User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2005 December

Previous · Index · Next

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mañana Será Otro Dia

• I don't know what you mean by "stayed too long" but it's there. --Dystopos 23:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah. Perhaps if I had actually looked at the history I would have known what you were talking about. Ignore me. --Dystopos 23:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Cat:British institutions ->Cat British organisations

Becasue this was done by a mechanism other than "move", history is lost. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 19:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point, though this is standard procedure at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, whether or not a bot is involved. You might want to comment on the talk page there if you think this should be changed. -- Beland 02:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Thanks for your pass through the Zimbabwean history pages - much appreciated. Wizzy…☎ 06:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Crannog

Hi Rich, I am not quite sure where the contradiction is in the article that you refer to. All I can see is a slight ambiguity about the usual means of access to the crannog (canoe or causeway), but a one word change would fix this. Am I missing something? --Cactus.man ✍ 20:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, glad to know I am not losing my marbles. I will do some checking and fix things up. Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of Tookie Williams

Dear Rich,

I'm not experienced at talk, so if this is in the wrong place, my apologies. Someone has moved Tookie Williams page as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Williams_on_Wheels&action=history

Thanks, Beth ... User:Beth Wellington 15:13, 14 December 2005‎ (UTC)

Wikification

Hi, I have seen several of your edits where you wikify new aricles tirelessly. Keep up the good work. However, some of the new articles are copy-paste jobs from websites and hence, mostly copyvios. Please check the content for copyvio on google & msn search engines (the latter is better as it tracks obscure sites also, imo) and tag them accordingly if they are copyvios - so that we can clear copyvios asap. --Gurubrahma 06:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I was refering to Jagtar Hawara. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 05:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

24.187.170.46

Hi, Dilawar Singh Babbar seems to be a copyvio but I am not able to detect it. Sikh Light Infantry is a copyvio and I have tagged it so. Thanks for the heads up, I've failed to look at other contribs from an anon IP with copy-vio stuff. Now I know better. btw, good to see that you are getting into the numerals stuff (above). Sometime back, I had to block three users for 3RR violation (details in my latest archive, in case you are interested further and have time to kill). --Gurubrahma 16:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rich, please help

I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me recruit as many neutral and well-intending editors to the page to counter the strong and manifest bias. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

---

Hi Rich! Thanks for your intervention in this matter, and I hope things become normal on this article very soon. Our aim is to minimize any conflict. The change in article name was done with consensus, and was based on the following reasons:

• "Arabic numeral" is a very common colloquial term for Hindu-Arabic (so fits one of the many criteria for naming on wikipedia), but it's not appropriate in the more formal context of the title of an encyclopedia article, which should be more rigorous in reflecting academic norms.

• All other encyclopedias like Britannica [1], refer to the symbols exclusively as "Hindu-Arabic" everywhere they are mentioned. Articles in research papers and other encyclopedias (that are written by professional people who are rigorous scholars, who are paid a lot of money for their work, who are held accountable for what they write, and are peer-reviewed at many levels) exclusively use the term "Hindu-Arabic numerals".

• According to another article on Britannica, titled "The Hindu-Arabic system" [2], the numerals are "commonly spoken of as Arabic but preferably as Hindu-Arabic."

• Definitely preferred by scholars, e.g., as per Peter Wardley [3]

"`Hindu-arabic' is preferred over `arabic' as a more accurate and useful description for two reasons: first, it places primacy on the region where this system of numerical representation had its origins, the Indian sub-continent; and, second, it draws attention to the difference between the numerals currently used in Arabic countries and those adopted by Europeans after the introduction of various adaptations. The latter, of course, has become the internationally accepted system of numerical representation."

The editors who supported: User:kwamikagami, User:DaGizza, User:Frogular (changed later to weak support), User:Subramanian, User:Raj2004, User:Peyna, and User:deeptrivia (myself). User:csssclll, and User:Sam Spade were neutral. User:Vertaloni opposed at the time, but has since then accepted. User:csssclll does not dispute (at least did not dispute at that time) the name change. He wants certain things to be included in the article, and he has some other issues, like he wants Al Khwarizmi to be called Arab and not Persian. We have included many portions of his text in the article, and mentioned at many places the problems we have with some other portions. We haven't seen any reasonable responses to those objections. Thanks a lot for looking into the matter, and hoping to see some positive results soon! deeptrivia (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Rich. I think when I last saw the naming conventions, I thought popularity was one of the many criteria to decide on a name. I'll be most willing to accept whatever the consensus is, in light of this new information. Thanks again! deeptrivia (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Obliged

Please stop changing obliged to obligated. The two words do not mean the same thing in some varities of English. - SimonP 17:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

UK Disambig

Hi there. I noticed your dab changing [[British]] to [[United Kingdom|British]]. I went ahead and changed it to British as it was an event that occured in 1702. I was wondering, since from your user page I assume you're from England, if you knew if there was a custom as to what to link the UK to? Should, for example, all events between 1707 and 1801 link to [[Kingdom of Great Britain]]? Linking to [[United Kingdom]] seems a little off to me, as it didn't exist at the time, but I'm not aware of any preexisting conventions or customs. Thanks! -Rebelguys2 23:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Reticular Formation

Hornby Article I think it is April 1st.

Also, Can you help me preserve my images? Most of them are taken from 1) the Internet, 2) Books from the 60's, 3) Bear et al. and Kandel et al.

User:Iamnotanorange 16:58, 13 December 2005‎ (UTC)

Fred Phelps

I see that you recently edited the Fred Phelps article. This article is currently a nom for Featured Article. I kindly ask that you go vote on it. Thank you.

User:70.242.10.213 19:11, 13 December 2005‎ (UTC)