JMBell

Greetings to you. Two things must be observed:

All new entries go at the bottom of the page; and
Must sign name and date with ~~~~.

And for practical reasons, I fragment discussions and don't piece them together again until they're archived. One-sided conversations stimulate the imagination, I tell you.

All entries are supposed to be factual and sensical and so-so, but of course, there can be exceptions. Just don't fill this page with exceptions. ;) Have a nice time. JMBell

Archives: Archive 1 (April 16 - June 6 '05)

Giving a hand with Mr Tan

re: Mr Tan...

I hope you are on vacation and not convalescing! I was aware of something 'different' in some of your later exchanges and lengthier notes with him (?) as I had my own run in with her (?) and took a hard line -- see the RfC.
However, that produced the interesting result which I suspect your Analysis <G> had already lead to conclude: Mr Tan is a kid of 14-15 years. If you see the RfC, you see that I also regreted taking such a hardline, and kind of volunteered to take him under my wing. He's so energetic though, a few other surrogate fathers in better located time zones are highly recommended.
As of the moment, I think I've convinced him to leave the Tsushima articles (Specifically Tsushima Islands and Tsushima Strait -- You're welcome, Mel!) alone for at least a month, and to try and find a new redlink or three to research. I've been at pains to point out that editing is the least important action, and that research is by far the most important. I think it went home - he tried an library or two based on responses I got.
Just thought I'd let you know - you seemed to be pretty kind in some of the later stuff I ran across on various talk pages. Drop me a note, better yet an email when you come back aboard. In the meantime, everyone else wish me well and cross your fingers. Fabartus 18:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) and fabartus.comcast.net

Deutschland

Germany? Do you know German? But if you do move there, you still can contribute.... I'm being too harsh on you :). Do say Hi when you pop here in wikipedia after an extended abseentee period. Regards, =Nichalp (Talk)= 17:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue

I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Wikipedia:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know you're unlikely to see this due to your trip, but I'm hitting each and every contributor to the TSUSHIMA NAME WAR equally, so here's your share! :)

Geom Puzzle

Hi,

Though it says "Solutions and proofs here" I figured it'd be too much of a spoiler… That being said, here goes nothing:

(commented out the solution - please use edit to view source)

Did I get it right? Shinobu 23:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I saw your solution, and though it seems promising, it's a bit difficult for me to make out where you put the points (e.g. you say that you define intersections as pts. A-E then you say that angle AEB = 90° ???); could you define it a bit clearer, as well as parts such as "Cy = -By" where y = ?. Otherwise, looks good. JM Bell ° 11:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I commented out the solution again. I recommend edit and show preview.

I think I've fixed most of the ambiguities. Shinobu 12:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, but I am already short of time for other things now. I tell when I'm free. Thanks. Mr Tan 13:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your generous advice--I am aware that my talk is very long, and I will find a suitable time to archive my old talk.

As my respected client, I would appreciate if you could look at my comment in [1] arguing about the negative consequences of this page move, in contrast to your respective vote poll. I would appreciate if you can spend a portion of your precious time, read my comments thoroughly and think about it, and your reply to me personally from your own viewpoint of my comments. Your comment will be greatly appreciated. Mr Tan 15:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick HI ... Thanks for the help on the signature. The photos and finding Mr Tans actual text in it's proper context, broke it open for me. The vote was tending that way anyway; and this is truly much ado about nothing. Hopefully all the sudden influx of 'strangers' will settle these kids down — does this go on often? If I've been out of line at any point, I've a thick skin (goes with the Polack head), so lay it on me — I thought you were off boating or something fun and relaxing! Anyway, made a post on the Japanese interest BB, so hope that cools the flames, esp. if some stick around to turn this small article into a solid done deal. IIRC, it really hasn't grown much since I first looked at it circa May 25th or 26th or so. Lot of waste of resources, human, intellectual, emotional, and effort. Someday, It'd be nice to understand how it came to go on and on and on and on... though I'd guess the short answer starts with "Mr Tan...". ttfn - got to get back to some family time. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 02:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Harumph - maybe it's not as fixed as I thought ... there is still a pipe showing up in front of FrankB. Have to work on that!

D'aah Puzzled Now

Back again - I see you voted on the main issue without seeing this: Evidence By a Local, also look at one section higher - I unearthed Mr Tans original source for the blasted through language et al. Seems to me the guy was making a joke, and it boomeranged on us. At least Mr Tan got a solid reference from an acceptable source, even if he misconstrued the content as literal, whereas in it's context, it was a comment on some theory of etmyology cum claim by Korea for Tsushima which he was disabusing with a fairly lame joke. Not to mention semi-ambiguous sentence construction. Tan missed the nuances — no surprise there! (Bright kid though, just need to sit on him some how and direct that energy -- Ideas?)
Also question (now) the wisdom of the compromise since could generate redirects back to itself... as I noticed while writing to Pmanderson (Septentrionalis) in the following excerpt, but also don't totally understand your vote change on the compromise, as my read on neonumbers is that his arguement about the use of Tsushima seems not to apply: We have the Specific articles Battle of, and T. Strait; The main article, whether T. or T. Island(s), which is all discrete and non-ambiguous, and then the govermental possible articles, which seems managable within this cat fight as sections in the main arty as I noted to Septentrionalis counting them up:
- "I would assume that the Tsushima City and Tsushima province + prefecture artys would be handled by redirects; which is my suspicion why JBell changed his vote on the compromise in that it would create a doubly circular reference... to disambigulation then back to main article (I'm still trying to decode Mr Tans arguements, tho' his refernce to the naming convention WOULD BE VALID, WERE they non-coterminus as you noted they were.). In any event, Don't see any new articles in any of that. Or did I miss something?"
I was asking about the later comment which mentioned stubs and new articles, which sum up to zero unless you count the redirect titles. Hence, don't see any of the three possible names of the main article contraindicating rolling those minor sub-topics, so they would not need disambigulated since are redirect titles to the main article itself. So where's the conflict, and what would appear on a disambigulation page. Mr Tan seems not to have realized these political titles would presumably be handled in the main arty. In sum, don't know I understand that Neonumbers arguement really applies, and Tans is handled by the redirects -- without which our search engine wouldn't find the titles. I suppose a disambigulation page could be written but see no need for one, except as a general courtesy of sorts.

So, straighten me out — or explain the nuance that Mr Tan grasped and I missed, or whatever. Don't know whether to rechange my vote on this or not!

By the way, when's this vote cycle 'Over' and what guideline is in force?

Thanx - [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 07:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geom Puzzle (fragment 2)

Hi there! I've looked over your corrected solution, and though the notation is a bit unconventional, I'm pleased to tell you that you've solved the problem, earning you a Barnstar (or Random Act Barnstar, whichever you'd feel more comfortable with)! Congratulations!

Hey, that was good. Mind if I ask how old you are? JM Bell ° 20:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all — I'm 23 years old. It's been a while since I last did geometry, so that explains the notation, which is based on what I seem to remember from school. Apart from the rule that the centre of the circle through the three vertices of a right-angled triangle lies on its hypotenuse, no math/geom was needed; I solved it on my visual insight.

I think I feel more comfortable with the normal Barnstar, because it looks more modest. But I did it because it was an interesting diversion from the day-to-day math (which I'm not nearly as good at). Shinobu 12:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just read the text below the Random Act Barnstar, and on second thought I agree with you. Let's keep it this way. And of course a big Thank You for granting me the Random Act Barnstar: Shinobu 12:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Compromise by Septentrionalis — Parlimentary Tactics, Need Advice

I dropped this idea on Pmanderson/Septentrionalis a moment back as a follow on question to the proposed compromise.

More on the above. The articles that are coterminal as you say, are all very brief, and should be merged into whatever main article title results, IMHO. Would it be 'Cricket' as a parlimentary tactic of ruthless daring to place mergeto templates within and nominate them concurrently on W:Vfd, to get some numbers to over come these overly testosterone equipped individuals to cease their little war once and for all? I say this occurs to me because a lower grade edit war is also going on in those articles, and none of them really have any significant length. So Tsushima is a county seat, in American Parlence — shurg, Hardly reason for a seperate article.
I think concurrently nominating the Tsushima Islands arty to mergeto Tsushima and Vfd would settle the matter down nicely since both proposals (i.e. the second being your proposed compromise) will be before a large number of more responsible editors — PLUS get the article stabilized by taking it out of these hotheads hands. I can't see they've stopped even as the vote sits waiting resolution. I wish I had such spare time!
I'm 99% sure the 'Vfd mergest elements', Plus noting that it will help ending the edit war would result in a Vfd vote of one monolythic article, and remove those childrens playgrounds in one fell swoop.

Thoughts on this bold action? [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 20:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Answer from Bank of Wikipedia (BoW)

Is this "bank" legal?

I dont know. I am not a lawyer. If you are, you may tell us if it is. We need a lawyer to advise us. If you are a lawyer, I am giving you one BoW coin per month and a 2 years contract, if you are interested in it.

Who is operating it?

We are. The Bank of Wikipedia and its trusted employees.

If it is official, then why in the world are there so many rules, among them a picture of a rubber duck seated on a chair?

Its not official. We are not a money maker authority. We do not use violence to impose our coins as a unique medium of exchange in wikipedia site. This is private wikipedia money. Concerning the rule presenting a rubber duck seated on a chair, well, such a rule never hurt anyone. Other rules did.

This doesn't look like a bank, it looks more like a math project gone terribly wrong.

Its not a math project gone wrong. Its a bank and we dont know yet where it shall go.

The banks that I do know of have a few rules to govern all the transactions, without complications like newbie taxes or so. Please kindly explain to me the inner workings of this bank.

The inner working of this bank is simple. The Bank has rules, and according to rule 0.0 account holders can express their opinion on the rules. We dont have many rules, and we dont think our rules are complicated, but if you think they are open a account in our bank and propose simpler ones. Our money is a scarce good, and because we do want to convince wikipedians to accept it as their medium of exchange inside wikipedia site, we offer them for free the same ammount of money that we got when we where newbies too. This is our bank, and this is how it works. Please feel free to request a bank account.

Bank of Wikipedia 06:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

belated thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA nearly a month ago. Unfortunately a sad event occurred at that time in my family, and I have not been able to participate in Wikipedia as much as I would like. I hope to get back to active contribution soon. Thanks again! Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 00:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copy edit away! I'll take a look eventually, but I'm sick of reversions. RU Back to the states, or winging it from a hotel? User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 29 June 2005 21:16 (UTC)

Re: Links — What're you doing answering Mels Mail? I didn't know he rated two personal assistants! 24.61.229.179