User talk:Pol098

I'll respond here to any comments, as is usual, to keep the entire dialogue in the same place. If I take a long time to respond, which I regrettably sometimes do, I'll say that I've responded on the Talk page of the author of comments signed by a named user (I have nothing against users with only IP addresses, but the address may no longer apply to the same person). I unfortunately responded to some of the earlier comments on this page on the author's Talk page, leading to incomplete dialogues here. Pol098 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sections here are general, and may be updated from time to time (edited, not appended to).

This section is prompted by criticism of my calling an edit "minor"; see the section #Your choice of Grammar for detailed criticism.

Let me make a clear distinction: if I make what I consider a trivial change I mark it "m" (Wikipedia minor); if I make what I consider a minor change but think that some people might conceivably object to it, I do not flag it as Wikipedia minor, but put "minor", "relatively small", etc. in the edit summary. If I make changes which I consider to be mainly to wording, without adding or removing anything of substance, I put "wording" in the description. Beyond that I do not claim not to be changing the meaning; I often do, with no intention of subtlety. When making significant changes to wording only in controversial articles I sometimes say explicitly "Changes to wording with no intention to alter meaning". If you find examples where I have claimed a change is minor (in any of the above ways) and it isn't, please bring them to my attention. I'm not perfect and I'm sure you'll find them. Pol098 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes don't provide an edit summary for changes tagged as Minor, particularly if they are shortly after larger, summarised edits; the Minor tag says that they make no substantial change. I have also, not too frequently, hit Save before realising I haven't written a summary. Pol098 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Change in use] I experimentally adopted my personal way of using the WP "m" tag a decade ago, including somewhat more than the strict WP guideline. My rationale was never to "get away" with controversial edits not being examined, but to save other editors time examining things which I deemed not at all controversial, such as wording which was clearer but uncontroversial, and waited to see what the reaction was. Mo reaction, so I continued. I've now finally had criticism for just that attitude, so will from now reserve the WP "m" closer to guidelines. I might use the letter "m" (but not the WP minor tick), or the word "minor" for changes I don't think people would want to waste time on. And I might not provide summaries for something minor, not worth explaining (I do often use the summary "wording" when there is no change to meaning. If you examine all my edits you will probably discover inappropriate use of summaries and "minor" - I'm not infallible - but I hope mostly OK. Pol098 (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of access dates in citations: Template:Citation says "Not required for linked documents that do not change" ... "Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates". Many citations are made with access-date only, ignoring the meaningful and relevant publication date. Also, unnecessary access dates clutter up the references list to no purpose, needing a moment's thought to work out that the date seen has no connection to the date something happened. My attitude is to add publication dates to new or existing citations if available, not to include access-dates when not necessary, and to remove unnecessary access dates from citations that I am editing. If not editing a citation I don't delete unnecessary access dates. All the above is about unnecessary access dates; they are of course often relevant and necessary. Pol098 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion of a particular case lower down.

Wikipedia has many guidelines, some contradictory, which are not to be taken as rules. In case of doubt I use WP:BRD and WP:BOLD, sometimes WP:IAR.

I try to make edits that do not have a "now" perspective, so that text does not become dated with the passage of time (per WP:DATED, WP:RELTIME). E.g., Willem-Alexander is the current in 2013 became king of the Netherlands. They mean basically the same today in 2013, but the first form will become outdated while the second is always true. An actual example of text which was not written this way and allowed to become dated: "The 2008 Trofeo Federale is currently an ongoing four-team tournament running from September 1 to September 16, 2008", the first sentence of an article in November 2013. Pol098 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been getting long, so I prune some stuff I consider boilerplate or routine every so often. I've tried to leave in anything that could be called criticism; that's valuable, the only way to learn. Anyone who really wants to see the old stuff check history; I don't archive the sort of stuff I delete, it's a waste of space. Pol098 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a native English speaker?--HD86 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Pol098 (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Po1098. I'm sorry to give you more grief on the subject of units on measurement, but I am currently working on the HMS Hood (51) article (amongst others) and I would like to explain my reasons for not using consistent units. I believe that, in compiling an article from exising sources, primacy should be given to the units used in the source. For example, if a source tells me that a ship had a 12-inch armoured belt, I think it wrong to transcribe this as "this ship had a 305mm armoured belt": this is certainly not what the source says, and there is always the risk that it is not what is means either; the actual thickness of the belt might well have been, say, 302mm or 307mm. The practice of changing everything to metric, without comment, is especially risky when the figure quoted in the source is given to only one or two significant figures. Where I do agree with you is that, where not metric units are quoted, metric equivalents should always be given, even if the editor has to work them out for his or her self. Is there really a problem with saying in the same article "the Hood was armed with 15-inch (381mm) guns" and "the Bismarck was armed with 38cm guns"?

I am happy to discuss this further; I will add this page to my watchlist so that I will know if you or anyone else puts a post here. Alternatively, you can post to my user page. John Moore 309 13:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message John. As it's on your watchlist, I'll reply here and keep the correspondence in one place. My comment on units came at a time the article had things like 'the deck armour was 7" (178 mm) thick ... the whatever was protected by 210 mm armour plate ... the whatsit had a 12" belt'. In other words, inconsistent units for the same function, often without conversion into the other units. I changed this to make it consistent; someone then reverted, which is when I made an exasperated comment. So long as some thought is given to this point, the article is likely to read sanely. In your particular example, "the Hood was armed with 15-inch (381mm) guns" and (elsewhere in the article) "the Bismarck was armed with 38cm guns" you'd likely read "the Hood had 15" guns (with some blah figure in mm in parentheses)", then have to go back to compare it with 38 cm; the Bismarck should be 38 cm (15") or even 380 mm (15"), but not, I think, 380 mm (14 31/32") or (14.96"); (about 15") if you insist. If anyone is inhibited by my comment from making sensible changes, it wasn't my intention. (I use " here, but in or inches is fine).

Thanks for the courtesy of your message, and best wishes, Pol098 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I see that you prefer to give metric-to-imperial conversions as well as vice-versa. On reflection, I think this makes sense, particularly in a naval historical context, where so much of the English-language literature uses imperial measure. I agree also that levels of precision that are natural where measuring in millimetres look a little absurd when rendered in feet and inches; it seems better to quote an approximate equivalent, as you suggest. Thanks for responding so promptly.

John Moore 309 20:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry that I added back the redundant introductory sentence on chemistry. My final decision is, combine everyday usage and chemistry into one single sentence in the introduction, and keep the chemistry section. Feel free editing! Deryck C. 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to the introductory tying the article on exponents to the metric system as pointless. I don't believe in reverts in general, so let me state my reasoning on hopes of achieving a conversion by thou heathen sinner <G>:

• If you would be so kind as to consider that these articles are tied into others by links, you will quickly realize the numbers of articles dealing with measurements (which have a generally pragmatic utility to the lay reader) far outnumber the articles that are simply dry math. Since these articles tie into this topic by exactly that correspondence I addressed the tie in the intro as an appetizer of sorts for people linking in that manner. Burying the information way down in the body makes no sense... they are reading about measurements for their own purposes, and not interested in a sub-topic of math as a general topic... unless perhaps my little sentence wets their interest thus making your article experience much more traffic. Wouldn't that be a good outcome?
• Now I cannot say that the quick and dirty post was worded perfectly, I was nested deep within six to seven related edits at the time, and there are others that will always fiddle with sentence structure... but I do object to arbitrary removal of material that is certainly not off point or topic. You extended that so as to misconstrue it to multiples of other integers, so why not just reword it to qualify it better to the set of 1 X 10^x form.
• I think you should revert and revise if you like to incorporate the sentence under the principle of the most utility to the most people. If we aren't striving for that, why are we bothering to donate our time when the media is so perfect for such a cross-link of knowledge.

Moreover, WP:MOS wants introductions to articles to recap a sense of the article as a whole. This phrase did that, though obviously, the whole article needs such a recap so the whole is more reader friendly. That is a expansion that is worthy of your time, not chopping down the seedling of knowledge I planted. It is afte rall for the benefit of the housewife, child, or businessman that we write, not solely for the someones with a technical background like an engineer such as myself, or whatever field gainfully employs you. If you are writing for a technical audience alone, I submit you need a professional journal, not this venue. FrankB 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

2) Looking over your evolution of [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metric_system&diff=prev&oldid=46287122 metric system ] I am struck by the thought that your familiarity to the SI has blinded you to the need to properly introduce a topic and in particular to remember at the forefront of your mind the audience for whom you are supposed to be writing. Don't get me wrong, what you did is good writing– perhaps even great prose, but I think the prior introductory start was more appropriate and also more in line with the WP:MOS. I suggest you take a week away from the article (a good trick this aiding dispassionate reconsideration) and then comeback to compare the two styles of intro with an editors eyes rather than that of an author. You may find that others have reverted you in the iterim.

• I find your explanation to be superior -- just misplaced so far at the top as it introduces the topic with not comprehensible historic phrases gradually building to the technical, but by squarely hitting the lay reader in the eye with yet another incomprehensible bit of technical jargon — the [SI]. Give it some thought and consider rearranging once again to give your fuller clearer explainations more at the end of the intro, not at the top.
• In the future, please try to clearly indicate in the summary when you are making such a 'major reordering' and rewording. This change took some hunting in the history page to see where the revolution in the article occurred. Thanks from all of us tracking.

Best wishes, FrankB 18:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your post: Pol098 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure No Problem. I try to imagine myself as a 9-10 year old when evaluating the opening sentence or two. If the new arrangement meets that lack of experience, then my consciencious is clear, and so should yours be. I'd like something related to the naturalness of the metric system and the powers of ten, but I'm not going to revert anyone over such pettiness. Give it some thought, I'll leave it in your obviously caring hands. I added a post to one of those two talks, and did in fact, fail to get back to revert and re-revert to draw attention to the sudden change in the lead para, so you ought to look at that as there was more. Best wishes, FrankB 05:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw: If you're into good fiction, and familiar with SF/Alternative-history series 1632, I can use a hand over there 1632 series / talk: 1632 series and follow the links (3rd TOC entry) FrankB

• You ruined my whole days plans!. See what you think. B'regards FrankB 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've seen your last, I'll check it out tomorrow (See This on responding to your prior prompt! Like above note, with grins.). I'm at 04:00 am and need beauty rest VERY BADLY! (Ask anyone)FrankB

I got sidetracked into this 'gem' (Ahem) and we haven't touched base for a while. It's not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I just ripped this off my talk cleaning up for a WikiDayOff tomarrow, and realized you weren't an invitee on the above. Apologies. I've gotten some good input, but can use more. Bear in mind to go to the talk section link first for the brief, then the article. The issue is really how to design an article covering the topic. This 'draft' just sort of 'happened', as is explained. (btw- if you don't like history, don't bother! But looks like you might- your contribs range near as widely as mine! <G>)

Best! FrankB 06:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xposed fm my talk FrankB
In response to your suggestions at the top of the page: I don't do a great deal of messaging on Wiki, so maybe what I've to say is either wrong or thoroughly known. To communicate with all the dialogue in one place, not in 2 or 3 (user A, user B, an article), without emailing or dropping messages "see my Talk page" etc., someone who communicates with me has told me to post in my own Talk page, which he has put in his watchlist, presumably for a few days. This seems a good idea for an active dialogue, and the page can be delisted after a few days. Pol098 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you are asking or saying, as the context seems to be with my requests on talk page posting in my Header Box. Let me address that, and you straighten me out if I missed the target!

1. There is no set convention on wiki User Talk pages usage. Some of the longest experienced folks follow the convention that they will watch for a message, which I do myself -- once or twice a week, but if so, I'm generally looking at article and 'debates' changes first, then policy talks, and user page talks hardly ever. These in particular have too much 'traffic'.
2. I have no idea how they can see something addressed to them, nor how I am supposed to know when they've made a counterpoint, save they must look at their watch list (and REFRESH it) an awful lot. I'm generally far too deep in chains of edits to be bothered.
3. I do use it to monitor policy, proposal, and article talk pages etc. but only as a general alarm that some change has occured. I don't and can't possibly work WikiP everyday—the only people who seem to be able to do that are in acedemia, normally as a student.
4. Since there is nearly always a significant delay, I can then go examine the relavant history page and determine whether more action is needed.
5. Having said that, it does work well if and when you are both on line and working the same time as you are conversing. I've only had that experience a few times— and most of the time it's been with a guy that posts answers back to my talk, and expects my points on his. The only other time, was on my talks about two weeks back with BDAbrahamson, generated by my email to him.
6. Given typical unpredictable delays with getting most answers, I find that method less than efficatious. Keeping the thread in one place is to be prefered, IMHO. I will frequently counter post as on this occasion so we can all refer to the same material.
7. In the final analysis, the only really important thing is that you communicate if there is a need. I dislike the 'you posted to me, so I'll answer here school' mostly because it places the initiator into a position as a supplicant; It also requires him to keep tabs on the matter when there may be 200 edits before said party gets back to the matter, etcetera.
   1. I can see some merit in it from the standpoint of "If it's important enough to ask about, then you can see whether I've answered", but in general, it strikes me as arrogant.
8. At least a courtesy post like: "I've responded in the thread on my talk" sets off the "You've got a message banner", and hardly takes much extra time.
9. Thus I champion that as an elementary courtesy. By the same token, if I make a counterpoint on an article talk, or post an new section with something that another may have from the previous messages an adverse view on, I will usually go an post a note to see the talk as a courtesy.

Hope that helps, FrankB 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit at Scientology in order to re-add a single line of text that you added. In the process of doing so, you also erased the edits of other people that were made since your edit. If you want to re-add your 2 lines, which I feel is innappropriate, then just reinsert them in the current page instead of reverting all the way back to your own version (which had a number of problems on it that were fixed). Before you do so, you might try to see what other people on the talk page think about that particular edit, since I for one would object because it sticks out like a sore thumb. The SP episode is linked at the bottom of the page, plus the information about the acceptability of linking is innappropriate in the article itself. If you want to add that material, then add it in the meta-data of the article or discuss it on the talk page. We shouldn't explain in the articles themselves why its okay to link to things on the web. Vivaldi (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted some of my edits because you know who the bombers were - how do you know? Where is the proof that it was those 4 famous guys? Or failing that, what court has found them guilty? (Note from pol098: unsigned message 21:22, 19 April 2006 Simontrumpet)

---

Thanks for your message.

> Hi, you reverted some of my edits because you know who the bombers were - how do you know?

It's been published.

> Where is the proof that it was those 4 famous guys?

In police hands, and mortuaries, I suppose. Infamous rather than famous I fear. Dead bodies, rucksacks with remains of explosives, bomb-making equipment found in homes which were found by going to addresses found on the bodies, a typical pre-suicide-bombing videotape recording, and so on.

> Or failing that, what court has found them guilty?

We're not failing that; but if we were, no court is ever going to find anyone guilty of perpetrating the bombings—they're dead (accomplices, maybe).

You didn't sign your message; I'll put this both on your talk page and mine.

Best wishes, Pol098 23:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just took a quick look at talk there, but I think you were basically on target that using [[As of|2006]], which displays as "As of 2006", is a good idea. The precise placement of it in this article might be tricky but you are right that "currently" and "recently" are not great terms for the encyclopedia. Kaisershatner 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (text changed slightly for clarity by pol098)[reply]

I proposed that chemical imbalance theory be moved to chemical imbalance yesterday. If you look at the "What links here" [1] [2], you'll see that (currently) these pages are only referred to by pages relating to psychiatric issues. Chemical imbalance is not used on either diabetes or ketoacidosis, and as far as I'm aware Type I diabetes is usually referred to as an "deficiency", rather than an "imbalance". I'm not a great fan of chemical imbalance theory as it stands, but at the very least, I think referring to it as a theory gives it more weight than it is due. Anyway, you should make up your own mind on this matter. There is a vote at Talk:Chemical imbalance theory, and you may choose to Merge or Oppose, but I thought I'd let you know about this. --Limegreen 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is more about not losing the general term in favour of the specifically neuroscience usage.

From my perspective, you're entirely welcome to the term! The page as it originally existed, was pretty much a beat-up on psychiatry [3], and various people have been trying to inject a little science back into it. However, part of the problem is that I'm not sure 'chemical imbalance' is useful as a label/explanation. There is no usage of it in neuroscience, and the only time it creeps into the scientific literature is usually in the discussion of advertising.

And yes, I'd happily bet on a two-way interaction as well. Maybe the best way forward would be to make 'chemical imbalance' have a general definition with a large-ish section on its use in advertising and consumer literature in psychiatry. Essentially a merge, and try to pare it down a little as well. To preserve the edit history, it might be better to move the 'theory' page, and then resume editing from there?--Limegreen 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on your cleanup of this article. Someone should give you a barnstar soon, you've clearly been a good contributor. --Iriseyes 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your considerations, but "XYZ is [position]" is consistently used in every Wikipedia article about people holding a particular position at the moment (see incumbent and Lists of office-holders). Or is there a consensus to change that? - Mike Rosoft 10:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your comment, Mike Rosoft. I read this as saying "many Wikipedia articles are not written in a suitable way for a reference work, so let's keep this one incorrect too". It's certainly untrue that the present tense is used in every Wikipedia article about people: in cases where I have found this, I have changed it, without objections until now. If you can suggest an appropriate place for this discussion, please let me know: it is too general to go in the Bush article discussion. I have asked in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia#Work_of_reference:_inappropriate_to_have_time-dependent_information and also in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Work_of_reference:_inappropriate_to_have_time-dependent_information Have a look there to see why the present tense is inappropriate.

I have had a comment from my question at the village pump: the policy exists (it is just ignored):

"This is already a guideline, please see Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly".

Pol098 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pol, good intentions I'm sure, but please mind the WP:3RR. I know first hand that it is enforced. -- AuburnPilot^talk 18:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a comment about this. George W. Bush will always be the 43rd President of the United States. His position will never change, even if he dies. Do we say that George Washington was the 1st President or is the 1st President? We would say "is", because no one else replaced him as the 1st President of the US. Likewise, George Bush will remain the 43rd President in history.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer here, and let you know it's here. To be quite direct, your argument is simply wrong:we say that GW was the first POTUS, etc. I will pick a few presidents at random and quote from their Wikipedia entries (why am I getting into this timewasting?)

Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American politician who was elected the 16th President of the United States (serving from 1861 to 1865), and was the first president from the Republican Party.

George Washington (February 22, 1732–December 14, 1799)... was later elected the first President of the United States.

James Earl Carter, Jr. (born October 1, 1924) was the 39th President of the United States

William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) was the 42nd President of the United States

If you think these entries are all wrong, edit them to say "is". If you are right, nobody will complain.

Best wishes, Pol098 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you've made your point. Nonetheless, we wouldn't want to say "George W. Bush was the 43rd President...", so a different wording on his article should be added.-Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording I had used, and which caused such consternation, was "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) was inaugurated on January 20, 2001 as the 43rd President of the United States" Pol098 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted in your favor. I must ask: Which guideline stresses the timing of articles?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear that. Not in my favor, please; in favor of Wikipedia. Pol098 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that, I saw the guideline.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (WP:Dated)[reply]

That guy was getting back at me for warning him about putting the same message on Moeron's user page. Thanks for reverting it so quickly! --Iriseyes 13:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would take a break now - I am going to revert some of your changes anyway. Have you read any of the references? It is difficult to play around with the wording & make improvements if not.

Yes carpets were usually on tables. Johnbod 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, please refer to the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link..." Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that links on disambiguation pages should not be alphabetized. They are to be listed, where possible, in order of importance or in order of most common usages. You should really take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Disambiguation pages serve a special purpose, and have particular rules about how they are organized that differ from the rules for articles.--Srleffler 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When using a view camera, images on the ground glass are reversed top-to-bottom and left-to-right. These "upside down" images are simply a representation of that. I'll add some verbage to indicate that. In the future, if you have a problem with something in an article, it's not really appropriate to add "somebody needs to fix this" type text to the article; that is better placed on the article's talk page. — Wwagner 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message re above. I take your point but totally disagree (all discussions I remember seeing used upright images; I've just checked my copy of Stoebel's View camera technique: all pictures are right way up). If you're trying to explain one phenomenon (lens coverage) why introduce another (inversion)? To make matters worse the text referred to a building when it was obviously (right way up) a tower. A brief explanation will indeed help.

I don't normally put comments in text other than the standard <<stub>> and <<fact>>, but I thought it was as relevant as <<stub>> to point out an error missed for years. It certainly worked and drew very rapid attention and the prompt correction of what, in my view, is an error: no harm done, and some good.I like your edits: the article is improved. Best wishes, Pol098 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it sounds like we're both heading in the same direction: improving the article. I wasn't so much concerned about the html comments - I add those to articles on occasion myself - but more by the actual text "Note: the following images are upside down until somebody corrects them". Making comments like these which are directed toward other editors is the kind of thing that really belongs on a talk page.

Even though it's been on my watchlist for quite a while, it's been some time since I've actually read the article. I hadn't realized that it needed quite as much work as it does. Yikes. — Wwagner 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather thought the term "mongrels" in description of official Nazi racial classification of humans in "The Jew of Linz" captured the horror of it better than does your edit to "cross-breeds". "Cross-breeds" is also objectionable, of course, as might be "quadroon" or "octoroon" or "mulatto" etc in Western Hemisphere descriptions of offspring of black/white unions in the ante-bellum South. But "mongrel" brings home the fact that the Nazi classifications were normative rather than merely descriptive. "Cross-breeds" has an air of pseudo-scientific objectivity that "mongrels" lacks and therefore "mongrels" seems to me to be better, stressing that the Nazis were talking about human beings here. That such unions officially produced "mongrel" human beings was precisely the point of the Nazi classifications, almost of itself fitting with "extermination".) The nuance ought not to be edited away and so I think you might perhaps consider reverting to the original for this very reason.220.237.184.126 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. The article in question is actually "Ludwig Wittgenstein". I take your point, but don't quite agree; the horror of Nazism is perhaps better illustrated by its pseudoscientific nonsense; a mischling could be rendered in comprehensible English as a "mixedling" (like foundling), which isn't, as a word, emotionally loaded or an insult. The horror is in the treatment. It's like portraying everyone involved in mass murder as evil monsters: in point of fact a great many were grey bureaucrats doing their job, which is infinitely more terrifying (and doesn't make them innocent). So I prefer to leave it; but, of course, have no objection if you finally decide to change it back to "mongrel". Pol098 09:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the edit you made for reciprocity, but I can't agree with the assertion in your edit summary that "is sensed as" and "random" are just wrong. By all means change this, but keep it accurate. Light IS both waves and particles. I take the opposite view; to say that light IS a stream of photons, or propagates as photons, is just wrong; it propagates as waves, but has quantized and essentially random interaction with matter, which is what photons are about. I realize this is not the usual way to put it, but it's more correct than some of the alternative descriptions of the dualistic nature of light. Dicklyon 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments. I'll answer here & put a note on your Talk to keep the dialogue in one place. It's generally accepted that electromagnetic radiation shows particulate properties as well as wave properties; and particles show wave properties (e.g., interference). So light IS both a propagating wave and a stream of particles. How would you describe a "beam" of light comprising just a single photon? See the article on Wave–particle duality. As an example which I know in detail, calculations were made on absorption and emission by hydrogen at low electron temperatures using quantum-mechanical techniques (particles). I showed that the same numerical absorption and emission coefficients could be derived using classical techniques (waves). (The point was that the classical formula was much easier to evaluate numerically, though diabolical to derive; the numerical results were of use in work on low-temperature hydrogen clouds.) I cite this example simply because it's the closest I've come to this topic in real life, and it does deal with photons (and electrons).

If you want you could maybe say that light "behaves as" or "can be considered to be" a stream of photons, though I still prefer "is". I don't really understand why you say it's a random stream. It's obviously subject to fluctuations which are proportionately more significant at low intensity; is that what you mean?

Why I'm going to this length for a Wikipedia article on reciprocity I do not know. Pol098 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun? I'm actually deeply familiar with wave–particle duality, and helped Carver Mead when he was writing his book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism. So I realize my viewpoint is not totally mainstream, but it all works; similar to Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory and Cramer's Transactional interpretation. But even mainstream physicists will often push back on your IS, and that's all I was doing. I would call (and have called) the notion of a "beam" of light comprising a single photon a complete absurd concept; without an absorption event, there's no photon, and without a wave function there's no beam; the conversion of that wave function to a photon is probabilistic, and the resulting photon counts obey a Poisson distribution. That's why all these modern things about sending single photons is such utter nonsense. Dicklyon 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't know if you like my latest wording better. In the regimes I've been interested in photons are few and far between; widely-separated atoms sit around in various states and pick up the odd (radio-frequency) photon. I'm not familiar with Carter Mead's work - out of touch, I suppose. Pol098 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said I like it better. I watch all pages I edit, so a reply here will be seen. I'd like to know more about your RF photon detection work. Check this book or here. Dicklyon 20:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references; I've kept a bookmark to the book extract. I haven't done any physics for a long time (last publication in the 1980s), and would have to re-study classical electromagnetism and other stuff to delve deep. My work wasn't on detection, but theoretical work in an astrophysical context and astrophysical journals, trying to derive knowledge about ionised hydrogen clouds from recombination line emission. Out there what we call clouds are what on earth would be exceedingly high vacuum; events per cubic kilometre are few, but the number of cubic kilometres rather large... I haven't thought about this, but we do have single-photon events there; does Carver Mead's formulation deal with this? Best wishes, Pol098 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has a good continuous model of EM quantum transition events between electron systems at zero interval in spacetime; that's what's usually called a photon emission/propagation/absorption event. Dicklyon 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your revision of Single-lens reflex camera on 2007-08-28, you added a link to an Introduction to Large Format article, seemingly as a reference; I've converted this into a footnoted {{cite web}} template, but I can't be sure of the access date. I've tentatively taken the access date from the date of your edit, but could you verify whether that's the correct one, and change it if not? Thanks. ―Drake Wilson 13:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. If you checked the page just now, shouldn't the most recent date better be used, as the latest date at which the link was known to work? Pol098 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell whether a link "works" in the sense of whether it points to something reasonable, but I can't tell whether it points to the same thing that it did before, really; only the person who originally viewed it can do that, unless there was already an access date of some kind, at which point you might be able to use archives of some sort. ―Drake Wilson 12:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added much later, for reference: if I follow a link and find it supports the article it's cited in, I will cheerfully update the access date, and will continue to do so unless I find it to have done harm at some time, or there's considerable weight of opinion against it. Pol098 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For info on biographical articles, see WP:MOSBIO, and specifically for the section I referred to see WP:MOSBIO#Subsequent uses of names. Happy editing! Ward3001 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your recent edits as you can't simply come along and cut the article to pieces like that! It doesn't improve it. There's one improvement to restore, re the capital ships that were to participate. Please do that as you version does read better. Otherwise please leave it bigpad (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, "cut the article to pieces" are not the right words to have used and I'm sorry for putting it like that. Many of your changes undo words that are there as a careful compromise, based on "Talk" (q.v.) The Bismarck article is very popular and quite controversial, so it needs extreme care. Copy editing should bring poor articles up to speed, e.g. Mark J. Williams, which I improved the other day. The Bismarck article needs cosmetic changes only, like the one referred to above or the use of the semi-colon re picking up the three Hood survivors the next day. That said, from "Status" downwards could be tidied up, as I've never bothered much with that part. bigpad (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I would refer you to that article's Talk page if you feel I'm being unreasonable about this. If you remain dissatisfied, there is no problem with you copying my comments to you on the Bismarck talk page, although it might be useful only to use the two bits above I have italicised (as this is not a personal attack on you). And you're welcome to copy these points, simply as examples. A case in point re how your edit affects hard-earned consensus is the change you made to say that Bismarck had a substantial speed advantage over other BBs. And in the "History" section, using the past tense for the ship's displacement when it had not yet been built or launched does not make sense. You also undid many bits simply, it seems, for the point of doing so. For instance, at the end of "Breakout into the Atlantic" why change "their silhouettes being similar" and use a subordinate clause? All the best, bigpad (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That info is already stated at Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. Plus they don't recruit people; they preach. Also that link you added is not appropriate.--Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The issue I had with the tone of your "Validity and usefulness" is that it uses an inappropriate tone of voice - Wikipedia articles should not be written from the first-person "we", and stylistic phrases such as "indeed" and "obviously" are out of place. Have a look at WP:TONE if you haven't already. I thought I'd just flag it rather than rewrite it when you were obviously still working on it - I'll take another look tomorrow. Welcome to Wikipedia! --McGeddon (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article High Sulfur Fuel Oil, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough it is highly relevant to a current discussion in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems people don't think much about keyboards.

BTW, I couldn't find your edit on the 42/43rd President.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took me quite a time to stumble across the very useful UK Extended keyboard driver! The comment about 42/43 was moved to List of POTUS; I've just added it back into the main article in a rather clumsy way. Surprised you remembered.Pol098 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to do with a US keyboard writing Australian English which is essentially British.

So Cleveland is the one. That was a great bit of deduction :o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing the Falklands War article. The meaning was however distorted a bit because among the non-fatal casualties some died post-war. Your edition creates doubt if they died during the war. I don't want to disturb your nice grammar, so could you please insert something post-war. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. How about: "There were 1,188 Argentine and 777 British non-fatal casualties, some of whom died of their injuries after the war"? I've changed the article. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. The article before I edited it merely said "later", not "after the war"; are you sure that "after the war" is correct? It makes sense, as those who died some time after being injured, but during the war, would be counted as war dead.[reply]

The statistics I've seen list e.g. 777 British wounded in the war. I am convinced that if any wounded died during the war, they would have been tallied as dead. Your latest edition is splendid, thanks again. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what we're trying to say in WP:MOS is: don't spell out the numbers of days, unless referring to a holiday known by that name, and then it's capitalized because it's a proper noun. Also, some pages in WP are in American English and some aren't; WP:MoS is, so it's "spelled" not "spelt" on that page. Thanks for your edit, and please feel free to keep it up. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you say makes sense; for perfect clarity it should be explained in the text, but I suppose it's not that important. On reflection I'd agree that today is the twenty-first of May, not the Twenty-first. Thanks. Pol098 (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I first removed your addition to rheumatoid arthritis I didn't make it clear in my edit summary that I would offer further explanation on the talkpage. Please address my arguments there first before adding the material back. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will look, thanks. Pol098 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Rose and Yannis Kyriakides: (added later, this section derives from a couple of "speedy deletion" notices): Gregory Rose and Yannis Kyriakides are contemporary composers of music who I thought (and still think) are as worthy of mention as many practitioners of popular music in Wikipedia. In particular some of their works have been played in well-attended concerts in London, and Kyriakides had several red links when I included him. Both these articles, which I had created, were warned for speedy deletion and deleted before I could respond - a matter of minutes. As they were deleted and nobody has written a new article, I suppose it's the consensus (or have other similar articles been summarily deleted too?). I simply register my opinion that they are at least as notable as many other people in music included in Wikipedia. Pol098 (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Added later: an article on Yannis Kyriakides has been added, by someone else. Added yet later: an article on Gregory Rose (musician) has been added, by someone else.[reply]

I'm not sure why overrides is better than supercedes. After all, supercedes means he came after and replaces ‘Ali's authority, while "overrides" indicates contradiction. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 03:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally came to this because it was misspelt; it's supersedes. Supersedes conveys to me something becoming obsolete and outdated and being replaced by something newer and more up-to-date. I think it's used more for things than for people. I suppose it's very subjective; if you think supersedes is the better word, by all means reinstate it. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It's actually not technically incorrect, but your spelling is definitely preferrable. Cf. [4]. I thought supersede was better precisely because Hakim does, in fact, replace the earlier and outdated role of ‘Ali. His role to the Druze is superior - where Muhammad is replaced by ‘Ali's gnostic teachings to ghulat sects, so Hakim replaces him as the "esoteric of the esoteric". If you are neutral, I'll replace "supersedes" (correctly spelled). Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 01:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, I have no strong opinion. Apologies for changing what does appear tp be the right word. Pol098 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this discussion to the appropriate talk page. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 14:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-reverted your edit to USB drives regarding fragmentation. I left an explanation of my reasoning of the talk page - please see my comments there before starting an edit war. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your aversion to the word 'thereafter' which you seem to consistently change to 'afterwards.' I personally prefer 'thereafter,' especially since that's the way it was originally written in the Dictionary_of_American_Naval_Fighting_Ships. In many the ship descriptions from that book, 'thereafter' is used quite frequently, and correctly. In the United States, the premier dictionary is the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and there, 'thereafter' is defined as: "after that". In my 1947 hardbound Merriam-Webster dictionary which I bought as a student, 'thereafter' is defined as: "after that; subsequently." So please, let the author's words stand as written.Uanir1 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a matter of usage; it sounds very wrong to me, but it's not worth arguing over. Encarta, for example, gives "after that time or from that time on", which is more enduring than simply "after that". Webster gives simply "after that", following your usage. It seems that we lose the distinction between two shades of meaning by making "thereafter" mean simply the same as "afterwards".

I don't see that there's any need to stick to an original text if it's questionable unless it's actually quoted, but again, why argue. A bit like "knit-picking", a spelling I haven't come across before, I suppose. Pol098 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are great, clarifying meanings, improving style (at least marginally) and correcting typos. This article was a bit "boys own magazine" - and your edits have improved it considerably.

You will notice, however, that I have reverted (twice) your comments about the Vickers gun on the Camel being aircooled. This is basically because this was a feature of the "aviation" version of the weapon, rather than a peculiarity of the Camel as such. ALL Vickers guns (not to mention other machine guns) mounted in aircraft used air cooling, for obvious reasons.

If the Vickers gun had been normally water cooled on other aircraft then this would have been notable - otherwise it isn't, really. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have edited the Vickers gun article!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, makes sense. It had just seemed a bit odd to me to use a water-cooled machinegun in an aircraft, until I checked. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with cannon, much appreciated. :) I made a couple of slight changes to the wording, hope you're alright with them. Cheers, and thanks again. · AndonicO ^Engage. 18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. No problems, best wishes Pol098 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the info on the links to the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, I move it both to the "Attribution" section and the appropiate sub-article, as it was entirely relevant. It didn't, however, warrant its own section. Be aware the article is currently under "FAR" "GAR", and that sectioning and WP:SUMMARY have been discussed and a strong consensus reached. Happy editing!--Cerejota (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have any particular opinion on where it belongs, it was just untidy so I cleaned it up a bit. Pol098 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Np.--Cerejota (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you chose to change the reference style in the Walt Whitman article? The article is at good article status so I'm always worried about compromising quality. It was approved using the prior reference style, which I've used on many of the articles I've worked on. Your edits removed most of the page numbers, sacrificing the verifiability of the article. Is there a reason why you don't want specificity in the footnotes? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking it over again, I see what you did. It's a very clunky format, in my opinion, and I'm not sure I think it's a good idea. Would you be offended if I restored the prior version? I've used that style on most of the featured and good articles I've written and it seems to be a well worn-in style. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest and request that we leave it for a while and ask for other opinions; we need to leave it at least for a while so others can form an opinion. The advantages of this format:
- compactness, with one entry per work;
- when reading text you can see immediately which references are to different pages of the same work, rather than different works; and after following up a reference you know whose work is referenced;
- in addition to these advantages, no information is lost compared to the previous format.
I'll leave it to you to consider the disadvantages.
"I've used that style... it seems to be a well worn-in style." I've often felt frustrated at having to use the style you mention, with lots of references to the same work, as there was nothing better. The Rp template seemed a great innovation to me. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call putting this up for discussion. We'll see what happens. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, apparently! Pol098 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See next section for somebody else who doesn't like the Rp template referencing system. Pol098 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Cheers for the edits to the article - I've been meaning to give the prose a tidy up after I expanded the article, but you've saved me a lot of trouble! Skinny87 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I can't say I like the reference system you're using, especially as the article is at GA status; would it be possible for you to change back the references? They're very clunky and not at all clear what they're referring to - the previous system is the one used by the majority of wikipedia articles and is much easier to read. I see you have another editor asking the same thing above - perhaps you could discuss this referencing system somewhere to see what others think of it? But I'd still appreciate if you reverted the article back to the old reference system. Skinny87 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've made a comment in the Talk pages in case others have any opinion. I thought that the Rp method was definitely better, but appear, rather to my surprise, to be in a minority. Pol098 (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd just like to say thanks for reverting back the referencing system so easily; given most of my experience on wikipedia, I was prepared for a lengthy argument. So thanks for that! As to the system, it does seem to have some promise, but I think it needs to be tweaked a bit. I'll have a think and try and come up with some ideas. Skinny87 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two rather emphatic "no" votes and no other interest seems reasonably decisive. I'd have preferred to leave the new referencing in for a few days to see if others had an opinion, but this gets messy to revert if there are later edits, and leaving Rp referencing in another article for a couple of days drew no responses. If you come up with new ideas, or want to see what people say, the place is Template_talk:Rp. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been inserting references using the Rp template into a few articles, as I find it much better than the usual way off handling numerous references from each of several sources. Rather to my surprise I find my enthusiasm isn't reciprocated. For reference, here is a brief description and example of use of the template:

The old style of references^[1] included a separate reference in the footnotes each time ^[2] a work is referenced^[3]. The new style of references^{[4]: 123–124} includes a single reference in the footnotes, with a page number appended in the body to the reference number, each time ^[4]: 321 a work is referenced^[4]: 312. If we use an entry in the list of References^[5]: 132 when using the new style, the entry in Notes can be simply author and year without full details^[5]: 213.

Notes (generated automatically from in-text references in the order found)

References (alphabetical, entered manually)

• Anothersmith, J, On New Styles of Referencing, PubCo, 2009 (if we have this in references, the entry in notes can simply be to "Anothersmith (2009)" without details)
• Smith, J, On Styles of Referencing, PubCo, 2009
  

The new style does not generate an alphabetical list of references in addition to the footnote. We can either provide full details when the work is first referenced, so that the Notes will include full details, but not in alphabetical order as in the Newsmith example; or we can have an alphabetical list of references with full details, and simply provide name and year when first referenced in text, as in the Anothersmith example. Pol098 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Your doing great work but can you please use edit summaries - as that would be very helpful --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 07:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be more systematic, too often I neglect to say anything (though usually don't intend to comment Minor edits). Thanks for feedback. Pol098 (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit summary for this edit you claimed that the {{convert}} template produces incorrect spacing for temperature symbols. The Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 811 agree with the convert template. By the way, in the USA, the Secretary of Commerce has the authority to interpret SI. He has designated Special Publications 330 and 811 as the official interpretation of SI in the USA. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a surprise to me, I'm obviously out of step. Thanks. Pol098 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting addition about how to write negative numbers. Do you have some book where they use this kind of notation for e.g. (-5)? Best regards Ulner (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never seen it before myself. The article mentioned that the notation ^-5 for -5 was "often" used, without reference. It seemed to make a lot of sense to distinguish between negative numbers and the operation of subtraction this way, so I modified the section on arithmetic to use it throughout. It could do with a reference, but I can't provide it. Hopefully someone will. Maybe you could delve back into history and find who initially wrote the sentence introducing this notation? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested in this topic in its own right, the article was amended at some time to read: Sometimes in elementary schools a number may be prefixed by a superscript minus sign or plus sign to explicitly distinguish negative and positive numbers as in^[1]

⁻2 + ⁻5  gives ⁻7.
Pol098 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pol098. Thank you for your concern on my article. Now I'm working on collecting 3rd party information related to this article. it is hard for me to find such info, because most of the news is in Indonesian, not English. But I will put it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garuda99 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs references for almost everything though! No biographical details are referenced.Pol098 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article was later deleted (not through my action, though it didn't seem notable to me). Pol098 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Teletype is always capitalized...second while you may know that Teletypes are "historical", there are many others who may not know that a Teletype machine is a vintage electromechanical device. The "more recently" was added to frame the Radioteletype article and to add information that a first time reader may not know. I'd appreciate if you would rethink you change to the first paragraph. Thanks! Wa3frp (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital T in Teletype of course; but I didn't make any edits of that word in the article; must admit my typos and use of caps in edit summaries (not articles) is very sloppy. Trouble with "recently" is that it becomes out of date; the original intention of my edit was to remove the "now" viewpoint, though you wouldn't guess that from my summary. The use of "more recently" wasn't as bad in RTTY as in articles mentioning the recent (2005) football championship, next year's (2007) conference on whatever, etc. If I'd known when computers began to replace mechanical RTTYs I'd have replaced "recently" by "from the mid-1980s" or whenever. If you know when, I'd suggest that you insert the decade instead of the relative "recently". In the meantime I'll patch it up a bit (without mentioning a date). The early or mid 1980s sounds about right for the introduction of screen displays in place of teletypes in computing, at least, but I don't know about use in radio. Pol098 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!. The sentence, "...Starting in 1980s, teleprinters were replaced with computers running teleprinter emulation software..." appears in the history section to further support and clarify the first sentence of the Radioteletype article. All is well now as I understand your concern about the phrase "more recently". Wa3frp (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your numerous quality edits to Radioteletype that greatly improve the article. Also, thanks for picking up that deleted paragraph in the Telex section of Telegraphy dealing with the beginnings of Telex in Canada. I watch Telegraphy for edits but that edit must have happened while I was traveling. 73! Wa3frp (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we're all here for! Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With notes added at various times on these words in general
There seems to be a controversy over the two spellings of this word. Both spellings are correct in every day use. See, e.g., p.1168 (supercede) and p. 1170 (supersede) as variant spellings, in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G.&C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976). More to the point, the legal document in question used the spelling "supercede," not "supersede." So, the spelling "supercede" is the correct spelling to be used here. Famspear (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, supercede is often reported as a common misspelling, it's only used so often because people can't spell and relate it to secede, exceed, and do on. Looking up supercede on http://www.onelook.com/ finds 7 matches, at least one of which reports it as a common misspelling, while supersede has 28 entries. However, discussing this further is a waste of time. Re whether text with occasional errors should be quoted with errors: I don't see any reason to quote people's errors unless I want to point out the error or make them look stupid. Pol098 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC) MOS:PMC supports correcting trivial errors. pol098, 3 February 2012[reply]

Dear Pol098: With all due respect, I would argue that Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, as published by the G.&C. Merriam Company, is an established authority on correct spellings, especially for purposes of Wikipedia. The "onelook" web site does not stand on the same footing as Webster's Dictionary.

Further, even if a word is misspelled, normal editorial procedure dictates that we reproduce the source accurately, regardless of whether the source contains spelling errors or not. Of course, true errors can be denoted by following the error with the editorial notation "[sic]" or by a footnote with words to the effect of "So in the original."

This is especially true of legal documents. For example, even the actual statutes as enacted by Congress occasionally contain a rare misspelled word, or a grammatical error. The private printers (such as West Publishing) who reprint such legal texts for actual use by lawyers and the courts will in no case take it upon themselves to "correct" the text. Those publishers reproduce source material exactly as it is written.

In an encyclopedia or in other formal writing, "quoting other people's errors", to use your terminology, is a basic tenet; we are not supposed to "correct" what others have written. Instead, we quote accurately what others have written -- errors and all.

In any case, I would take Webster's Dictionary for authority that "supercede" and "supersede" are both correct spellings. Famspear (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Notes added much later for anyone interested) "both correct spellings?" I'm not sure what you mean by Webster's, but entering "Webster" into address bar brings up Merriam-Webster, who say "Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error." And this. Pol098 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC) MOS:PMC: trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment. Pol098 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Regarding UK usage specifically: Times Style guide says "supersede (never supercede)", Oxford guide to Style uses supersede, but doesn't mention supercede, Guardian style guide says "supersede not supercede".[reply]

I meant no harm in changing your edit about fluorescent bulbs vs. CFLs. I just didn't notice that the original link was to fluorescent bulbs and not fluorescent lamps. With my edit I wanted to express a personal opinion about CFLs being a (rather poor -- thanks to a cheapo ballast) type of fluorescent lights. 174.6.87.98 (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not complaining; I don't know much about the subject and was just fixing up the text, which had a link to "fluorescent bulb", which just redirected to "compact fluorescent lamp", so I changed "fluorescent bulb" to "compact fluorescent lamp". If VLC can use any sort of fluorescent lighting, which makes sense, then my specific reference to compacts was inappropriate and needed to be removed (which I did). Your edit was absolutely fine. Pol098 (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Existence of God and electrolytic capacitors (e.g. "worse noise" instead of just "noise"), you are picking grammar that affects the meaning, and not just subtly. I have no time to check all of your work, and just wanted you, and thus others, to be aware of this observation. Jok2000 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This slightly edited for clarity 17 May 2013) Let's make a clear distinction: if I make what I consider a trivial change I mark it "m" (Wikipedia minor); if I make what I consider a minor change but think that some people might object to it I do not flag it as Wikipedia minor, but put "minor", "relatively small", etc. in the edit summary. If I make changes which I consider to be mainly to wording, without adding or removing anything of substance, I put "wording" in the description. Beyond that I do not claim not to be changing the meaning; I often do, with no intention of subtlety. When making significant changes to wording only in controversial articles I sometimes say explicitly "Changes to wording with no intention to alter meaning". If you find examples where I have claimed a change is minor (in any of the above ways) and it isn't, please bring them to my attention. I'm not perfect and I'm sure you'll find them - I did find a dubious example in the capacitor article.

If you disagree with my changes (mostly not flagged as minor) to Existence of God, you have the right to modify or revert my changes; I may proceed in various ways, but in fact am quite happy to leave the article as you have left it except WP:MDASH and clarification of an unqualified reference to "Swinburne" which the average well-read reader would take as the poet. I think you have reinstated one or two clear grammatical or formatting errors, but they can stay as far as I am concerned.

In electrolytic capacitor I changed
"Aluminum electrolytics have problems of noise, high leakage, high temperature drift, high dielectric absorption and high inductance."
to
"Electrolytics have worse noise, leakage, drift with temperature and ageing, dielectric absorption and inductance than other types of capacitor."

I described that as a change to wording; in fact it is indeed a little more. and does change the meaning. While both the original statement and my version are correct, I think mine is more relevant as one chooses a capacitor for an application by comparing it with other possible types - being Wikipedia, it is open to anyone who disagrees (or wishes to claim a large willy) to change the article accordingly. I have on occasion chosen to use a (very expensive) non-electrolytic high-value capacitor where stability was an issue. Ta electrolytics suffer from the same issues as Al, though to a lesser degree. If you compare the electrolytic capacitor article before and after I started editing it (in History select revision before my first contribution, then select right tickbox for my last revision, then click Compare) you'll find that my changes are not exactly "subtle" or minor; e.g., the highest working temperature is 175C (referenced), not 105C as originally stated.

I've responded to this in some detail as I encourage anybody who thinks I'm flagging changes as trivial when they're not (or any other shortcomings) to let me know. I do tend not to add comments when editing; I'm aware of this shortcoming and do try, but too often hit Send as soon as I've made a change. Pol098 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's talk about capacitors. The noise aspect of, for example, a tantalum capacitor is implicitly referenced now, whereas the previous sentence was distinguising different characteristics of electrolytics. And in any event, opinion words like "worse" don't convey the scientific fact that electrolytics by their construction (of layers of foil) there will be inductance (which the old wording simply called a 'problem').

So in other words, it seems to me you are mixing in some opinion where there was simply logic or science before (here and there). Jok2000 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made Electrolytic capacitors a new subsection here as it's about the particular case. The original statement referred to Al electrolytics, and is correct. I worded it to include all electrolytics, which is also correct. Al are worse than Ta, and I should perhaps have addressed that. The original wording spoke of "high inductance"; I sometimes deliberately use words like "worse" as for the non-expert it's not always obvious whether a property is better if higher or lower. While "worse" is in principle a matter of opinion, I doubt whether anyone would disagree that noise, leakage, drift with temperature and ageing, and dielectric absorption are worse in electrolytics than other types (I'm not sure if supercapacitors should be mentioned explicitly; not sure about inductance, not familiar with the inductance of other wound capacitors). It certainly doesn't contradict the spirit of the original; it's just as much a matter of opinion to say that these are "problems". ALL of these issues are due to the construction of electrolytics (layers of foil, moist chemical dielectric, etc.).

I'm sure it sounds as if I'm trying to defend what I said; this isn't the case. I'm all in favour of criticism and take it seriously. In many cases I change my behaviour. In the matters raised in this "choice of grammar" section in general, and the sentence quoted from the electrolytic capacitors article in particular, I don't see any general change that I should make (I can be convinced by further argument that my particular contribution to electrolytics was not good enough, but don't so far see any general principle I need to change). I'd encourage you to compare the article as a whole just before I started modifying it with the edit of today (I've added that Ta is better than Al), and would welcome suggestions about what I could have done better. Pol098 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you wrote, but I'm going to keep this short. "Problem" is a better word as a search term in conjunction with "electrolytic capacitor" on google than the word "worse", and so it should not be removed. Jok2000 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, thanks. Any further comments will be appreciated. (added later) After considerable thought I no longer consider this point valid. While I do often make a point outside Wikipedia to include keywords in text, in Wikipedia specialist keywords are unnecessary as they'll normally be included in text as articles are added to. I often search the web an Wikipedia, and can't think of any way that inclusion of a general non-specialist word like "problem" could ever improve a search. I don't think there's much to discuss here (unless someone else would like to comment?); we should merely agree to disagree.

Bluntly I get the impression you're more concerned to find some valid criticism to back up your original comment that my changes were not trivial (to which I responded that I never said they were). I usually learn from criticism, but I haven't gained anything from this: I would do exactly the same again. If you consider that the sum of my contributions is a liability rather than an asset to Wikipedia by all means tell me so and raise the issue wherever delinquent editors are reported. Please let me know of anything I do systematically that could be improved (I'm sure I've made plenty of mistakes, but I'm more concerned about correctable trends), but otherwise let's drop this. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pol098, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pol098, I've left you another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Follow the "my talk page" links to see these messages, which are to do with capitalising the first letter of piped links or not, and my responses. 13:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

The article Tectonic weapon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: :unsourced article about a non-existent weapon [boilerplate deleted]

See detailed discussion in article's Talk page (it wasn't deleted). Pol098 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits which you have un/done is unacceptable, it is even style as TRAVEL GUIDE i have reverted your edits but also have moved facilites information to MS Julia page, as in the case of all P&O boats. I hope this dose not continue. Best regards --Kavs8 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 16:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.125.146 (talk) [reply]

(Note: edit differences: [[5]])

Unacceptable? To whom? In particular the article before I edited it had text that would rapidly go out of date, which I corrected as per WP:DATED. What do you mean by "it is even style as TRAVEL GUIDE" - that I have styled it as a travel guide, that it is supposed to be a travel guide? I had in the Service section "From 1 March 2010 the service operates year-round with 3 weekly services, increasing to 4 in July and August." You replaced it by a long section which will soon go out of date, with odd capitalisation and grammatical errors. What information was in your much longer version that is not in mine? (I moved the sentence on what the service will carry to the first sentence, where it belongs.)

I really don't see why you're objecting, and so strenuously; I don't think I've changed the meaning of the article significantly (I did cut out detail about the vessel, but that's been moved out of the article, so it's moot). The points that need addressing:

• Wording that goes out of date "will start", "new", etc. need changing.
• It makes sense to mention what the service will carry in the first sentence instead of Service - it's just 4 words.
• If you move detail about the ship out of the article you have to add information on the capacity (just a sentence with number of cars, trucks, people, cabins
• In some places the wording is far too verbose and needs trimming. Also attention should be paid to capitalisation, grammar, style.
• A minor point: "branding" is market-speak, and more of a US term (in a UK/Ireland article). We're just talking of the "name" of the service.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working to improve this article but I noticed that the current article is a little unbalanced because there seems to be a plethora of references to BNO passports vs the other 6 flavours. I suggest that we create subsections for the different types and amalgamate the references for each type there. This was resolve the balance issue and show other users where they can made useful additions to expand the other sections. Does this sound reasonable to you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. I don't claim huge expertise, but it sounds sensible to separate the different types. I suppose a section covering everything that's common, and history, then subsections. But I'm just making suggestions, have no strong opinion. I've made most of the changes that I thought needed making and I knew something about, and updated a few bits that had fallen behind. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brain stimulation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Not a proper disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are to help find an article among several that users might use the same search term to find, like different cities all named Springfield. They aren't for the purpose of breaking a topic into subtopics.

Article was deleted but later reinstated by others. Pol098 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say thanks for the copy-editing and tidying up on the Prince Rupert article! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Hope I didn't do anything which wasn't an improvement. Pol098 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, if you have the time, check my entry on the ARA San Luis. You will be dumbfounded as to why the torpedoes failed as I was when I read that article back in 1993 on the report to the German Navy which was included. It has to go down in naval history along with the USN torpedo failures against the Japanese during the first two years of the war -- ie not only was the magnetic fuses failures, but the depth keeping was, and even when set to impact, they discovered that the impact pistols (firing pins) were made of material to soft and they bent!!! --Jackehammond (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this, amazing. Strange that this wasn't better known, after being discovered in 1993. Similar to the problem with aerial bomb fuzing. Pol098 (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for this --Jubilee♫clipman 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure Pol098 (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the technical side of things, but I have no problem with deleting redundant tags. Is one simply a redirect to the other? I'm too exhausted to look this up right now... Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick one - I think the bacon article was originally using the term 'Canadian bacon' to refer to back bacon (an Americanism) though somehow the article has got itself confused over the term 'Canadian bacon' and bacon from Canada (like where you tidied up). Its probably best removing misleading American slang I think.. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "Canadian bacon" I deleted was in the UK section, where it was clearly irrelevant (and unreferenced and tagged as such); Canadian bacon isn't prominent in the UK. As you imply, whoever wrote this was probably trying to distinguish UK from US usage. I don't actually know about usage elsewhere, so won't interfere. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire deleted content was: "A replica of the original grotto at Lourdes, a Catholic site reputed to have healing properties." , with a stub tag. I have no objection to your reposting an expanded article, but I don't see any purpose for reinstating this very brief stub, which doesn't even say where the replica is. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the disagreement; you are reading the text as if it were a SPECIFIC replica, site unspecified; in fact "Lourdes grotto" appears to be a generic term. I will modify this. Pol098 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that the link was only posted once when reverting my edit. If you examine the user's record [6], the spam I reverted was added to numerous pages related to biodiesel. The user in question has added numerous refspam links, even after warning and conversation elaborating on why the references were inappropriate. See WP:REFSPAM. I have not, and do not dispute the inclusion of the information, but this source type (secondary, clearly commercial, no guarantees of reliability either) is to be avoided when the primary source (EN standards) is readily accessible. --E8 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. You presumably reverted all references (or maybe they were very new?), as a Google search for <site:en.wikipedia.org "http://www.biofuelsystems.com"> found only the one instance, so this particular search did not imply spam. I would comment that a point-by-point comparison of the different parameters specified adds to the article even though the article itself links the individual specifications individually (in fact, the presence of the links to the authoritative individual specifications leaves the advantage of the comparison but removes the non-guaranteed reliability), but on balance I'll go along with you. If you haven't removed the reference from the article in question. EN 14214, I will. Thanks. Pol098 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your comment on the Talk page of the user who added the links you say "The information you have added is interesting and useful, but the source must be non-commercial in nature. If the website, not webpage, contains sales and product information, it's clearly commercial in nature. Wikipedia policy is unambiguous about this." Is this definitely so? My reading of the guidelines doesn't disallow commercial links. I ask because I sometimes add links in Wikipedia articles to commercial sites which seem to me to be useful; these links don't usually get challenged. For example, on an article on transistors, I might link the datasheet for a typical device. In the Instant hot water dispenser article I added a reference not to an authoritative datasheet but to information I thought relevant and useful and for which I didn't have a better reference (http://kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com/article.cfm/home_electric_instant_hot_water_dispensers); this was in December 2009 and it's still there. This article and Water heating both have many commercial references; I haven't checked them all, but they seem generally to improve the articles. If the guidelines do indeed unconditionally forbid commercial links I may want to discuss this in an appropriate place as I don't agree, but don't want to engage you in a pointless debate here. I do agree, of course, with banning links intended to promote commercial (or other) sites without improving an article. I'd add that I have no commercial interests of my own in editing Wikipedia (I sometimes buy, and need to be informed about, transistors and water heaters for my own use, but don't sell them!). Pol098 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) PS I found the water heating site with Google because I couldn't find the information I needed in Wikipedia, and added it so others could take advantage of the information.[reply]

The best writeup I have seen on this subject is WP:WPSPAM->[7]. The purpose of DMOZ is to be a repository for interesting, non-encyclopedic (e.g., commercial) links, and Wikipedia in turn is linked to DMOZ.--E8 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to clarify my earlier comment, I am involved primarily with science/engineering articles. Source quality is expected to be higher (generally academic) for such articles; my comment was overreaching and doesn't apply to all WP content.--E8 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]