gratitude". wiktionary:dank. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (unfortunately, the english is less fun, but you can't have 'em all :-P ).

I helped staff the #wikia-de channel until they didn't need me, Gott sei dank. ("I be god"). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Black Mo thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your comments and support - Black Moshannon State Park made featured article! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

		Pennsylvania State Parks Groundhog Award, with Featured Article Star
		This award is given with respect and admiration to Dank55 for assistance in helping Black Moshannon State Park become a Featured Article from Ruhrfisch and Dincher (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

MOSNUM#Follow current literature

I’ve got an idea. Why not have a new show of hands on the proposal. If passed, this would declare that 1) Follow current literature as it now appears on MOSNUM is, for the moment, officially part of MOSNUM, and 2) that a green-div version of it shall be copied to Talk:MOSNUM and that all differences be hammered out there. This way, all differences must be worked out on Talk:MOSNUM before any changes are made to MOSNUM. If you like this, please run it by the others. Greg L (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered in the last section. I believe more work should be done at this point before another poll, there's significant opposition now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium