User talk:Neonumbers

Welcome!

Hello, Neonumbers, 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 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! 

welcome to talk to me! english /chinese --Vipuser 08:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point about the regulation basketball positions. My point is saying "regulation" is that a lot of basketball games, i.e. pick-up games, don't have any positions at all, so it is misleading to say that the positions are a characteristic of all basketball. Maybe we could say something else: "standard basketball" maybe? - Nat Krause 14:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed you recently added your votes to this page. I'd like to point out that the poll in question was closed a long time ago (as stated at the top) so adding new votes is not really useful at this point. If there is going to be a new poll about this, it will be prominently displayed at the village pump. Radiant_* 08:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

It would be wise to create a separate page for discussions about the disambiguation templates; whether it should be a subpage of Wikipedia:Disambiguation or, as User:Rick Block suggested, part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, or somewhere else (such as a WikiProject), I don't know (or I would have boldly created it myself. I'll put a note on Rick Block's talk page too. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to tell you (as this page is linked to from three of your sub-pages) that contraction (mathematics) has been moved to tensor contraction, but the redirect goes to the disambiguation page contraction because of the disambiguation request on it beforehand. User talk:Neonumbers/Neonumbers 10:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know. I will keep that in mind. Oleg Alexandrov 14:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've created a draft project at Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Style for comment. I'll announce it on Village Pump, but I'm directly notifying people who have commented lately. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

The voting period expired on Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Style, and it's 8-3 (8-4 if you count "strong oppose" as 2). That's a solid majority, but a pretty small voting population. Think we can go live with only 11 votes? I haven't done anything about closing the vote.

I'm about to reformat my hard drive and reinstall my system (to get Tiger to install) so if things go badly, I may be offline for a few days. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank YOU for getting the ball rolling on this dab style page (now pretentiously called Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)). You got it started; I just took it up and ran with it.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I de-archived a discussion which started yesterday, since the person who wrote it might be surprised to find they'd been archived so quickly.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before you spend too much more time tweaking Wikipedia:Disambiguation to correspond to the new MOS, take a look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Wahoofive, a total rewrite I've been working on. I want to finish my own edits before I announce it to the world, but I'm offering you a sneak preview.—Wahoofive (talk) 17:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, on the face of it, I'd say that it would probably be best to keep a separate article for each position, then we can have a real short disambiguationy page with one or two sentences on each position. That page would also be the place if somebody wants to write generally about position theory, for instance the question of why basketball developed positions in the first place rather than just having a bunch of 7-footers on the floor together. - Nat Krause 10:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Good point on the Tsushima Island Move Debate on 'Manual of Style', Tho' the kittens truly been at the ball of yarn on this one. AT LEAST two juveniles have put this TINY arty through a revert war going 300+ changes since 13 May, and I doubt the article grew 25% in that period. Hope you noticed the archieved previous talk page — this one was 36 pages off the laser printer before I intervened with a clarification of my innocent edit. THAT set off the latest round of the edit war and brought the name dipute to a head, so I guess even mistakes have a silver lining... At least with so much attention we ought to be able to stabilize the article and stop the revert war. So I'm mediatiting for not checking the history and the talk of arty... Call it getting mugged for tripping while trying to flee! Or Penance. Sigh!
  • Just out of curiosity, how did you happen 'by' to comment? (I'd contacted a fair number of people listed on the Talk and Article pages over the last month, but your name didn't ring a bell. Is there 'Buzz' about this? Good, I hope so. This is a waste of time, talent and effort! [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 03:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You left a post on the Talk:Tsushima Islands page on the 20th, indicating you might be from New Zealand. If I'm wrong, as you said: "Ignore me completely!" <G> In the event I understood you correct, a small article needs a little input on the armed forces of your country. Military which I followed out of curiosity and expanded some this morning. Add to it where you will, but the section I bring to you for attention is near the bottom, where by country the armed forces are listed by their correct article title, which hopefully is also their proper names! Pass it on if you know someone whose country isn't yet represented. (Most!) Thanks for reading my chain letter <G>! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input on Military, yes, it is short, and was just taken off stub status when 'I happened by', so to speak and added about a third of it. Just thought to give it some attention when I ran across someone who might add five minutes text. I concur that the content on the bottom will in the long run have to (or at least should probably be) eventually split out into it's own article space, but for the nonce, until that section grows long, I see no pressing need. Is there one? I'm still pretty new and green here.
• If you have no problem, I'll post your comments on the talk page, with my concurrence... someone will eventually come along with time and talent to do it, once it's big enough. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
  • Re: Lists, I think (but am not sure) are generally avoided in the middle of articles.... Relevant pages are Wikipedia:List, Wikipedia:Lists (embedded lists) and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Hope this helps. Neonumbers 5 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
  • Thanks Neonumbers/Mgm. This isn't something I think of as my project, I was just doing a fly-by edit. Agree with the length of list issue, but one's got to be built somewhere, and the stub nature of this article gives one reason to visit, and context to add to the list. Once there is sufficient content for a stand-alone list, I figured someone would move it. Aside from 'propriety', it makes no sense now though someone did add significant 'See Also' and 'Additonal Reading' blocks over the weekend.
• btw- The Move Talk:Tsushima Islands issue is being forced to a final vote. Apparently the prior was just a qualifier of some kind. At least the talk page has been archieved to load reasonably fast! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)

---

Come to my userpage!--Yo Mama 5000 6 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

Please do not use TOCright template more than absolutely necessary. Moving content table away from the linear flow destroys reading experience typical reader here is used to. There are only few circumstances TOCright improves an article. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 20:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The {{TOCright}} had caused very heated debate of WP:TFD. Opinions of people were strong on both sides and at the end no resolution was reached and template was let to stay. Discussions what to say in style guidelines continue. Pavel Vozenilek 15:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I noticed you archived Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). How is that done? I want to do the same with my user talk page, but haven't quite figured out the procedure. Is it as simple as just moving the page to the same name with /archive after it, or is there some magic archive tool you're supposed to use? --RoySmith 14:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just read what you wrote about the MoS. Wow! You are 100%, absolutely, correct. An excellent essay. Thanks for writing it. --RoySmith 13:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

You are right, this is because of the cascading style sheets. This is a FIFO (First In First Out) feature: the closer to the element overrides the others. here, a (link) override ll (list element).

I simply didn't thought about font. I'm use to XHTML. My God, when will Wikipedia implement proper (X)HTML… :-(

Thank you, this is what I was looking for.

Reply to David Latapie 23:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your input would be useful at Talk:AM where the wikilinks and other non-MoS:DP content is being added back by User:Tobias Conradi. Thanks/wangi 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd love to hear your reasoning. :-) And yes, I am pedandic! lol Tedernst | talk 14:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia_talk:Command-line_examples

The talk page did not copy when I moved the page, so I just copied its contents—six months ago. There must have been a bug in the MediaWiki software or something.—Kbolino 20:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

There is none. There was no concensus and no survey. In fact, the page was ignored before its promotion and has been largely ignored since. I don't want to seem like I am on the defensive, because frankly I don't want to fight with anyone about anything here. I was hoping for some sort of standard to be established, for the purposes outlined in the article, but as few actually follow any sort of guidelines, the page doesn't much matter.—Kbolino 00:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the invite, but i gave up on this one months ago. too much vandalism and verbosity. good luck. Sfahey 22:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there is a Welcome for you on your WS talk page. Kind regards. 212.248.149.161 13:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for the message -- the NCEA page does seems to suffer a lot from having been edited by too many people with opinions, and less grasp of the background to the educational debates involved. Some of the data is fairly dubious (references would be nice). Where does the pass = 46% under the old system data come from btw? Anecdotal evidence suggests that passing marks for maths exams (the only ones I know about) went as low as 19% in the past, and were typically well below 50%. But that's just somethng I was told over coffee one day at work. Anyway have a good new year,Neil Leslie 10:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ok it might look neat, but you have a small problem - there at least 3 Franklin Rivers in Australia, and removing all the clutter may be great for aesthetics but not very good for qualifiers within the disambigSatuSuro 14:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, I did not mean to demean your good work, although I do think alpha order of headings rather than "people" first, but that's irrelevent. I have just changed the qualifier to tasmania, as rivers in australia are generally a mess, and it is almost certain there are no article for the others. Keep up the good work, anyone who cleans up disambigs deserves something better than barnstars - so many are either US centric or a mess! Best Wishes SatuSuro 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry forgot to point out that the writers of the Franklin Dam article were more engrossed in that article so the actual franklin river article was neglected, hence the qualifiers that I had put in the dab (and which you had moved) were unlikely to have been put in ( I think you asked how come one that one). What part of NZ are you from? I have been meaning to check west coast south island articles, as I have started quite a few to do with west coast tassie although I now live in WA.... Once again SatuSuro 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply, I havent had time to check west coast south island things, but when I do... But I do think the more disambig cleanups the better, the messy ones give wiki a very bad first impression for some if they come across some of the dogs breakfasts (apologies to the dogs of course) that I have seen! Admittedly when I used to first jump in to dab pages, I didnt even realise that there were manual of style rules for them, so somewhere there in the ether are some I;ll have to go back and see whether theyre in need of fixups! SatuSuro 08:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain the rationale behind replacing the links to each country's basketball team with a link to the country in Basketball World Championship 2006 ?? I agree that the red-link countries are better-off with something to point to; but, for the others, it seems (to me anyway) that the team link is more appropriate. In a link about the NBA, we wouldn't link to Utah any time the Jazz were mentioned, right? Neier 12:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I figured it was something like that. Neier 09:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is in regard to this change you made.

It seems that this link is appropriate, as can be seen on the external links style guide. If an article such as Age of Mythology includes "fansites" in the external links (many of them consisting of guides/discussions/cheats based around the game), then I don't see why this article shouldn't.

Obviously you watch that article like a hawk, so I won't go and revert your edit straight away.

--219.88.204.254 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is yet another proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Feel free to express your views on it. Thanks. bobblewik 15:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I dont know if you've noticed this or not, but pretty much every New Zealand article is written in something that would be classified as New Zealand english. I don't usually follow up on clean-up tags, as it's pretty much a dead end. The articles are re-written, yet still maintain a New Zealand slang that does not conform with international "wiki" standards, or even international grammer standards. But, ZM looks pretty good. Alot of work has obviouslly been done since I placed that tag.--Matt von Furrie 11:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

After a succession of blocks by numerous admins over the last month, User:Hganesan has returned yet again to Steve Nash and Kobe Bryant. I don't want to waste a bunch of time edit warring with him again, so I'm instead going to try a new tactic. I'd like to get as many NBA editors as possible together on this, so that we can make a single unified push to the appropriate admins. I am at a loss for other tactics we can use to avoid his continued attempts to push his agenda and his unwillingness to compromise. Please contact me at User talk:Simishag if you're interested in helping out. Thanks. Simishag 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I don't know if you are aware of my tool to reduce unnecessary links to solitary months/years.

You only need a single click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. If you want to use it, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to the bottom of User:Neonumbers/monobook.js. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work.

Please feel free try it out. It also has a 'units' tab. Regards. bobblewik 00:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You removed the New Zealand section, saying you will put detail on the talk page. However, 4 minutes have gone and you didn't put any info on the talk page. Georgia guy 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had thought that the section on regional date formats was quite plain, but it seems that it's being interpreted in two different ways and causing angst amongst editors, when really we should all be working in co-operation. Leveraging existing consensus to make the path plainer seems to me to be the way to go, and I'm hoping that we can make some progress and have everybody happy. With date formats, we can't please everybody, but at least we should be able to come to some agreement we can all live with. --Jumbo 11:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Do you have a blank version the pic? Without the labels? --Howard the Duck 04:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you upload it here? I'm planning to create a template that'll display the starting 5 of a team. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've contemplated on using Paint before but I figured you may have a blank file. I'll be doing what you've said. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 08:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Neo—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the thanks. I'm only really following your example, however. So you should take that as a compliment. Cheers, Limegreen 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for archiving Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation - it was getting pretty massive! -- Natalya 17:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to rv some (not all) of your changes to Base. I've been dabing links to Base all year, and have a good idea what's needed here. Some of the terms you took out are often linked from other pages, and need to be here. Simon12 02:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. The one I'm not happy about is the "military base" entry. There should be a separate entry for a non-military base, but I'm not sure how to best do it and keep in style. Let me know if there're any of my changes you disagree with. Oh, and thanks for cleaning up the page. I should have said that in my first note above! Simon12 03:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. Simon12 03:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Neo,

I recently discovered the existing effort to repair links to disambiguation pages and was thinking of this possible solution. Since it occurred to me late in the night and since (this morning) I'm still before my cup of coffee please take it with caution, but the basic idea is:

• it seems to me that the reason why links to dab pages creep into articles is that many editors think to wikilink a term for users' benefit but it doesn't occur to them that it may have several meanings (and they don't follow the resulting link). Now, I think this can only occur accidentally for pages which don't carry "(disambiguation)" in the name

That is correct.

• the reason why some disambiguation pages don't have "(disambiguation)" in the name is that users are unlikely to search for something containing that string. But lookup is a different context than article text.

The reason why some disambiguation pages don't have "disambiguation" in their name is that it is desirable to keep page names simpler rather than detailed. The ones that don't have "disambiguation" in their name are known as generic topic dab pages, and that is where no meaning is considered to be the "primary" meaning. It has nothing to do with searching or linking.

OK. But apart from the (arguable) "shorter is better/simpler" argument, we could agree to add "(disambiguation)" to their name, couldn't we?

We could; and this has been proposed before, but it was defeated. Personally, I think it would be a little disconcerting (to one unfamiliar to the system) to type in something and arrive at a page with "(disambiguation)" fixed to the end of it — the content's not exactly what you were looking for, and the page title isn't the same either! Keeping the page title there at least provides some evidence that this is what was meant to happen. That's just my opinion though.

So my idea is:

• prohibit creating two pages which are named xyz and xyz (disambiguation): if an editor attempts to create the former while the latter exists a warning informs him to contribute to xyz (disambiguation) instead; conversely, if xyz exists and you add a disambiguation tag the software will only commit the changes if you *contextually* move the page to xyz (disambiguation).

This wouldn't work for the primary topic dab pages, where there is a primary meaning, because in this case, they do co-exist. It would imply the abolishment of primary dab pages (which will encounter opposition).

Unfortunately pretty much everything here seems to encounter opposition :-( Sometimes it looks like people (not you) want to find contrary reasons to everything just to show their "cleverness". As in all projects though, we should keep our goal in mind, which is to write a *high quality* encyclopedia. Since dangling links aren't quite what I'd include in the characteristics of a professional work we should at least acknowledge the problem and try to find a solution. Without claiming that mine is _the_ solution, I think its benefits outweigh the proven cons of the current situation.

Yes, though it is also true that people's priorities and ideals differ. That's where we tend to get disagreement, I guess.

• a search/go for xyz will first look for xyz then (if the former isn't found) xyz (disambiguation), always. In addition "search" (but not "go") would continue as usual.

Remember that redirects exist for a purpose.

Yes, but does this conflict with my idea?

No, it just provides a simpler (arguably) way of going about it.

What do you think? —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 09:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let me tell you about my interpretation of the current convention. In the case of generic topics, all links to the disambiguation page are taken to be in error. Where a link is intended to point at a disambiguation page, it points to "Topic name (disambiguation)", which is a redirect to "Topic name", so that it is clear that the link is intentional.

In the case of primary topics, no redirects are needed (naturally, the process is somewhat messier, because links to the primary topic are not necessarily automatically in error, though links in error are relatively few here because it is, after all, a primary topic).

There have been proposals in the past to abolish primary topics, but all unsuccessful because it has always been found that the need to recognise that, for example, London just about always means the capital of the UK and very rarely a city in Ohio, outweighs any implication with linking.

I must admit I'm not very experienced with fixing links to disambiguation pages, because I very rarely take part in that effort. Neonumbers 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

:-) I tried to help a bit, lately. But as for many repetitive fixes we should either automate them or prevent the errors to happen in the first place. Many times Wikipedia manages to cope with very badly designed software features thanks to the enormous number of contributors it has; that doesn't mean, though, that those contributors couldn't use their time in a more productive way than fixing silly errors, typos and the like. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 11:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yea, some software feature to help us with this would be really useful (if it was easier, I might take part in it). But remember that Wikipedia has pushed the MediaWiki software to its limits — I'm sure you're aware that the software came first, and disambiguation pages didn't exist back then — though I'm not saying that some nice software couldn't go astray.

I must admit, I don't quite fully understand how this solution solves the problem. Is the problem that links to disambiguation pages exist, or that they're hard to fix? We'll never solve the first case for good (newbies will always come along and pop in misplaced links).

I don't claim to be an expert, but from what I've heard (from others), it makes it much easier if there's a page for which all links to it can be assumed to be erroneous. For generic dab pages, it's the generic dab page, as I've explained. For the primary topic dab pages, there isn't really such a page, I guess (hence a problem?).

Please tell me a bit more about the situation/problem. As I say, I'm not active in this part of the project, and I'm certainly no expert on this part of it either. I'm interested to know, though. Neonumbers 11:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You tagged the disambig page Access for cleanup. What, in particular, do you feel needs cleanup on that page? Thanks —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did my best to address the problems with the page, and removed the cleanup tag. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 17:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

please stop. The reason why $x and $x bill must be different is that $x could mean coin.

And the original verbose disambig may be long, but it covers everything the list doesn't cover. The list is not exhaustive. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

My primary concern is that people tend to think of $ as USD, AUD, or CAD, where $20 would be a bill at least for a very long time. But this encyclopedia has the responsibility of providing a global view. From your reply, I guess you would agree. I think redirecting $x bill to $x may be a good idea to reduce duplicated info. As to what to put in the new $x articles, I'd like them to be disambig pages. But not every thing $x may refer to has an article. For example, there's no article for HK$2. That is why I provided the dollar and peso nav boxes below. And I still feel that the verbose explanation was necessary to disambiguate. If WP:MOSDAB must be abode, then I'll just revert and remove the {{disambig}} tag. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Btw, please take a look at User:Chochopk/Note if you haven't. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. Dollar sign may be a resource to you too. I will review your new disambig page too. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Normally when A→B, and you want to reverse the redirect and make B→A, the reason for an admin intervention is that the old history of B (where the old content was), will be come history of A (the new true article). In our case, we're merely reverting $x from a redirect to "$x bill" to what it was, albeit with some wording change. The history of $x is still under $x. I don't see a problem with direct editing. You don't need to cut and paste from $x bill, becuase $x bill is written for bills only. You can start with the latest version of $x before being a redirect. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It looks great. I fully reverted $2 and redirect $1 bill to the same destination as $1 (I'd like to make $1 like any other $x, but $1 is a protected redirect for technical reason). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your effort of making a list that is exhaustive, and contains nothing more than necessary. It is like the revision before mine, except that it's on all denominations now. I debated about this. One reason to go for my revision (2 nav boxes, a generic yet accurate description, a link to dollar sign) is that the just-enough-exhaustive list is hard to maintain. Zimbabwe is going through hyperinflation now. The denomination line up may change any time. These pages are not likely the pages that editors watch. And it is easy to make mistake for human when enumerating the list. I made changes to $2 and $5, and I cannot guarantee they're 100% correct now.

I'm not sure why you move the HK coin and banknote articles. I suspect it is for consistency. But that is just the tip of an iceberg. The problem is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Coin and banknote article naming scheme (long over due topic). I will do something about them in the coming weeks. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neo,

You speak as a person intimately involved with dab policy. I gether your opinion is the one that matters. I am just getting back in the routine from the holidays or I would have responded to you about 2 weeks ago. I guess I continue to have too much sympathy for searchers in your eyes. I have just finished participating in the December 27-Jan 3 Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/COTW on the page Washington Park, Chicago. You can see my influence on the page. I think my sympathy is carrying over to non-hn dab pages. However, I still am having trouble convincing myself that a see also section does not belong. When I first started on wikipedia, I use to take great pains with redirects to compensate for the wiki searches required exactness. (E.g., see Special:Whatlinkshere/108_North_State_Street or Special:Whatlinkshere/Donald_Trump,_Jr.). It, course becomes a matter of judgement on what is close to exact and what isn't. In an effort to be consistent and remove judgement you have set a specific policy on general pages for items with given names. However, with human names most people are have a nickname, given name, and an even longer formal given name. Additionally, women and growingly progressive men have married name issues. I just think a specific policy should be written for human names. TonyTheTiger 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, that isn't my opinion. It's just standard on Wikipedia to give the main page to original works, since anything else is a derivation of that work. See for example Sin City, Eragon, From Hell, Ghost in the Shell, The Virgin Suicides, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump and basically any other example you can think of. Even when the film is more well known than the original work (as might be the case with V for Vendetta), we give the main article to the original work. This is largely because it is the original work, and therefore may discuss both the original work and any derivations, where obviously the details of a book are not especially necessary in an article on a film based on that book (except perhaps to highlight differences in the two media). Owen 18:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are all invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - SimonLyall 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the thanks about the photo. It was in a news story concerning recent auctions. The original photo sold for 19,120 US$. I work mostly on baseball articles, but when I saw the picture, I felt like it had to be in that article and was amazed that it wasn't already. Take care.Kinston eagle 01:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion going on that might interest you at Talk:10 cents. I hope it won't be too late when you get back. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I personally feel that no article should be indefinitely protected, unless it's a high-risk template or the Main Page hehe. However, some articles can be protected for a few months at a time, and this may apply for Basketball. I don't think we should unprotect for a few weeks at least, so adding the {{sprotected2}} tag was a good idea. I might unprotect later on, but if vandalism returns, I will promptly re-protect. Nishkid64 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you comment on the recent incarnation of the Hacker's article? Take a look at this post here. Thanks. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Neonumbers. 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 15:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I normally reply to user talk pages, but since you've asked for a reply on this page:

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Waltham. While my post wasn't on a similar line to yours, I think you have raised a very good point that—admittedly—was overlooked when the part of the manual regarding that topic was written. (I don't remember who wrote it, nor when.) I might even say clarification may be in order. Neonumbers (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I haven't said anything about my messaging practices in this message, so Cartwright must have filled you in. :-)

I shouldn't like to take credit for other people's actions (Bkonrad raised the issue, and the two of us are the ones basically against italicisation), but I wanted to be objective in this. I did some digging and thought that since this has been discussed again, we needed to know the spirit of that decision, and not just the guideline that it created.

In any case, I am happy that some of the editors I have appealed to have commented. Most have just ignored me—usually because of inactivity, from what I've seen.

PS: I will not forget that you have defied my views, which constitute the Ultimate Truth of Wikipedia. Mark my words: in a year from now, you shall be banned. (dark organ music) Waltham, The Duke of 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

lol :-P... well anyway good on you for looking at it like that, I wish people would look into topics like that more often. If it helps—this next part is the objective part, and you can quote me on it if you want—the spirit of the decision was basically to ensure our "no piping" rule didn't stop people from italicising titles and the like. We needed to make this clear, because one of the biggest and most important changes to the status quo (read: total mess) when this sub-manual began was to ban piping of the form "drag", which we felt (and I'm sure you'll agree with me) was really necessary and so took a relatively hard line on. So, about italicised clarifiers, we didn't really think about them at the time.

That's why (subjectively) I said it was a good point. Neonumbers (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am afraid that my casette recorder has broken down... Most unfortunate.

I certainly appreciate the refinement of the guideline on pipe-linking, as well as the creation of the Manual of Style supplementary page in question, despite the fact that I completely fail to see how any one could misinterpret the concept of drag, the fear of which seems to have been the source of this entire chain reaction (your quote). Well, this would appear to be its final link.

The end of the way for disambiguation-page links... But there are numerous other issues to be settled in the vast Manual of Style. Yes, I can actually hear the Central Office calling for me. Got to go! It has been a pleasure to be talking to you. Waltham, The Duke of 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Neonumbers,

I’m Irvin from PhilWiki Community, a member of the Communication Committee of the ESEAP Conference. ESEAP Conference 2018 is a regional conference for Wikimedia communities throughout the ESEAP region: ESEAP stands for East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific. Taking place in Bali, Indonesia on 5–6 May 2018, this is the first regional conference for these Wikimedia communities.

East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific are the most under-represented regions within the Wikimedia community. There is a significant number of Wikimedia contributors in our regions, yet we continue to struggle in establishing a well-managed community. This conference will bring participants from various ESEAP communities together in order to better understand the issues and to look for solutions. It also aims to connect people of the Wikimedia movement within ESEAP regions, to share ideas, and to build regional collaborations that are impossible to achieve through online communication.

We’ve got a lot of participation from several countries, but we’re lacking from your country. As we need more participants from your country, we believe that your contribution and participation would be a valuable asset to the success of this event. If you would like to participate in the conference, please do fill the form as soon as possible (by April 5, 2018) and we’ll inform you if you get selected for the conference.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon. --Filipinayzd 01:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply