User talk:JGXenite/Archive/2007

Welcome!

Hello JGXenite/Archive/2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 19:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

August 2007

saynoto0870.com

I just saw your post to User talk:Philippe regarding the edit dispute with which you are currently involved. I'd recommend summing up your reasons for including the sentence on the talk page, and request debate there, and politely direct the user to that discussion. If the user does not wish to discuss the change, then you may want to consider getting some outside help through something like Wikipedia:Third opinion. Mark Chovain 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't tell that it is the same user editing the page since they hide behind the anonymity of their internet host. However, the last few have been from the same ISP, so I can only assume it is the same person monitoring the page and changing it. I'll post something in the talk page and see if they decide to respond. Thanks for the advice regarding the Third opinion though - I'll keep it in mind if I don't make any progress. JGXenite 11:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Bluecurve Image

Did I remove it? I'm sorry. I'm still new to wiki editing, and I was copying-pasting the code. I must have accidentally cut and pasted. Sorry! :( Peteturtle 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There ya go :-)

I've put the picture back :-) Sorry 'bout that Peteturtle 20:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

JP and Craig

Well, I think it should be boyfriend because, technically, they haven't broken up. They didn't have a row and dump each other! And there is a possiblity that Craig will come back for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlag (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply at User_talk:Carlag#JP_and_Craig -- [Jam]^[talk] 07:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Pidgin daſhes

Typography.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 18:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fedora (Linux distribution)

Having a look at the image's history, it appears that someone has changed the license to the proper one since I made the comments, so that issue is satisfied now. Cheers, CP 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't get to work on it earlier but for the last few days my internet has been playing up. Thanks for all the work you have done, I'd realy like to see go up to GA and even maby FA. Keep up the Good Work, it won't go unoticed! --Chris  G  09:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Skype

I would like to thank you for your comment relating to my edit in Skype have been removed "Skype is a software" . My question is why we have both words together "program" "software", as the following words are synonyms a. program (in computer sense) b. computer program c. software d. computer software e. Application (possible narrow meaning) f. Computer Application . Note that a programming software is a more specific term of software, such as Cobol and Basic used to code software, and Skype is not a programming tool rather a communication tool. Note that I am a computer expert. Appreciate your response please. 89.148.43.17 13:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, "Skype is a software created by..." does not make sense to me. "Skype is software created by..." would make more sense, as would "Skype is a software program..." or "Skype is a piece of software created by...". I'm not a language expert (ie. synonyms and all that), but as far as I'm concerned, "software program" is valid in the computer sense. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

>>> I understand what both of you people mean. "Software program" is a common usage to mean software/program etc , although redundant in the formal sense, see the definition from the Free Dictionary http://computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/software program. So both of you are right, I think84.255.150.9 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, essentially the term "program" is redundant, but for grammatical and readability purposes, is included because it wouldn't make sense to leave it out. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

86.138.171.20 & Kylerob02

Hi, after checking out the revision history, I would agree with you that this is an obvious case. I shall arrange a block. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken him out of action for a week. He'll most likely have found something else to do by then. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

vandalism or not vandalism

Hi, JGXenite! I noticed that you reverted an unhelpfull edit on Gmail. I would like to ask you however to try and not label thing vandalism if there is any chance it isn't. I believe the edit you reverted was made in good faith, though obviously offesnive, and you were quite right to revert it. there is an essay that gives some views on the issue, if you want, you could read over it. Cheers, and happy editing! Martijn Hoekstra 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Martijn, thanks for your message. I guess reverting it as vandalism was a bit of an over statement. I'll take a look over the article when I get chance. Thanks. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of 0845 number

You wrote on my own user page: I've just seen your message on my talk page. I strongly disagree with what you wrote. I've actually made numerous updates to that page, many of them reflecting changes that have happened since the page was protected. You may consider that the inclusion of the link to SAYNOTO0870.COM to be advertising - have you seen the discussion on the talk page regarding this link? While a consensus may not have been reached yet, I believe that a reference to the search page was warranted - it isn't as obvious as a full link, but the site offers genuine discussion regarding non-geographic numbers. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Already reverted. The large number of links made me think it was an advertising run. Also, "Virginmedia" somehow striked me as being a porno website, which caused the immediate wp-vand4im warning. I already corrected my mistake, apologies for it. --Excirial 09:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: my updates on the outdated version. Thanks for your helpful comments. I will keep my eye on it, and update when the current edit-revert-edit quietens down as a concensus is reached.--Repton3 08:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Strictly

Hi there, thanks for adding the notice on the SCD Series 5 section about not updating the results table till after the results have been broadcast. I noticed that somebody had done it again after my earlier reversion, but you got to the revert before I did! --Whoosher 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fed up with anonymous users adding the results - it spoils the show for me (and other viewers). Unfortunately I missed the main show last night, and so wanted to watch the results show to catch up. I'm pretty peeved about it, and have added a rather threatening message to the main Strictly page regarding it. I'd quite like to get it semi-protected, but I bet it won't get approved. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been a hotly debated issue. Maybe you want to read an essay on it that has been quoted quite a bit: WP:SPOILER. Martijn Hoekstra 19:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Martijn. Not really a simple answer then? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Strictly tables

Thanks for the tip. I just followed the "how to make a table" procedure, which said to use "font color" rather than "span", but I will use "span" where possible from now on! They look better and clearer with red text, don't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muinimula (talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is this procedure? As I mentioned, the font tag is deprecated in favour of other methods (span is one of them, alternatively you could use | style="color: red" || before the column requiring the colour change. Yes, it is certainly more obvious with the red colour - my only issue with it could be people who are colour-blind being unable to distinguish between entries. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

? Did you read my summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gmail&diff=172278933&oldid=172278392 Dude! Mineralè (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume you actually mean this edit. Yes, I did read your summary but didn't find it, or your edits, particularly helpful. The notices are there to stop people "rounding up" or "changing" the size incorrectly, as you did in your edit. According to my Gmail account, it is in fact 5026MB. Yes, this is over 5GB (if you take GB = 1000MB) but it is not 5GiB (1024MiB = 1GiB), and most people incorrectly assume GB to be 1024MB. It should be left as over 5000MB (then that is consistent with what Gmail reports officially). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain the template you left on my talk page then? I don't appreciate people like you trying to score up their edit counts. Not only were you being unproductive, but you wasted my time as well while I edited the article. The article is not the place to have discussion, there's the talk page for that. It should be consistent with the ways other articles list the size for other web mail providers. Mineralè (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the template I left there - I selected the wrong template level by mistake. And I am not trying to "score up" my edit count, I am merely trying to keep Wikipedia factual. The discussion isn't taking place in the article - the comments are there to attempt to redirect editors to the talk page so they can see the discussion about how we are managing the size change. Gmail is unique in the sense that the size of it is changing rapidly, so a different approach has to be taken to managing how we modify the size on the article. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Asterix and the Vikings

Watch the movie. There is a character who looks exactly like the Pidgin logo, and this character is an instant messenger. It is clear they got the logo from there.--Sonjaaa (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but I couldn't find any official documentation stating that. That is why I removed it from the article. If you can find any official word stating that that is where they got the logo from, then you are very welcome to cite it on the page. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Component charts"

Hi, the Itunes chart isn't really ment to be included unless it has not charted on the main chart [1]. About the UK Download Chart, a while ago I asked an administrator about if it was counted as a component chart [2] but they said it is. Lillygirl (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fedora

Did another quick skim of the article, as requested. The lead still needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD to ensure that every major point in the article is covered. For example, although the article discusses many of the cores in detail, only number 8 is discussed in the lead. There are still a few examples of inappropriate one-two sentence paragraphs (in the lead, first paragraph of Last two cores, last paragraph of Fedora 8, maybe some more). There's no point in including the Fedora on PlayStation 3 section if you're not going to include at least a three sentence cited summary of of the main article, so I suggest that you do that. The citations, at least, look a lot better than when I first reviewed the article. If you address all of these concerns, it will be at least fair game for a GA Review. Can't promise that it will pass, that depends on the nominator usually, but it will stand a fighting chance. Cheers, CP 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting the whole of my edits. (GNU / Linux)

you may not like that I added the word GNU and you may like to use just Linux. You may ask first to use then only GNU a few times but you should not delete everything I did which was just to make a point especially for beginners who search for info in wikipedia that the system they are trying to get information on is in fact a GNU system with a kernel called Linux. what is the problem with you and with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightedbulb (talk • contribs) 11:39, 29 November 2007

It is far more confusing to prepend GNU to everything that has the word Linux in it, especially since the articles you changed are entitled "Linux" and "Comparison of Linux distributions". If a newcomer comes to the article, and see GNU/Linux mentioned everywhere, they are going to be far more confused than if they just say Linux. That and Linux is a far more common name (even if it isn't technically correct). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok JGXenite, so I understand your point that you undid everything I added because YOU think that it is easier just to use the word "Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux". (It's one extra syllable). Not very long time ago I was just a beginner trying to understand what "Linux" is and how to make it work. In fact using the just word "Linux" to refer to the whole operating system is wrong because as I said linux is just a kernel which is a software no one ever really deals with directly on his PC. Most of users just spend their time using other software that is called GNU and that is the intellectual property of the Free Software Foundation. Not because everybody wrongly calls the entire system "Linux" makes it right or legitimate. The purpose of the encyclopedia should be to tell always the truth and at least give credit to the creators of the software which are really doing something useful. No user is interested in a "kernel" and I think no one who has heard about the GNU/Linux system does. what is interesting is the things we can do with the powerful software available that comes mainly from GNU of the Free Software Foundation. There at the FSF we will always find software we can use and modify to our needs. Linux is just a kernel that one can not even add or delete anything because that is the sole privilege of Linus Torvalds a guy that let greed for money led him to take the credit for the creation of GNU software included in the whole system. The kernel was not even free at first and it is not free software even today.

If you appreciate the GNU/Linux system and want it to continue to grow we should teach beginners where the power of the system comes from and how to use it. It does not come from a linux website but from the www.gnu.org and the www.fsf.org

The day is coming when even the linux kernel will be kicked off. Will you continue to call the entire system with a new kernel system "linux" then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightedbulb (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 November 2007

Please do not pretend to think that you know me. I know what GNU and FSF is. I do not claim to completely understand the differences between "Linux" and "GNU/Linux", but they seem to be mostly pedantic points that do nothing but confuse the newcomers to the community.

GNU has contributed a lot of software to Linux, I'm not disputing that, but they are not the sole owners of every piece of software that has been contributed to Linux. Have you read the GNU/Linux naming controversy article by the way? You claim that Linus is trying to get all the credit, but it appears that Stallman and the FSF/GNU are trying to claim the credit if we use GNU/Linux. While I feel that it is right to attribute to the GNU what they have developed, I feel that calling it GNU/Linux gives them overriding credit over everyone else who has developed software for Linux. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lighted, please don't use Wikipedia to make a point. GNU/Linux may be more correct than Linux, or X/GNU/Linux, or even just GNU may be more correct than Linux. The far more common term is Linux. Wikipedia uses the more common term for clarity. The linux template box links the naming controvercy. The article on Linux distros clearly indicates that the linux kernel is just part of a distro. The fact is, that the term 'Linux' is generaly used for all systems that use the Linux kernel. When I look at what you write, "There at the FSF we will always find software we can use and modify to our needs. Linux is just a kernel that one can not even add or delete anything because that is the sole privilege of Linus Torvalds a guy that let greed for money led him to take the credit for the creation of GNU software included in the whole system. The kernel was not even free at first and it is not free software even today.", it seems that your edits are all about fighting for the use of the term GNU/Linux, and not about writing a better encyclopedia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks

i'm pretty new to this so thanks x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxfabmelissaxx (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. Don't mind helping out with the newbies :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Comment you sent me

what do you mean???

It got to 93 in the download chart, but it is not yet out, therefore you can't put it under the uk singles chart as it isn't out yet!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonni Boi (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is in the official charts - see here. As I said, the Download Chart feeds into the main singles chart. Just because it isn't in the Top 40, doesn't mean it isn't in the Singles Chart. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:JGXenite JHA 20060206.JPG

Hi James. I've now deleted this image as per your request. Adambro 22:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

SCD result

Excuse me, but I knew the result to who went out of strictly come dancing before it was aired, I wasn't aware that you weren't allowed to post spoilers on this site because it is merely an information site. I hardly see this as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.95.179 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the general gist was not to include the results beforehand. It is impossible for anyone (except those who were at the recording) to verify the result, and that goes against the Wikipedia verifiability policy. That, and it spoils the show for those viewers who come to the site beforehand (or who monitor articles) and have to see the results before it has been shown. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Facebook

The comment I deleted could probably be moved to the "Other uses of profile information" section of Facebook's page. Facebook has many valid and topical "Privacy Concerns," but the antics of one bank's intern didn't seem particularly relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mierdaan (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I don't think your comment made that clear, hence my reverting it and warning you about it. Sorry for the confusion. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sheffield Universities Dancesport

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sheffield Universities Dancesport, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheffield Universities Dancesport. Thank you. Adambro (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Graham Norton tape dates

Hi Jam, it's me again. I just wanted to ask your opinion. I went on SROaudiences the company responsible for tickets, and I noticed that for the ticket information there is only one date left for next week. Now if there are only two shows left to air and only one tape date left, is that reliable.? http://www.sroaudiences.com/ 69.28.232.224 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)samusek2

Um, I don't think so really. That is probably original research since you are deducing from the provided information what is going to happen. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's too bad this conversation didn't happen last week. That site would have had the dates mentioned, but the time has passed. I know that the show was taped earlier but there is no, what you would call "reliable" sources, just things that I have read on forums from people who have went. This is what is confusing for me about Wikipedia.

Edit: I just noticed this. Radiotimes and BBC have the Christmas special airing on Boxing Day in the UK however in the States, it's airing on BBCAmerica on the 23rd before Christmas. http://www.bbcamerica.com/tvschedule.jsp?showsList=231

Thanks for the help. 69.28.232.224 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)samusek2

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, forums don't count as reliable evidence I'm afraid. You could try the Internet Archive to see if it has copies of the old pages, and then you could possibly use them as evidence. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

American English Userbox

Hi. I loved your "American English" userbox so much that I've copied it and placed it on my user page. Very good!! ~~ [Jam][talk] 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi No problem on using the box. Fkmd (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Girls Aloud

Hi. I've just watched the Friday Night Project and at no point did Girls Aloud explicitly say that Can't Speak French was their next single. Yes, they performed it, but that does not constitute it being the next single. Unless you can cite a reliable source, it should be left as Control of the Knife. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

---

They never said that they'd release Control of the Knife, so why should it be left as that. Can't Speak French would be their next single if they performed it, one would think. Surely if they were to release CofK then they would have performed that instead to promote?

And also Justin said (talking about what's coming up after the break)..."And the girls will be performing their next single."

So I presume it's official.Peterwill 22:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. To avoid any further problems, as there is now conflicting evidence but nothing official, I have removed all reference to either "Control of the Knife" or "Can't Speak French" as the next single on all Girls Aloud pages. I will leave it as that until it is officially announced by either Girls Aloud or their management (and is verifiable) before I alter anything further. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Idea :) Peterwill 15:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield station platform

I'll have to wait until I go back to work in the new year to verify the exact details of the polystyrene core. I've seen it on a drawing from the refurb works. The other issue is how I 'prove' the fact as the drawing belongs to my work and are not on the internet. Any ideas? Merry Christmas Talltim (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here but unless the fact can be verified by the public then it can't be included since otherwise anyone could claim anything. Adambro (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but at the same time there are no facts that can be verified by everyone. If I had written a published book that contained a fact that I had learned from a priveleged source (such as a private construction drawing) this presumably could be considered a source yet, the amount of proof is the same?Talltim (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If you write a book, doesn't that need to be approved by external sources? Presumably if they thought that something included in it didn't make sense, that would be flagged up before it was published (if they knew what they were talking about). Of course, just because a fact has been cited here from a "reliable" source doesn't mean someone in the know can't remove it if they suspect it is nonsense. I should point out that I don't dispute that the platform may be made of a polystyrene core - it just isn't common knowledge (as far as I'm aware anyway) so therefore would really need citing. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well not every book editor\publisher knows all the facts in an author's work (if it was all common knowledge the book would be bit a pointless!) However I will try to A: find out the exact details, B: find another source/see if I can make mine public. Give it to mid Jan and delete if I haven't managed to?Talltim (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, there are two issues here. Firstly, material should be cited using verifiable sources but also reliable sources. The next problem is with publishing any information you find. From all this I'd suggest that you really need to find another source. Adambro (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify for me (it may sound like I'm trolling, but I'm genuinely interested and not that up on wiki policies about stuff like this). Is an engineering drawing a reliable source? Does information that is available through a freedom of information request count as verifiable?Talltim (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm quite happy to leave it there for the time being until a source is found to back up your suggestion. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll see what I can do and remove if I can't back it upTalltim (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC) And now to bed;-)

Sounds like a plan (both bits!) I'm knackered after a hard day of re-installing Windows and Linux... that, and Christmas Day festivities too :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

87.97.44.82

Thank gawd they've finally been blocked - might get some peace now! ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

---

No kidding...I don't "violate" WP:3RR for many vandals...that guy was hell-bent!--CastAStone/^/(talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that rule... but yeh, that person was bleeding annoying! I was going around my admin "friends" to see if I could find anyone to deal with them. Thankfully your AIV went through in time :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm okay - they make an exception for obvious vandalism.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 20:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you will be :). Cheers for helping out. I was slightly concerned when my AIV didn't go through (wondered if there was something up with Twinkle) but then I saw that you had put one in already. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bond/bond

Hi. Considering that pretty much every reference to do with "bond" has the lowercase "b" (for the reason mentioned in the article), shouldn't we honour that here? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---

No. As this is an encyclopedia, correct English is used instead of stylistic preference. As the Bond is the name of a band, it is capitalised. See WP:MOS. There is a more specific link also, which I will hunt down for you. Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Here ya go. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)