User talk:TreyHarris/Archive 2014

Re: Removal of link marked minor

Hello Trey, and thanks for your message. I didn't remove the link completely, I just moved it a bit lower[1]; thus, I did not change any content, but rather the order in which it appears.

I hope this clears things up. I continue to abide by my initial belief that this edit was minor, but please don't hesitate to contact me if you still feel that I am mistaken.

Warm regards,

Frazzydee|✍ 02:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Condorcet-STV

Could you please start an article on Condorcet-STV? I'm not quite familiar enough with how it works in multiple-winner elections, and it seems to be different from the way the Single Transferable Vote article is heading. Scott Ritchie 09:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I have uploaded a paper on the Schulze STV method, a Condorcet STV method [2] [3] [4]. I believe that the Schulze STV method is the optimal Condorcet STV method for the LOPSA because of the following reasons:

1. The LOPSA already uses the Schulze single-winner election method for internal referendums. See article 8.3 of the LOPSA bylaws!
2. Suppose M is the number of seats. When the Schulze STV method is being used then it is sufficient to compare every set A of M candidates with every other set B of M candidates that differs from set A in exactly one candidate. However, for other Condorcet STV methods (e.g. Tideman's CPO-STV method) it is necessary to compare every set A of M candidates with every other set B of M candidates.

Markus Schulze 20:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Arianna Huffington

TreyHarris, I do agree Hummers are gas-guzzlers, but the very term is biased and therefore inappropriate to use when write with a NPOV

In reply to: TreyHarris(revert -- loosen up, if a Hummer isn't "gas-guzzling", what possibly could be?) --Lzygenius 09:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. It's a colorful term, but how is it "biased"? Could you explain the POV you think the term espouses? NPOV doesn't mean bland. TreyHarris 09:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Revision3 Studios

Hi. I noticed that you voted to keep the Systm article on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Systm. Well, unfortunately, the article was deleted, and Systm was redirected to Kevin Rose. I recently created a new article for Revision3 Studios, the company that produces System and thebroken, and changed Systm to redirect there. Unfortunately, the Revision3 Studios article has now been nominated for deletion.

So, if you have a chance, please look at the Revision3 Studios article, and then go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Revision3 Studios and vote to keep it. Thanks a lot, --taestell 17:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

System Administrator

Trey - I looked at the recent change history for system administrator and I challenge your edit that stated the SAGE is not US-only. Before I edit it again, I would like to discuss it with you. Steven Plunkett 08:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that until just three months ago an Australian was president of SAGE, a significant fraction of the members are non-US, and it calls itself an "international professional association of system administrators", it at least seems to not be US-only. If your claim is that it is de facto US-only, perhaps you could elaborate. --TreyHarris 09:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll disclaim initally by saying that I am currently the National Treasurer of SAGE-AU. I know Geoff too. It's the fact that the roots of SAGE are US based, the conference (granted it has been USENIX's conference) has always been in the US, and that the are several other SAGE organisations around the world, including SAGE-AU, SAGE-WISE (Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England), SAGE-IE (Ireland), and a de-facto branch in Germany as well. de fact US-only be the appropriate term, but I do not recoginise SAGE as a truely international organisation. Steven Plunkett 09:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Male pregnancy tone

Hi. I appear to be responsible for almost all of the entry you marked for a tone-check. Thanks - I'm aware that formal writing is a weak spot of mine. In the interests of improving, did anything in particular strike your eye as inappropriate? --Kizor 10:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

rollback

I commented on the MOS:DP talk page before looking at the rollback. There were two different admins that used rollback for my edits. Some of those were then re-reverted back to my version, most were not. Neither one of them attempted to comunicate with me. I'm feeling a bit down as a result of this whole thing. What to do? Tedernst | talk 03:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Welcome

Thanks for your excellent contribution to the discussion; it's what I've been trying to say all along. Hopefully, that'll get the point across. ~Topaz^♪♫∆ 01:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

de Gaulle fixes

Regarding my change of the Charles de Gaulle links, I was using the Popups tool to automatically fix the 130-odd instances where article links were pointing to redirect pages. If you are not familiar with Popups, it allows you to fix redirect and disambiguation links with a single click. Unfortunately I was not aware that some of those links were misspellings per se; I just assumed they were variations on the accepted spelling and/or titles (such as General De Gaulle, De Gaulle, etc.). --Kralizec! 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Office image

I don't necessarily agree with the image you added to The Office, but didn't want to just go ahead a revert it. I don't have a huge problem if you want it to stay, but when someone visits The Office article, and the first thing they see is the image of the American Office, I don’t think it gives off the right impression. I think if we have one we should have the other- or none at all. Mrtea (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If The Office were an actual disambiguation page, you'd get no complaint from me taking down the image. But it's not, it appears to be trying to get some information across, and so it should be have an image. If you can dig up a usable image for the UK version, I'd invite you to put it up, too—it would be really nice if it was a parallel image with the four leads. (I tried, but since the UK series is no longer in production, nobody's promoting it, so press kit photos are hard to find.) But I can't think of an encyclopedic reason why no image is better than one, since the caption clearly states that it is an image of the American version. --TreyHarris 23:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No I know, you've got a point. I don't have a problem with it, I just wish we could find an eligible UK cast photo too. I'll keep my eyes open. Mrtea (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hi, no I'm not using a bot, although I probably should be. I got as far as registering a seperate account and looking at pywikipediabot, but it seemed very complicated. What I generally do is open bunch (99) of tabs in Firefox and batch edit the pages - sometimes it crashes Firefox. When I'm working on dates (which I don't think can be simply robotised, to many quotes, URLs, internal links etc.) I let myself get sidetracked on other formatting issues, but these external links I want to get out of the way. If you know of a simpler bot than pywikipeidabot I'd be very interseted (oh, I've looked at AWB as well which is a great tool.) Rich Farmbrough. 10:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Of coure the big advantage with a bot is that it can be throttled to a slow rate (say 1 per min) and left to its own devices (subject to proper testing of course). Rich Farmbrough. 10:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context#readers' preference comment

Answered on that page. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Minor edits

I have my preferences set to mark all edits minor by default. When I make substantial changes, I usually uncheck "This is a minor edit." —Wayward ^Talk 01:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Any content change. OK, thanks, noted. Sgt Pinback 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to policy

Truly well written post on village pump (policy). Thank you.

--William Allen Simpson 17:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I've written up a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Changing policies and guidelines, and I'd appreciate your feedback. :--TreyHarris 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I've a big evidentiary hearing next week, so I currently have considerably less spare time.

--William Allen Simpson 14:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello! It seems that anytime I say something these days, I'll always hurt someones feelings. I'm very sorry if I've hurt yours. I think that you've done exemplary work based on what's written down on wikipedia. :-)

The unfortunate problem is that there are unwritten rules, which people still haven't written down. These rules aren't written down, but are known to exist. It's something like the law of gravity. It isn't like apples didn't fall from trees, before Newton wrote that they did.

I've occaisionally started writing down some of the unwritten rules that I have found. They're not precicely policy by current standards, as they would exist even if I didn't write them down.

I've replied on the talk page with what I know of the unwritten rules for changing policy. Perhaps it's time to write some of that down.

Note that the bold revert discuss cycle was once also such an unwritten rule. Note also that it is only a solution to a corner case which occurs in the larger concept.

Kim Bruning 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights

Hi, I'm soliciting Wikipedia:Peer review#United States Bill of Rights comments from people who contributed to the FA on the 1st Amendment, since there doesn't seem to be any response at PR. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 21:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects

Hi Trey: Thanx for the article on (not) editing redirects. I'm not sure what I'm doing differently now then I was when I added the comment, but links to redirects are now popping up with the text to the redirected article. Probably something to do with 'popupAppendRedirNavLinks=true'. I deny changing anything, however :-) --Bob 07:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Dr. title

You are completely wrong. [5] The MOSBIO reads "Academic and professional titles may be used in the head paragraph." What I wanted said is in the article so we can end the discussion. Arbusto 04:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Polls

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus again, it actualy suggests polling surveys to gauge consensus. --Barberio 22:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

wp:see also

Hi, I was looking for a policy on what and what not to include under the 'see also' section of articles and the closest I got was the comments you left here [6]

We do not link under "See also" articles that are wikilinked inside the article text, unless the article is very long and the link to the article is non-obvious. So the presumption is already that "See also" users have already read the article text....

Is there an actual policy or guideline regarding 'see also' or is it an 'unwritten rule' kind of thing? --Dodo bird 05:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

AWB and Barbara Kruger

Trey, thanks for correcting my error; when first I saw the spelling, I thought perhaps that the "allegience" version was intended but inexplicably made the edit without checking. With respect to AutoWikiBrowser, it's not actually a bot, and, so, whilst it can Google Wikipedia for misspellings, it's the responsibility of the user to correct those misspellings. The error, then, was wholly mine; I was using the list of common Wikipedia misspellings to make edits (all other iterations of allegience were ostensibly to have been "allegiance"), where it is suggested that one ensure that titles of films, books, and artwork, inter al., are not intentionally "misspelled" before editing. In sum, it was altogether my bad, and so there isn't any change you need make in order that the spelling should be left as is in the future. Thanks once more for returning the title to its proper form. Joe 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There's really no way to mark it; anyone Googling from the list of common misspellings may come across the word and change it (AWB simply makes things faster). Perhaps the best thing to do--other than hoping that those of us who check spellings would properly ensure that we were making appropriate changes--would be to hide text in the article to the effect that the spelling is correct (using the syntax). In fact, I'll go do that myself now; that way, if someone should come to the article in the future (even using AWB) and find the "misspelling", he/she likely will see the note and leave everything as it is. Joe 04:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot

Hi Trey. Hopefully you won't see more than a very few of that type of edit on your watchlist in future. If you do, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 01:55 28 March 2006 (UTC).

The West Wing and AWB

Ah! Thanks for letting me know about this. Following the recent page move to conform with television series naming standards, every single article concerning TWW on the Wikipedia had a "bad" link. However, I see the excellent logic in your point. On a related note, would you believe that there are nearly 700 articles that link to The West Wing? Who knew its allusion were so broad? Thanks so much. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Italics

I hadn't seen that section in the MoS; as it's more usual (at least in the academic literature with which I'm familiar) to use inverted commas to indicate the mention as opposed to the use of a word, I reverted.That it was an edit by an anon and without an edit summary probably meant that I spent fractionally less time thinking about it, but that wasn't the reason that I reverted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Redlink entries on disambig pages get a blue link too

I just made minor fixes a couple of your MOS:DP compliance edits. Recently, the following language got added:

Redlinks should usually not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information.

Just FYI, since it's new guidance. Thanks! --TreyHarris 05:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! --rogerd 05:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

your comments on the bot's approval page

Since you voiced concerns about my bot I just wanted to let you know that I have fixed the bugs and it is now back up and running doing it's assigned tasks. If you see any problems with the bot please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cream is a condiment?

I've never heard of cream being considered a "condiment" before. Do you have a source for that? Thanks. --TreyHarris 15:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

to quote condiment A condiment is a substance applied to food, usually in the form of a sauce, powder, or spread, to enhance or improve the flavor. Condiments are typically smeared with knives, squirted, or sprinkled onto other foods. Makes it a condiment in my book. I won't argue it too hard, but it fits that definition. Perhaps that definition needs revising ? But, think of cream on a baked potatoe ? --Richardb43 16:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but my concern is that if you categorize cream as a condiment, why not onions, or garlic, or any number of other things that are usually considered foods to themselves, even though they aren't usually eaten alone? I note that condiment has some note that cream cheese isn't considered one. --TreyHarris 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophes

Hi Trey,

I liked your advice on the use of apostrophes after words ending in 's'. Could you please add it to the Manual of Style?

Thanks,

Djbb2 01:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please revisit Anne Garrels

Trey, I appreciate all your hard work. I would like to ask you to revisit the Anne Garrels article, as I believe you are operating from an incorrect default assumption. Your assumption seems to be that information should be IN the article unless disproven, but our policy is exactly the opposite. Unless you can find a reliable, solid source for ANY information in Wikipedia, and especially for the biography of a living person, it must not be included in the article if it is under dispute, even from an anon.

As it stands, the unfortunate fact is that you re-inserted several times false information into this article, the stuff about Anne Garrels' alleged security detail. The only source was highly unreliable (the blog of an Al Jazeera reporter?), dangerous to the reporter in question (falsely accusing her security detail in Iraq of killing people), and completely false (she does not even HAVE a security detail, and I have this on the authority of a very senior person at NPR).

Please change your default stance! Negative and dangerous information must be excluded from Wikipedia unless it can be sourced to a RELIABLE source. We are not a forum for repeating gossip and rumors. --Jimbo Wales 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page. I understand fully what happened, yes, you were acting in good faith to revert vandalism. It's a tricky business especially with bios of living persons, but the net result unfortunately was that you re-inserted a false claim over and over when the victim of the bad article was trying to fix it. Vandal fighters are often overworked, of course, so I am not blaming. But what I am examining is how we might better avoid this sort of thing in the future.--Jimbo Wales 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken" suggested change

Trey, you may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Section "Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken" suggested change. Ewlyahoocom 20:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Trey, please see my responses to you and my thread suggesting a change to the policy. I also apologize if I seemed like I was attacking the job you did writing the section, that was not my intention. I definitely think that if we all work together we can do a good rewrite of the section and make it fit more into the guideline page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Perl 6

I think you mis-read the diff. Here, look at it again: [7]

The text that was broken was:

Other proposed terms for Perl 6's pattern matching constructs have included rules ...

This is just dead wrong. Rule and regex are not synonyms in Perl 6, and because of the close relationship between the two it is important to keep them distinct.

The text that you quoted is text that I merged up into the preceding paragraph. -Harmil 21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As of

Please check the example that you posted in Wikipedia_talk:As_of in January; you wrote this:

I disagree. I think many articles could benefit from "as of" links in the future. For instance, right now, one article, Ruvuma River, has an "as of 2008" link, in the sentence:

Construction is to finish in 2008 and will cost 28 billion USD.

This seems a perfect use for future "as of" links to me. It sounds like you are suggesting this should be recast either as

As of 2006, construction is expected to finish in 2008 and cost 28 billion USD.

or as:

Construction is to finish in 2008 and will cost 28 billion USD.

Note that your last example repeats what was the text at that time; the link has since been removed. --Scott McNay 02:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't figure out what you're saying. The last example is not the same as the first example, which was the text at the time. A link to As of 2008 piped to "2008" is different from a link to As of 2006 piped to "2008", even if they appear the same in the rendered text. As for the text being removed, it is convention to leave one's comments alone after posting, even if an example given changes (one can of course post an additional update, but I don't think one here would be salient to the point). --TreyHarris 22:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Eric Dyson

Just wondering, why did you create Michael Eric Dyson as a redirect to Michael Dyson? For the most part, when I've heard him referred to, I've heard people use his middle name. If there's a good reason to do otherwise, I'd gladly accept the change. Thanks! Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos

I see you're active here, I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 10:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SAGE logo 234x60.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SAGE logo 234x60.png. 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarifiers in disambiguation pages

Hello, TreyHarris. After doing some research, I have found out that you were one of the participants in the discussion here about whether clarifiers (or Parenthetical Disambiguation Terms, PDTs, as I now call them—I didn't really know the simple term) should be italicised. The discussion has resulted in the current guideline on disambiguation page links, but there is a discussion taking place here about whether names of works, like Star Wars and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which are normally italicised, should also be italicised within the clarifiers. Your input would certainly be appreciated. Waltham, The Duke of 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FACfailed

Template:FACfailed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lead too long

Template:Lead too long has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jehochman ^Talk 03:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)