EdC~enwiki

Hello, EdC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for joining us, and I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — TheKMan^talk 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw the changes that you made on the article on Chinese Musicology, and the demand for changes inserted at the top of the article. I am rather unhappy with some of your changes because you made something that was correct into something that sounds more like what one might expect from Western musicology but is incorrect. Also, just demanding that somebody "get an expert" to fix something is not helpful. If you would like specific additions of information, please indicate what you would like on the discussion page for that article. If you will check the full article on my own website that is linked into the Wikipedia article you will see that there is a very great deal that can be said, much more than could fit into the theoretical 32k article size limit. If people want more detail in a specific area I will be happy to either copy it over or edit to fit.

I restored the diagram to full size because when reduced to postage stamp size it is totally unhelpful to readers, and when expanded one looses the text meant to explain it. If the reader will keep the idea of the simple scale that we learn to sing in primary school, along with the fact that "do" etc. are relative values, not absolute values, and then look at the chart, it will be clear that several different selections of notes out of the total gamut have been indicated.

I appreciate your trying to help. I have found that addressing a perceived problem in the discussion page of an article is often a more productive first step when there are conceptual difficulties involved and not just typographical errors, etc.

I guess I should mention that I wrote all of my extensive article on my own website before somebody provided me with a copy of the article in Chinese. The article in Chinese happened to say almost exactly what I have in my English text, and the author is an academic musicologist. So I do not think there are likely to be substantial problems with the accuracy of what I have written. P0M 04:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I would like to use your image of resistor as we draw it in Europe for the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Could you upload the file in Commons instead of English Wiki, as it would help everyone to use it. Many thanks in advance. Greetings, Goldie (tell me) 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You've done it just perfect! Many thanks for your good work. Greetings, Goldie (tell me) 12:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi EdC, Thanks for filling in some of the blanks on POSIX signals, it's great to see no red links on the signal pages! -- taviso 12:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some time ago you added a link to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics involving a tinyurl.com address. Just to let you know that it's now Wikipedia policy to prevent editing to pages that includes "spam" inducing websites. The effect of the spam filter was actually felt by one user (see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk) who was prevented from adding his question. Please do not use tinyurl links or any links on the blacklist from now on. Thank you. ---- ★Ukdragon37★^talk  20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure! Sorry about that; I had no idea. (I was using the tinyurl URI as a ROT13 equivalent; I'll use another method.) Thanks for telling me! EdC 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I noticed you are creating unusual redirects; ⚒, ⚓, ⚠ and more even as I write, to articles that have seemingly no relevance to question marks. Can you explain this? This looks an awful lot like vandalism and the creation of useless redirects. ~ Matticus78 10:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Ah, never mind - my machine's not displaying unicode correctly, for some reason. Sorry! ~ Matticus78 10:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I'm just fixing redlinks in one of the Unicode tables. You wouldn't happen to know if we have an article on the classic (and wrong; the one with electron orbits) atom symbol, would you?

Isn't that the Rutherford model? Or is it the Bohr model? It's been a while since GCSE physics! ~ Matticus78 10:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It certainly is the Rutherford model; thanks! I was thinking of it in terms of the symbol itself, not the physical model it represented.

Thanks for uploading Image:Xpdf-screenshot.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. This is indeed a bug in AWB because our bots are just AWB run in automatic mode. I will contact the people working on AWB. And sorry for any damaged the bots caused.--Konstable 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Hope you manage to fix it; thanks for all the great work you and your bots have been doing. EdC 05:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

the only reason there is a metric column on this page is because someone in the UK started the page (a child who, as a child, would not have the cognizance to think of it). However, I went to the page for information - not with the intention of editing it. I only edited the information because as it currently is, it is essentially useless. If I need to build my own table, rather than acquiring it easily through an encyclopedia, than why would I use an encyclopedia? As it stands now, this table, has no immediate use without a conversion. If you were to actually remove the metric column as well, then this table would still have as much value as it does now.

If the idea of an encyclopedia is to engender more work for the user or reader, than you have the right idea. Stevenmitchell 06:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I reread the MoS and it seems that non-SI units are permissible even in non-US articles, as long as they are in parentheses. If you recreate the feet column and fill it, I won't remove it again. I would still worry about who's going to keep it in sync with the metres column.

Not sure what you mean by a child starting the page (most readers of this page will use or at least understand metres; not so with feet), or by the information being essentially useless; is it really so difficult to convert from metres to feet? (Multiply by 10 and divide by 3). The reason a height column is useful is that it enables contributors to emplace new entries at the correct point. Source data are invariably in metres. EdC 14:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Edit to Culture of the United States: [1] wikt:pastime→wikt:passtime. This is incorrect, surely. EdC 00:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

D'oh! That is indeed a mistake. I got the misspelt and correct strings the wrong way around for that entry in my spell list. I'll go back through the previous miscorrections I made and fix them up. Cheers, CmdrObot 19:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the pointer to Wireshark. Sorry, but I can't figure out how to run in on my Mac - the downloads & instructions seem to refer to Windows only. Any advice? Not a dog 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Replied on user talk page. EdC 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Not a dog 14:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

In this edit you changed "uk.rec.sheds" to "UK.rec.sheds". Clearly when "uk" is the Usenet heirarchy component it should not be capitalised. Good-o on the other edits, though. EdC 22:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, my apologies. I was catching the incorrect capitalization of UK in domain names, but I didn't think of the Usenet hierarchy. I've modified the bot to avoid those situations. Cheers, CmdrObot 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.--Dylan Lake 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lets practice you spanish: Si a la gente no le importa malentenderse allá ellos pero la labor de los matemáticos es hacer que los conceptos matemátcos sean precisos. Nadie se opondrá a que se corrija esta situación entonces... saludos --kiddo 19:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Me gustaría mucho ejercer mi español, pero éste es el Wikipedia inglés, y no sería considerado conversar en una lengua que los otros redactores no pueden entender... pero muchas gracias por el oferta. (y necesito mucho lo ejercer...) Anyway, I don't agree; precision in mathematical terminology is only necessary when there is danger of confusion; no-one considering the "area of a circle" would suppose that the area sought is that of the circumferential line itself. Insisting that a circle means solely the circumferential line and not the enclosed disk is sufficiently at odds with established usage to increase confusion, not reduce it. When requiring absolute precision, a mathematician will just talk about S¹ and D² anyway. -- EdC 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Sorry about the confusion on the Box Hill article. Do you know who was buried at Burfoot slope? And also, isn't someone buried unsidedown at Leith Hill? I was there reciently and the national trust shop keeper at Leith Hill Tower said that there was, but I thought it was just at Box Hill. Seams strange that two people would have the same ideas on the different hills. Think outside the box 12:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, this is interesting. Try reading [2] (the first page should be readable without subscription). It seems Labellière was the first (in England, at least) and the others are either copycat burials or apocrypha. EdC 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

And see Burial#Inverted burial. The story that Richard Hull was buried upside down on Leith Hill appears in many places, but I've yet to see a reliable source. –EdC 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi - sorry about that, and yes I know. It's not that my editor is broken, it's Wikipedia that is! Pages glitch in Mac OS 10.2 intermittently with IE, Safari, and Mozilla. Usually I notice when one of my edits stuffs up and open another browser program to fix it, but sometimes it glitches on the second one as well. I've spoken about this before several times on both the Village Pump and in Bugzilla and each time I've been assured that it's being or has been fixed... but it's been happening on and off for several months now. I've decided it's not worth reporting it any more since it's clear that nothing's going to be done about it, and just have to keep my eyes open to make sure I spot when it happens. Unfortunately sometimes I don't notice, as with the Cruise control edit. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I think I've fixed it now... Grutness...wha? 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear User:EdC: Why the prejudice against my Octothorp?

• Before the Unicode, and yes even before ASCII, the Octothorp existed - nameless, perhaps, and called by many bastardly names, it was known merely discriptively, by one of its many uses, as in the case of number sign. But now - why resist its poetic coinage, nay, its Christening?

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 22:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because it lacks common currency or adoption as standard usage. Whatever you think of its poesy (and I used to think it was reasonably cute, but you're doing a good job of inducing me to reassess that opinion) it is not a standard or well-known term. --EdC 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

just a quick note about this edit. I have to modify it anyway, as there's a double redirect, so I thought to ask and make one edit: do you feel that the links are relevant to the context? I do not; and it is hard to believe that anyone reading an article about endianness would need to follow a link to "date" or "mail address". —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 04:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Endianness as a general concept is used to distinguish the various date formats. Someone interested in the general concept would be interested in endianness in mail addresses. I've amended the links to point to the relevant sections of the articles. Besides, it's not as if that paragraph is over-linked. --EdC 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

So are you claiming that I need to go to the mail address article to understand that someone uses the term endianness to mean the ordering of its components? That's beyond me. (And there's certainly a misunderstanding: "endianness" is somehow a jargon term… it does mean "ordering of the composing parts", yes, but is not used everywhere the former could appear —that's typical of jargon: a term has a meaning which is already associated to a common word, but only used in certain contexts) —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's more specific than that; endianness means something like ordering of components of an identifier in terms of the size of entities the values those components take represent. Or something. And there's certainly no non-jargon term as succinct as big-endian for describing big-endian systems. And yes, one does need to understand the possibilities for mail addresses to see how a mail addressing system can be described as having endianness. --EdC 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

One more point: the American date system is widely described as middle-endian. Anyone seeking an explanation of that term will appreciate the link. --EdC 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you don't read what I write, either in articles and in talk pages, so there's no point in continuing. And to "agree" further I didn't even bother tagging the reply with a suitable edit summary. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 02:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry? Did I miss something you wrote? Not sure what you meant about edit summaries; I'd prefer to reach consensus on this if you're willing to work towards it. –EdC 03:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I feel that you missed my point, yes. I spelled out in the article that some *non-idiomatic* usages reduce the meaning of endianness to ordering of sub-units/components (this is not literally the phrase in the article, but we might tweak it if that's the issue) and in this talk page that many jargon expressions have common-language "synonyms" but they are used in much narrower contexts that their synonymic alternatives. I can't find the English translation for this one, but there's an Italian term, escutere (perhaps to excute in English?), which just means "to interrogate" but is *only* use for witnesses in law trials; now just imagine if tv hosts began to use the term as well, to mean "interviewing": would you then link to television?

About edit summaries, I meant that you don't use them, making all of us waste quite a lot of time in exchange of very little time/energy saving on your part. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes, I would, preferably to a more focussed article or section (e.g. on adversarial interviewing styles among chat show hosts). A reader may be interested to see how and which TV hosts compare their own style to judicial cross-examination (is that an appropriate translation?); an encyclopedia should support various reading styles.

Certainly in English, jargon arises where common language does not have sufficiently precise terms; if the jargon term then gains common currency it is because it is advantageous over previous near-synonymic terms. Perhaps the Italian language operates differently?

I do try to use edit summaries where appropriate; on an example contributions page[3] I used edit summaries on all non-minor edits in the encyclopedia namespace. If there are occasions where I have been lax I can only apologise. –EdC 08:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Continued (or maybe not) at Talk:Endianness/Archives/2014/November#Links to clarify endianness in date formats and mail addresses. –EdC 00:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I've made a new version of C POSIX library on the temporary page Talk:C POSIX library/Temp. The page was almost an exact copy, a bit careless on my part. I hope the new version can be fixed up more to replace the current version. Fresheneesz 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

What in the world? I do not own nor operate any bot? Was the message you left a mistake?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ooh. Take a look at User:Solitaire190. Seems I've been played. Hope you didn't find the message too rude.

No worries EdC, vandals will do anything these days :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for re-labelling the curves in Exponentiation. The graph that is most problematic, however, is a different one: Image:Root_graphs.png. If you get a chance to update that one too it would be great. —Steven G. Johnson 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. –EdC 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I happened to notice that a link correction I made on 15 Dec had been reverted, and found that you had reverted Constitutional monarchy to a version before my contribution and other valid changes. I've now put it back as I think you and I would both intend, but perhaps you would care to check my work. Fayenatic london 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that looks good. Sorry I had to revert back so far; there had been some very dubious additions and changes and I felt reverting back to an OK version was better than attempting to fix the current version. I had intended to go back and fix up the valid edits, but probably wouldn't have got round to it for a while; thanks for doing that for me. –EdC 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. If our paths cross again, I'll give you time to finish your work in future! Maybe you might leave a note on the Talk page or in the edit summary to say you'll be back to do more later. Fayenatic london 14:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice; I'll bear that in mind. All the best. –EdC 14:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:EnEdC. –EdC 20:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. What do you think? Patrick Schwemmer 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is that function new? I don't notice that until you told me. :)--Fitzwilliam 15:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've done a test and understand it well. Thanks :)--Fitzwilliam 15:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kudos! Great job on moving ALL the mnemonics to wikiquote (despite it being on the verge of deletion). Well, you kind of... continued my job and finished it at a go. I was a frequent editor for mnemonic article but i slacked then stopped editing later on. Once again, thank you for what you have done there :D — Yurei-eggtart 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! It is rather unfortunate that there isn't a good place for that sort of content, but the truth is that once even a few examples get into an article it quickly turns into a tidal wave of cruft as people feel the need to validate their own educational experience. Human nature, I guess. –EdC 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm not sure if this is where I should post this, but I got a message from you saying I had been flagged for vandalism. To my knoweldge I've not done anything to warrant this and was wondering what I'd done. (if I have I'd like to know so I can avoid it in future). Thanks. 203.118.159.54 11:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, you didn't do anything; in fact you acted correctly in removing vandalism by another user. Unfortunately I misread the history log of the page and thought it was you that was the vandal; I'm very sorry for making such a mistake. –EdC 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

EdC - can you help me? Perhaps I tried to add Richard Hull incorrectly - but the note I read was that I shouldn't be adding articles about myself? I'm not Richard - but his work on semantic ontology and the fact that he is one of the world's leaders on natural language search systems, employed by NASA, Department of Defense, Merck, etc lead me to believe he should certainly be included on Wikipedia. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- David

Responded at User talk:Dexterpopwall. –EdC 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Negative base, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on April 19 where you can improve it if you see fit. Regards, 17:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which

Kindly nominated by Howcheng. Do feel free to self nominate. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I noticed that you created the redirect page ♿ a while back. Would you be interested in commenting in either one of these discussions?:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is it appropriate to make people download a font to see an "unfree" unicode codepoint?

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing that to my attention; I doubt I can contribute much to the discussion but it's certainly an interesting problem. –EdC 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for merging event loop and main loop! --Abdull 07:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't change <code> to <source> if it's going to break things. "Things", in this case, include wikilinking and italics (in the big code example), but in general include spacing and horrible color schemes as well. Eventually, I think we all hope to be able to move to better syntax highlighting with <source>, but that tag is not yet appropriate for use with C code. Thanks, --Quuxplusone 16:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. I guess I assumed that because of the lang="C" attribute on the <code> tag, the <source> tag was intended. I'll be sure to be more careful around wikilinked C code in future. –EdC 23:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:IT (South Park; The Entity).jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Watch37264 00:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the spirit of keeping the conversion templates as specialized as possible, could you, please, consider restoring {{kg to lb}} to its original state and creating a new template ({{kg to st lb}}, perhaps?) to handle the stones? This would be by the same logic why we have {{ft to m}} and {{ft in to m}}; it makes for easier maintenance and more logical usage in the end. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. EdC 23:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated! And thanks for expanding the family of conversion templates, too :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hm. On the other hand, I'm not sure that would work; for displaying people's weight, the template needs to be able to show the result in both pounds alone (American) and stone and pounds (Imperial). It feels like a {{kg to lb/st and lb}} would be a bit too specialised. EdC 23:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not really, actually. It's not at all unlike the situation with feet and inches—sometimes feet with a decimal part work fine, sometimes feet and inches are needed. If one explicitly wants to convert kilograms to stones and pounds, typing {{kg to st lb}} is no more complicated than otherwise calling on {{kg to lb}} with a stones parameter. The underlying template, however, would have a much simpler structure, reduced pre-expand size, and, ultimately, it would cause a lesser strain on the servers. Also, if any of these templates were to be enhanced somehow in the future, having them separate would eliminate the need to hunt down, for example, only {{kg to lb}} that does not use a stones parameter. Am I making any sense here?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but when converting weights of humans to imperial measures, one would want both pounds alone and stone and pounds. That can only be done with a template that outputs all three measures. I note that {{cm to in}} takes a ft parameter. EdC 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

{{Cm to in}} only takes a ft parameter because Jimp added it a couple of days ago as an experiment :) I had this same conversation with him (suggesting to create {{cm to ft in}}), and still need to follow up on it. Anyway, back to stones and pounds. If, when converting to stones and pounds, both stones/pounds and just pounds always need to be output, then so be it. It still does not prevent us from having a dedicated {{kg to st lb}} which would do just that. So, {{kg to lb|100}} would output

100 kg (220 pounds)

and {{kg to st lb}} something like

100 kilograms (XXX stones YYY pounds, or 220 pounds); with XXX/YYY being, obviously, actual converted values

I don't believe this is over-specialized, especially considering all other points I raised in my previous response (pre-expand and maintenance issues). Do you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, fine. I've created {{kg to lb/st lb}}, {{lb to kg/st lb}} and {{st lb to kg/lb}} and linked them in. Hope this works out. EdC 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not to be picky or anything, but since you said that {{kg to lb/st lb}} is to always convert kilograms to both stones/pounds and pounds, wouldn't a simpler name such as {{kg to st lb}} be easier on editors who have to type it in?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but that suggests that pounds alone aren't included. Also, what would be the corresponding names for the other two templates? EdC 21:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maybe so, but do we really want the template names to represent every single feature they can handle? When one needs to covert kilograms to stones/pounds, {{kg to st lb}} is the first possibility that jumps to mind, as it is the simplest. The fact that this same template also shows straight pounds might just be a pleasant add-on. That sure beats guessing what the template actually has to be called with a more complicated name: "kg to st lb/lb", "kg to st lb (lb)", or "kg to (st lb/lb)". Heck, I have to look up the current name almost every time I need to reference it, and that's considering that we have been conversing about it for several days now :)

Anyway, after sitting down and jotting the possible names, here is what I came up with. This, I hope is simple enough, yet logical:

1. to convert kilograms to stones/pounds, use {{kg to st lb}}→XXX kg (YYY st ZZZ lb; LLL lb);
2. to convert stones/pounds to kilograms, use {{st lb to kg}}→XXX st YYY lb (LLL lb; ZZZ kg);
3. to convert pounds to kilograms, use {{lb to kg}}→XXX lb (YYY kg). If pounds additionally need to be converted to stones/pounds, use this same template with a switch. This suggestion sounds counter-intuitive to my previous stance against adding this same switch to {{kg to lb}}, but I think it is logical nevertheless. When one needs to convert pounds to kilograms, they usually won't understand the value in either pounds or stones/pounds (because such person would most likely use metric system primarily). So, knowing how many stones/pounds are in a pound value is unlikely to be critical; what matters are the kilograms. The switch allows to override this preference when a rare exception is needed. With the kg-to-lb conversions, a user is comparatively equally likely to need or not to need the stones/pounds value, so we provide two dedicated templates for these tasks.

What do you think?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Those simpler names make sense, certainly. I'm not sure about the extra flag to {{lb to kg}}; it seems simpler to just have {{lb to st lb}}. These templates aren't used when one needs to convert between units (use Google for that); they're used to enable keeping the data from a source in the original units while providing other units for convenience. EdC 16:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's certainly an option. Thanks much for your time!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Expander.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Expander.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Carabinieri 15:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi EdC. I think it may be you who originally uploaded the music sample for the Last Post article, thanks. If so, I wanted as a courtesy to alert you to the fact that I have raised an issue on its talk page about consistency and also about linkage, though the first refers to your work more. Please note that I am not claiming to know the answer! Far from it: I'm just wondering what would be the best approach. Cheers from long-dead ex-user 13:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. EdC 23:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks and please see response there. The editable version looks like it is in your personal userspace on the other system and I am little confused as to whether it would be OK to edit it there, or should that be done somewhere else? I am not about to go charging around making great changes anyway but in case I ever did want to edit a crotchet to a quaver I'd love to know where it's OK to do so. Thank you 82.45.248.177 09:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've moved it out of my personal space, to http://wikisophia.org/wiki/Last_Post - so edit it there if you like! EdC (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful, many thanks. I think I need to try to do some sorting out of versions (if it is in fact possible!) before I venture any further with this, but thanks anyway and especially for alerting me to Lilypond. Best wishes 82.45.248.177 (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You added "Unix-like" to the cooperative multitasking page. If you have done any research that lead you come to that conclusion, please add it to Talk:Setjmp.h. But if you haven't, I suggest we drop those two words, because AFAIK, TinyTimbers runs on many embedded systems like the Atmel AtMega 8-bit CPU. In fact, I wouldn't be surpized if the trick worked on a few other systems like DOS and native Windows. -- Nic Roets 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nope, I'll remove them. It'd be useful to have a citation for the "many" though. EdC (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you please stop taking out the Modern Greek pronunciations and their english spelling equivalents. They are there to help balance the articles since they mainly only talk about the ancient greek pronunciation and its english spellings. Thanks.Grk1011 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed a number of incorrect article titles, as per WP:UE. The names of the letters of the Greek alphabet are well established in English, and adding transliterations from the modern Greek names can only serve to confuse the reader. Adding the ancient Greek and modern Greek names (in native script, then transliterations) could work, but should not be given undue prominence. See Greece for an example of how foreign article names should be presented. EdC (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that it is the modern greek alphabet also and the english names are different from those of the ancient greek. in wikipedia, when there are multiple names, they are presented in bold after the most common. Not many english speakers know the names of the modern greek letters, which in fact are written in english in the latin alphabet per WP:ue. I am going to rerevert if you keep changing the stuff, back. if you dont like how im doing it, maybe you should try to better incorporate it into the article.Grk1011 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Only English names are presented in bold; native-language names are presented in the native script afterwards. Read WP:MoS#First sentences ff. EdC (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is the english name for the modern greek, just as say "tau" is ancient, "taf" is modern. Ipotheto oti then katalaveneis ellinika? Because that would explain things.Grk1011 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you support that assertion? EdC (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It has nothing to do with native languages. those are the names in english. The article names presently only reflect ancient greek. The modern greek names are what i put in.Grk1011 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article names are in English. See, for example, [4]. What you put in clearly isn't the modern Greek name, because it was written in Latin, and modern Greek is written in the Greek script. Anyway, if it's a modern Greek name then it's not the English name. EdC (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What you dont understand is that the english name has changed now, since the alphabet changed when it became modern greek. I put in the modern greek english spelling. There are basically two spellings, and pronounciations for most letters: ancient and modern. The greek text spellings of between the two versions differ also, see the greek wikipedia links to each letter since people from greece make those.Grk1011 (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The name of the letter in Greek - ancient or modern - has no bearing on the name in English. The English names are well established and standardised e.g. within ISO/IEC 10646. Unless the Greek language authority (presumably, the Greek parliament) has proclaimed what the English names for the letters shall be, the names in Greek apply to the Greek language only. EdC (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its not just a different pronunciation, its a different spelling too.Grk1011 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have not disputed this. EdC (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet#Main_letters and notice what the modern greek spellings are in greek and then realize when written in the latin letters which would most closely mimic the correct sound, you get what i added to the articles.Grk1011 (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fine; that gives you a transliteration of the modern Greek name. It doesn't give an English name. EdC (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, maybe you'll approve of how i changed it: Beta (letter).Grk1011 (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It still makes the error of presenting a transliteration of the Greek name as an English name. It's not, since English names are defined by common usage and standards. I'll correct it to how I feel it should be. EdC (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's an example of what I've put in the articles' first sentences:

• Delta (uppercase Δ, lowercase δ; Greek: Δέλτα [ðelta] Thelta) is the fourth...

The important thing to realise is that the bolded words in article heads are those which could be expected to understood to refer to the article subject in most English contexts. The transliterations from modern Greek names do not meet this requirement. EdC (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, i like it. i just felt it needed to have some modern greek too. for example, i would tell someone that i know the greek alphabet, recite it. and then they'll say im wrong and bring up wikipedia or something where there would be no mention of what the modern letters names sound like. There was just one side left out and i was trying to find a way to put it in, the way you came up with is fine with me.Grk1011 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Great! I'm glad we managed to find a solution. EdC (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi could you tell me what's wrong with the external link www.mnemonic-device.eu? I really like to know. For much effort is taken to make it a site for and by all users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjotrw (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mnemonic#External links suffers heavily from spamming with links that add little to the article. Per WP:NOT#LINK, I've replaced the lot with a dmoz link. EdC (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I see, thank you. (Pjotr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.164.214 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

Having noticed the interesting treatment you applied to Richmond in the Kingston Loop Line diagram, I wondered if you'd like to try Greenford. This would be an inversion of Richmond, in that the Network line terminates in a bay platform at the end of the station having risen up between the eastbound and westbound tracks of the underground's Central Line. I could give you more detail if you're not familiar with the location. Thanks! Britmax (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how feasible that would be - I think the track templates I used are more intended to signify where a line is shared between metro and heavy rail, not just sharing of trackbed. EdC (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, since you commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles, I thought you might like to know that it is again up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination). Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. EdC (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, why did you revert "parametrization" (correct, although AmE) to "parametrisation" (a word which does not exist, according to Oxford English Dictionary)? I had mistakenly typed this pseudo-word untold number of times, and then spent hours trying to catch them all, only to be reverted with no explanation. Arcfrk (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm always suspicious of sweeping spelling changes, especially when they appear to be influenced by AmE/BrE confusion. "parametrisation" has 130KGhits, so is clearly a word; OED is known to favour -ize spellings. EdC (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Examplewebsite.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:LRSMark.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Micro black hole. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. J.T Pearson (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I undid your speedy, as I think it's a good redirect. If you still want to delete this, prod it. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Contact lens has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! You uploaded an image, File:W3m-wikipedia.png, the description of which says w3m is running in an xterm. Someone has questioned this assertion at its talkpage; File_talk:W3m-wikipedia.png. What specific type of terminal is it running under? 207.65.109.10 (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

See talk page. EdC (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:IT (South Park; The Entity).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello EdC,

back in 2006 you wrote about the use of infinity values in computer programming. You specified IEEE floating points as one example, and also wrote about those values in J and UNITY. I recently read this latter description, and thought that JavaScript had similar values, which (as it turns out) are actually IEEE-based. Now a discussion has been opened on the talk page about the differences of the J & UNITY implementations as compared to the IEEE specification. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. --hydrox (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

23:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

12:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#Nested RegExp.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ransom note. Since you had some involvement with the Ransom note redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ⚧. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 10#⚧ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EdC~enwiki

it seems you have uploaded

[5] it renders correctly, however on my w3m [ termux ] this does not render frames at all. can you please share code or add in browser notes rudrudu_enwiki (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't recall which terminal emulator or indeed operating system I used to make that screenshot - it was a while ago. It looks like it might have been xterm on Linux, but I can't be certain. EdC~enwiki (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply