User talk:Stewartadcock/Archive2004

This is an archive of Stewart's talk page covering the year 2004. Please do not leave new messages here!

Stewart's habitat

Born in Norwich but, luckily, lives in California. From your edits to date, I'm betting Santa Clara, California or thereabouts, no? -- Finlay McWalter 01:45, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I live in an area of San Diego, California known as UTC, near La Jolla, California where I work. Stewart Adcock 19:57, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

DNA debates

[To Peak:] It is getting difficult to follow the discussions on Talk:DNA. If you put forward your T6 (or one of its offspring) as the DNA intro "working copy", I will support it. I will then try to reason for others to do the same. Stewart Adcock 17:27, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[From Peak:] As you say, it is difficult to follow the discussion, so you may have overlooked the version which appears on the Talk page at "Peak 22:51, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)". I offered this in the hope that you would be able to support it as per your message above. Also, mav has indicated he likes most of it and perhaps could be persuaded that it addresses all the issues reasonably. Of course, some time has elapsed since your offer of Jan 16, so please feel free to offer another variant. However, I think that to avoid confusion at this point, it would be best if any new proposal is given explicitly.Peak 04:47, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I haven't participated in the "new process" mainly for the following two reasons. Firstly, it's become clear that until Cyan and 168... come to some agreement about the process, there's not much chance of any progress. Secondly, I don't want to offend 168..., who has so far not seen the light about Cyan and Lir, and the resultant need for some agreement about the process. Perhaps I'm naive, but I'm hoping that, in time, 168... will either persuade Cyan to change his mind about the need for unanimity, or come to see the importance of getting agreement on the process. (By the way, do you think all sysops are as concerned about achieving unanimity as Cyan? I've seen some not-so-pretty uneven-handedness by sysops recently. Also, I can't figure out whether Lir is trying to be reasonable now - what do you think? Feel free to email me... email may be easier than using these User talk pages.) Peak 06:38, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] You have alluded to the "information can of worms" twice, so I'm wondering whether you believe there is a fundamental flaw with every attempt to make sense of the concept (that seems unlikely, given that physicists seem to know what they mean when talking about), or whether the problem is that no-one has yet succeeded in giving a satisfactory account that accords with some fundamental constraints about the nature of information (perhaps the physicists have merely misappropriated a word), or, perhaps something else? If I had more time, I'd try to formalize the multiple "definitions" of information by locating them in a semantic space, defined (perhaps) by such questions as:

• Is disinformation a form of information?
• Is any information conveyed if the receiver has already received the message?

Peak 05:30, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

whether you believe there is a fundamental flaw with every attempt to make sense of the concept No, not at all, the term information may be defined very clearly -- except in several different ways -- its meaning changes based on context. with some fundamental constraints about the nature of information The constraints on what I think constitutes information are not at all applicable to what my mum would think constitutes information. Lir, for example, seems to equate information with knowledge which in itself is not necessarily incorrect. My point being that a layperson reading the passage will derive one meaning (which isn't wrong, but double quotes are inappropriate) while a mathmatician(/physist/computer scientist) will derive a different (but also not incorrect, despite being fairly irrelevant to what I think we are actually trying to say) meaning. Stewart Adcock 21:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know what you really meant was that you think Ed is a good guy who means well, but specifically I'd like to ask: Do you think I'm a sock puppet, as Ed does? I ask because if you think you know enough of me to say otherwise, I'd be very grateful if you were to share your opinion and its basis with Ed. If you don't feel you have evidence to say, that's O.K. too. I am admiring your patience with Lir as I watch. I will be impressed if you pull off a compromise. I won't be eating my words, but I will be impressed.168... 23:08, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you are a sock puppet, then you are clearly a highly articulated and educated one. I obviously can't prove that you aren't a sock puppet, but if you are then I'd willingly eat my, urm, socks. I'm not going to say this to Ed, I'm sure he has more worthwhile things to read, but you can quote me if you like. My basis for thinking that you aren't a sock puppet is that until you made the, evidently unwise, protection manoveurs at DNA you where one of the better contributors to the science-based articles. You raised some reasonable issues to the wikipedia community (specifically regarding Lir in your case, but they are issues that will need to be seriously addressed at some point). I doubt that a sock puppet would have been used with quite so much effort. Sadly, if Lir is a troll, then you've been well-and-truly hooked.

Lir fascinates me. He might be a vandal, he might be a troll, he might be a total moron, but it is impossible to be sure on any of those points. Just what makes him tick?

[Peak:] Yes, the attempted explanations I've seen don't seem quite right. Do you think that he might have some unusual combination of medical conditions, perhaps dyslexia and ADHD? Or is he just a kid with a bunch of complexes and way too much time on his hands? Peak 16:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd quite like to meet him in real life, however, if that ever happened, I don't know whether I'd be able to resist the urge to break his knee caps. (and to be fair, Lir can quote me on this, if he likes)

Stewart Adcock 02:06, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've cut and pasted you to Ed...lacking your qualms about Ed's time, after he found time to cast aspersions on me. I'm glad we share similar feelings about Lir's anatomy, neuro and otherwise. BTW, no need to lock your socks away. Your GI tract is safe in my reliable, unsocked hands. Or, you know what I mean.168... 02:25, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cut'n'pasted with my school-boy typos I guess :( Stewart Adcock 02:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Alas. If I'd noticed, I'd have fixed them. Incidentally, with regard to being well-and-truly hooked, I think you're in the same situation at Talk:DNA, it's just that I've been struggling a lot more on the line. I also think I'm pulling on a better line than you are. I give you credit, though, as sport fishing goes, your fight is going more elegantly.168... 04:14, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no more desire to cast asparagus or any other vegetables at you. I wish I could eat my words about the "sock puppet" thing, I've kind of taken a cotton to you and I'm sorry anyone pulled the wool over your eyes; maybe we can iron this out, or should I just fold? ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:28, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Headers

Hi Stewart. Just a tip - headers in articles start at the == level. Thanks :) Dysprosia 00:47, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Err, yeah, thanks. Are you referring to a specific article? To the best of my knowledge I do start headers at the == level... :-/ Stewart Adcock 01:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

AAck you've been framed :) Sorry. I got confused with someone else. Heartfelt apologies... Dysprosia 01:36, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No worries. It was a good reminder anyway! Stewart Adcock 01:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Adminship

Stewart, I've nominated you for adminship. Please indicate whether you accept or decline on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (or alternatively lurk for a while to see what others think). Good work. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:35, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have to go there and say if you accept the nomination or not. By the way, you started a thread in my talk page. -- Kaihsu 21:01, 2004 Feb 10 (UTC)

Congratulations! You are now a sysop! I recommend adding your name to the list at Wikipedia:Administrators. Tuf-Kat 22:00, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Double congrats. I'm sure you're already underwhelmed by the utter banality of the new options available to you. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! I now wield immense powers! Stewart Adcock 04:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Spelling (publically vs. publicly)

Please don't go around Wikipedia changing one legitimate spelling of a word to another. I've seen you changing 'publically' to 'publicly' -- both are listed as valid spellings in my dictionary. Wikipedia explicitly does not have a policy on the 'Wikipedia Correct Spelling' of words; if it's listed in the dictionary as correct, then it should be left alone, except if a word is spelled in the same article differently in which case it's fine to standardise. —Morven 23:39, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If "publically" really is a word, then I'm really sorry. I was taught that "publicly" is correct and "publically" is not but, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it is! I don't have a dictionary (besides aspell) available to check. You can see that "publically" is listed on Wikipedia's list of common mispellings!!! Stewart Adcock 17:22, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines it as a valid alternate spelling, though it seems uncommon; about 4%. It's the one I've always used. I've no idea of the history of it, but given that the M-W used online is a very, very old version, it's clearly been in use for some time. I'm asking on Wikipedia talk:List of common misspellings whether we should be correcting rare spelling variants, let's see what everyone else things. If there's a broad consensus of opinion that we should, I won't oppose it. Thanks! —Morven 23:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since "publicly" breaks the standard word construction rules, I guess that this could be one of the changes introduced by Noah Webster when he was creating his "American English". It's more likely that it is just such a common "misspelling" that it might be becoming accepted. Stewart Adcock 00:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://www.bartleby.com/68/73/4873.html. "Publicly is the usual spelling; publically does occur, but rarely in Edited English"

---

Senseless edits (Lir vs. 168...)

I saw that another site of revert warring with Lir, Nervous system, had just been unprotected by Angela, and I was worried that she was about to unprotect Nucleic acid too. I'm just doing this to irritate Lir and keep him and the need for ban enforcement topical. Civil disobedience, let's call it. 168...|...Talk 05:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Arh! I think there is actually a lot of sense in what you are doing. You are being very brave (foolish?) in stirring up the wrath of wikipedians though... I'd put money on you being de-sysoped before Lir gets banned. Stewart Adcock 17:06, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Britishization (with a z)

Hi -- thanks for the copy editing at Income. Please don't bother in the future to Britishise or Americanize spellings for words like "amortization". I believe the convention is that if it's an article about a British or American subject, it's considered best to use the respective country's spelling, but in a "neutral" article, just leave it be. Otherwise we'd all spend a lot of time on this very unimportant task. (In the spirit of this rule I've of course left your Britishizing intact on Income!) Thanks -- Tempshill 01:33, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are right, of course, but since I was making a reasonably significant number of changes, I decided to make the spelling consistent within that article. Stewart Adcock 01:54, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Random, accidental deletion stuff

It was collateral damage from the edit war. Lirath Q. Pynnor

mail for you :-)

---

Stewart, Hi, I may have "done" it, but if so it was action at a distance. Please see my talk page for a detailed explanation. P0M 19:16, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) Totally bizarre, I can edit this page but I can't see it in my browser. I get a blank screen.

I got your message. I can see this page if I use Mac OS X. (Usually I stick with OS 9 for Chinese.) P0M 22:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains

Hi. I have started the WikiProject on Mountains — Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains. Feel free to make comments on the proposed structure, etc. RedWolf 20:18, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. We are getting close to deciding on the infobox layout for the project. If you have a minute, could you add any comments you have including your choice of color? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/General. Thanks. RedWolf 05:20, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

DNA vote

Hello,

Please give your opinion here Talk:DNA/vote.

FirmLittleFluffyThing 06:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Err, but I already had... Stewart Adcock 17:06, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, cache issues again :-) Note that Peak strongly asked that it be possible to vote 0 for 1 or 2 options; If so is your desire, just do. I think it wrong to change the rules afterwards, but I feel in a cooperative mood :-) ant

Thanks for supporting my nomination as an admin...

...I appreciate it. Dpbsmith 10:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climbing

I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climbing, I hope. Perhaps you might be interested?

Glossary of climbing terms

I've moved your baby, Climbing glossary, to Glossary of climbing terms to fit better with the naming convention of glossary pages (see, for example, Category:Lists of terms). I've fixed all the redirects that weren't on Talk or User pages. - dcljr 23:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Data Management Wiki Committee

Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.

Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.

The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Wikipedia articles.

If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.

KeyStroke 01:09, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Thanks!

Stewart - many thanks for supporting my adminship! Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 05:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Hi, I noticed that you voted against my RfA, without comment. I'm wondering if there is something I can clear up, or some areas of concern which I might look into. Curiously yours, Sam [Spade] 16:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam, I have a long memory and therefore remember you as an extremely "controversial" wikipedian. I am simply unable to trust you as an administrator (and whether I believe I can trust somebody is pretty much my only criterion when I choose to vote on RfA), despite your fondness of tea. I, however, do note the broad support you recieved and should you be nominated again I will carefully reasses my opinion. Looking at your past month or so of contributions, I would have to rank you in the top few contributors. Being an exceptional contributor doesn't necesarily make one a trustworthy admin though (look at User:168..., for example). Stewart Adcock 16:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think me being an exceptional contributer makes the quality and NPOV of my edits extremely important, and tells me that rather than writing me off as a "troll" or controvercial nutter, and refusing to talk to me (as some, not yourself, have done) is an especially poor descision. That said, I agree that my copious number of edits says very little about my abilities to be an admin, nor my trustworthyness. It does say to me that it is very important that I be trustworthy, since if I'm making 12,000 crap edits, thats pretty horrible ;) In any case, I am very focused on improving my standing in the community, since if I thought some troll or POV nutter was making 12,000 edits, I'd be quite motivated to do something to stop them, reform them, or whatnot. I of course think I'm a good editor, but there isn't exactly a concensus as of yet. I'd like to make a concensus, and I'd like you to be a part of it. Ergo, any specific concerns or questions I might address would be quite welcome. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 17:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Continue acting as you are now, and I'll give you my support. Although as a minor aside, I have a tendency to worry when I come across pages like this since it makes me wonder whether there is an underlying agenda. Having said that, I don't have any specific concerns that you would need to address. I was particularly impressed by how you handled yourself in the face of so many negative comments from your RfA. I ask that you don't change your ways in order to conform to the wikipedia community for the purpose of improving your standing in the community. It is the diversity of the members that will make it strong. Cheers indeed, Stewart Adcock 17:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More Britishization

I didn't see any reason why an author's choice of the American English labeled should be changed to British English labelled in Media bias, so I reverted it. I see you've made several such changes in other articles. I'm not going to go through them wholesale to see where the change might be appropriate. I just want to call to your attention that labeled is a correct spelling (similarly traveled and several others). According to American and British English differences#Common suffixes: "Commonwealth English generally doubles final -l when adding suffixes that begin with a vowel if -l is preceded by a single vowel, whereas American English doubles it only on stressed syllables. (Thus American English treats -l the same as other final consonants, whereas Commonwealth English treats it irregularly.)" JamesMLane 01:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The author's choice was labled, which is wrong, here in the US or over in the UK. Stewart Adcock 03:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed on your contributions list that some of the changes were from "labled" but I somehow missed that this was one of them. Sorry! That's what I get for reverting instead of just typing in what I wanted in the text. Nevertheless, because the article uses American spelling (homogenizing, analyzed, organizations), I'm changing this word to labeled on the consistency rule.

While checking to see which style was used elsewhere in the article, I noticed supercede. Although Merriam-Webster OnLine lists it as a variant, I think it's just substandard rather than a British English usage, but please let me know if that's wrong. JamesMLane 04:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with "labeled". From memory, "supercede" should be spelt "supersede" in both languages ;-) Stewart Adcock 04:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your vote for my adminship. I greatly appreciate your support. ffirehorse 23:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

tweaked mountain infobox

I've proposed a tweaked version of the Mountain infobox for US mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/General#Template to cover part of infobox.. Feel free to comment. Thanks! -- hike395 00:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)