User talk:UC Bill/Archive1

INP (database)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of INP (database), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~inp/inpdocs/intro.inp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

UC Berkeley College of Chemistry et al.

Articles for deletion has nothing to do with page renaming. If you wanted these pages moved, take it to Requested Moves. I've closed the deletion discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, someone already re-named them per your request. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The WP:AFD page didn't mention or link to that other page (that I see) and I had thought the procedure was the same as with WP:CFD which I believe does cover renamings. I also notice that I now have the move tab so I guess I'm through my probationary period and will just take care of such things myself, from now on. Thanks! --UC Bill (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the UC wikiproject!

Welcome!

Hello, UC Bill, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Thanks for your work on the UC wikiproject! Amerique^dialectics 19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Do you really feel that the {{WikiProject University of California}} tag is appropriate for a category page. The tag was designed for articles and provides a bunch of worthless garbage when applied to a category page. If there is value in tagging category pages (and there may be) then it should be done with a separate tag that is designed for categories. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Update: actually you did use the correct tag, just failed to use it correctly. I corrected the tag usage see Category:Scripps Institution of Oceanography Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly advice. I have fixed the tags on the remaining categories that I had previously tagged incorrectly and which you had not already fixed. --UC Bill (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the help with Berkeley oak grove controversy, I was starting to get burned out dealing with all the recent edits and issues! Your help in working through it is really appreciated! --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

UCB images

Were you aware that there is a Category:University of California on Commons? I noticed that the images you uploaded had not been categorized, so I added them to this category. Since you seem to be boing a lot of work on Cal articles, I thought I'd bring this image collection to your attention. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Thanks! --UC_Bill (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And I started an article on William A. Clemens Jr., a former UCMP director. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

Note that date autoformatting (wikilinking of full dates) is now deprecated, per MOS:SYL. Thus articles are being gradually changed to not use them. Yes, this is a big change that hasn't gotten much publicity, and that many editors are not aware of yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I hadn't heard about that, and am planning to completely ignore it. That has to be the stupidest decision I've seen in a while, and have no doubt it will be changed back soon enough (and I may help to do so.) Autoformatting of dates is one of the most useful features on Wikipedia, since it prevents a lot of pointless edit-warring on date formats. In fact, the autoformatting should be extended to eliminate the BC/BCE dispute as well.

Date autoformatting is not used by most readers, so it solves nothing. The only good result is supressing date-warring by those editors who have selected a date presentation preference. It strikes me as amazing that editors who care enough about dates to edit-war about them (and I'm not suggesting you are one of those editors) would conceal date inconsistencies within an article by selecting a preference. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about the date autoformatting and the script I have been using. Can you please enlighten me as to any errors I have made in using the script? I am aware that it doesn't handle date ranges properly, and there are other changes which may not be correct, which is why I check every edit that the script makes personally. If you have a problem with the MOS, then the issues belong there rather than with the editors trying to implement it. If the MOS changes to re-advocate date linking, I will be glad to help reinstate the links. The issue with the date autoformatting (and any further extensions) is that very few people actually see what you and I can see. Try turning your date preference off for 24 hours, and see what others see. It is all about consistency, without advocating US or international preferences.

I've not been changing them to one preference or another, and have chosen the date style according to the article in question. –MDCollins (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I inadvertently implied that you were making mistakes. When I was leaving some comments for Tony1 I noticed a number of messages on his talk page about errors while he was using the script, so I mentioned those errors (which I believed were simply bugs in the script, rather than user error) when I left a message on your talk page. My concern isn't with the date format used, but with the fact that dates are being unlinked. I think there are better ways to deal with the problems with the date autoformatting feature, and that unlinking the dates at this point is premature. Feel free to change the format as you deem appropriate, but I would request that you not unlink the dates themselves for now. --UC_Bill (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

patch

I commented at Bugzilla before reading your message on my talk page. So the patch, in effect, nullifies autoformatting? Can I ask, then, whether it will allow date ranges to be expressed in the preferred form (September 19–23, 2006)?

I'm a little confused as to your objectives here, having fought so vigorously against the removal of DA mark-up. Is it entirely a matter of preserving the mark-up for some future system that works better than the discredited DA system we've endured since 2003? Tony (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking with regards to "preferred form" — the patch would cause the WP software to strip out the links in non-piped non-prefixed linked dates, and otherwise leave them as-is in whatever format they're already in... except for the commas (I left in the part of the code that adds in missing commas in formats that normally use them, mostly because it seemed like a good idea to have that anyway.)

As to my motives, yes part of it is to leave the link syntax in place because it's easier to parse if we want to replace the links at some point with some other kind of markup (either a template-based solution or one involving xml/html markup that can be used with javascript) and also because if it turns out that we want to keep DA (which I both suspect and hope we will, once more editors become aware of the issue) then it's easier to uninstall a patch than to re-link thousands of articles.

Lastly, I've basically been trying to call a WP:TRUCE with you and ask you to stop unlinking (and encouraging others to unlink) while we discuss this. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong and a majority of editors want DA turned off — but I want concrete statistics and input from a broad range of editors to answer that question, not a poll conducted by you and your friends on a page that most editors never go to. By continuing to unlink and refusing to discuss this any further, you're basically being a WP:DICK and pissing me off, while I've been putting in a good chunk of time to produce patch after patch that takes into account your concerns. Other editors have been spending days doing analysis of database dumps to gather data related to this issue.

Please just hold off for a short time, so that we can deal with this in a constructive manner. I promise you I'm not trying to "stall" your move for reform; I just have some concerns that — if they are addressed — will go a long way toward building the broader consensus you need in order to settle this matter once and for all. --UC_Bill (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How long is "a short time"? What on earth will your stats allow to be determined? If I could know that, I might be more sympathetic. At the moment, methinks the stats involve the possibility of retaining some kind of computerised DA; or would it involve in effect a switching off of DA throughout WP, even where square brackets remain? If the latter, how are stats involved? Tony (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A short time is as long as it takes to have a reasonable discussion on this, without the pressure of you unlinking the entire time the discussion takes place. That's bad faith. I've already explained the stats (which are not "mine" — Sapphic is generating them, I only generated the first round because I thought you'd pissed her off so much that she was done with helping out) and won't do so again. I'm sick of trying to discuss this with you and wish you'd just leave WP entirely, because you're a menace who contributes nothing, only complaints. Go away, don't bother talking to me anymore. --UC_Bill (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

date type of template

Hi - I'm interesting in your comments on User:Dmadeo/DA which I've been noodling with. Take a look if you're interested, please leave brief, civil and constructive feedback if you'd like. I think it addresses all the concerns I've seen brought up, but I could use some other opinions before I point it out to a larger audience at MOSNUM Thanks dm (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments - I'm travelling so will be offline for a day or two dm (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I responded to your point at User:Dmadeo/DA, I think it was a good one and I suggested a compromise. I'll be posting at MOSNUM soon... dm (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

your turn to chill

you once told me to chill, and I appreciated it. Now it's your turn. Yes, Tony1 is being a real trou du cul but just ignore him. I'll take care of the stats (should be done running tonight) so don't worry. Go relax. --Sapphic (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)