User talk:Eequor

American versus British English

One hundred and one etc... is not improper English. this is the standard British way (and almost everybody else outside of the USA) to say this number. Please revert the changes you have made regarding this. Mintguy

Reading talk:101 (number) I assumed you had changed a number of pages. As it was just this page, I have reverted it myself. Mintguy

On deafness and Deafness

I am curious if you are Deaf or if you have anyone in your family who is? Qaz

No, I'm not, nor do I know anybody who is. I just took random interest in those articles. Lots of nice information there. ^_^ --Eequor 00:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Takhat page

Many thanks for doing a wonderful job 'cleaning up' and making the page 'tidy' - Well done! - Looks a lot better - I wondered how you came upon this page? - hope you do the same to few of the other pages on Sikhism - God Bless! Hari Singh

You're welcome. Glad I could help. ^_^

I'd found it from the Cleanup page. Maybe I can have a look around at some of the other Sikhism pages. --Eequor 07:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Qattara Depression

I just noticed you declared Qattara Depression a copyright violation. However you were a bit too hasty with that one, because Nationmaster.com copies (legally) the wikipedia contents, not other way round. So if you want to have a laugh you can check [1] now (but hurry before they update again). However as you haven't listed that alleged copyvio on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems, it was sheer coincidence I found it now and could fix it. andy 22:44, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hahaha! Maybe that will encourage Nationmaster to make proper attributions.

Sorry about the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. I must have been thinking that would be automatically updated or sth. ^_^; --Eequor 02:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Language

I'm not going to get into an edit war in swinging the language on Transsexual either way, but I'm curious as to why you did change it... Dysprosia 02:45, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The changes by User:Hardylane were a bit much. Transsexual people is a strange use of the language -- one would never say male people or lesbian people, for instance. There are two ways that the word people is used to refer to a class of people. One is slightly pejorative, as in hispanic people or the like. You people. Consider whether you would be likely to hear caucasian people. The other way is found when talking of the class as a whole, as a mass noun. The German people. Only the latter is neutral. --Eequor 03:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did however change this so it wasn't so clunky/strange language. It however doesn't sound quite right in some instances, and the instances in which it sounds pejorative can work the other way also - compare "...gays" vs "gay men and women", "blacks" or "whites" vs "black people" or "members of the black community" &/c. You may want to check out the link that Annie put on the talk page too for an argument for its use as well. Perhaps we can reach some consensus in the use of language? not wholly "transsexual people" and not wholly "transsexuals"? Dysprosia 04:08, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In my experience, most transsexuals don't make a big deal about language and tend to refer to themselves as transsexuals. Off on the side is a small but obnoxious and vocal minority of people who get really snippy about semantics. Unfortunately, vocal minorities bring the most attention, and a lot of that is negative. --Eequor 22:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PRNG

Eequor, Did you (or the goddess) choose the name to be especially difficult to type for folks who speak English? It took four tries!

Anyway, thanks for the tightening at PRNG. It was well done; I've only a nit or two left.

If you're itching for another to tighten, the crypto corner has quite a few. See topics in cryptography for a sort of annotated list of crypto articles, and there's a Wikipedia Project for crypto as well. If you can help get more of the work to the level of PRNG, I'll consider converting!

ww 16:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

*grin*

You're welcome! Maybe I'll look at the others sometime. ^_^ --Eequor 19:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looking back at this, I wonder what ww would think of Eequor's religion.... --Eequor 04:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide

Thanks for the excellent work on tidying up, editing and reorganising suicide. I've been aware for some time that it needed doing, and had never quite got round to it. --ALargeElk 08:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Dao De Jing

Too bad about the Dao De Jing. The James Legge translation is in the public domain, but I understand it's inferior. Eclecticology 03:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite. It even hurts my head to try to read.[2] He seems to have abandoned accuracy in favor of some attempt to be poetic. His translation is still better than Aleister Crowley's, though.[3] --Eequor 17:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

One has difficulty taking Crowley seriously. Sometimes I even think that he never meant anything that he wrote, but was just having a good laugh at the expense of anybody that would take him seriously. I wouldn't even characterize his Tao Te Ching as a "Translation". I haven't investigated its copyright status. :-) Eclecticology 18:27, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi. Please stop thinking of my removal of Toki Pona inter-wiki links as "vandalism". It's not. It was decided that there should be no inter-wiki links to controversial languages that have not (yet) shown to have a large enough active user-base to keep a Wikipedia project going. This currently includes Toki Pona and Klingon. Thanks. — Timwi 23:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this decided? --Eequor 23:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leah. Jimbo Wales spoke to the matter in this post and later in this post to the Wikipedia mailing list, and Please see m:Artificial languages for more infomation on this topic, as well as the entire thread mcited above and this thread on the Wikitech list.

And please have a complete discussion with someone about something like this before just posting it on Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress. Also, please check out the current policy on what is vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 00:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, okay. It seemed like pretty obvious vandalism; Timwi had a whole page of Toki Pona removals in sen contributions list. It'd be good to have these changes in policy made more public... I first looked around on en and meta for anything relevant and there was nothing. --Eequor 01:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not vandalism

(Timwi | talk | contributions)

Has been removing Toki Pona interwiki links. --Eequor 23:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism. It was decided that there should be no inter-wiki links to controversial languages that have not (yet) shown to have a large enough active user-base to keep a Wikipedia project going. This currently includes Toki Pona and Klingon. See m:Artificial languages for more infomation on this topic. -- BCorr|Брайен 00:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Policy changes need to be made public so this sort of thing doesn't happen. I checked en and meta before posting here; neither of them had anything to say on the subject. --Eequor 01:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no such policy that languages Timwi doesn't like are not allowed interlanguage links! There was a compromise when Klingon was set up that no links would be made to it. This does not apply to toki pona. Having said that, it's probably not something which should be on this page. WP:RFC would be more appropriate. Angela . 11:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Elagabalus

Do not insert speculations about Roman emperor's sexuality. They can be an interesting topic of research, but hardly encyclopaediac, unless properly credited by the classical sources. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original work. Moreover, linking the boy to Roman empresses category is a very bad joke. Have a nice day, Muriel G 12:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What makes you think it was a joke? I was quite serious. Calling Elagabalus an empress is the logical conclusion to make from the evidence that she was transsexual. She certainly wasn't a boy.

As for "classical sources", I think [4] presents a coherent argument against many such sources. Transsexuality is very poorly understood, and so this is a subject about which historians can be quite biased. There is one point of consistency: a quote that not only labels Elagabalus a transvestite, but also reasserts her desire to have a vagina. From a modern perspective, to call Elagabalus anything but transsexual is to be blind to the implications of her behavior.

One of the links I included was written by the leading authorities on transsexualism. [5] See Harry Benjamin. Did you actually read the linked pages? --Eequor 15:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:Amber

Since "amber" is an actual thing, perhaps it would be better to categorize "Things related to Roger Zelazny's fictional Amber" in another category? - Nunh-huh 02:05, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That was fast. ^_^

I was wondering that myself. The question is, what would fit in a category about tree sap? --Eequor 02:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are lots of different varieties of amber (I just don't know them) <g>. - Nunh-huh 02:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Drugs

Thanks for your work categorizing drug pages. I was going to embark on the same thing but I found there is already a Project Drugs which is apparently trying to set up a unique classification tree (doomed to failure IMO). Interested in joining the project or discussion?

Categorizing the drugs

Hi. I noticed that you re-categorized some of the articles that I already categorized. :-) I was wondering about if there was a consensus about how to do this. For instance, I feel that an article about a category shouldn't go in that category, but instead in it's parent categories. For instance, the article on antiarrhythmic agents should go under Category:Pharmacologic agents and Category:Cardiac electrophysiology (as opposed to Category:Antiarrhythmic agents), since it gives a general description of members of this type of agent, and if the individual wants more information, he can select a member of the category. Ksheka 13:50, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

~~Disagree. The policy is to use the most specific category. --Eequor 13:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)~~

In the example above, the article gives internal links to many of the articles in the category Category:Antiarrhythmic agents, while the navigation points to the parent category Category:Pharmacologic agents. Ksheka 13:50, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

The accepted style seems to be that "container articles" (e.g. anti-diabetic drugs) go in the parent category, and members of these containers go in specific subcategories. This has happened to statin, ACE inhibitor and a host of other drugs. After all, listing anti-diabetic drugs in its own container makes the categorising a bit of a pleonasm. JFW | T@lk 10:56, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Templates

Only 5 templates can be included in a page. I notice that you've made several small templates and this will cause a problem with their use. Maximus Rex 05:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Which templates are you referring to? I don't understand the five template limit; it ought to be considered a bug. See nirvana, for example. --Eequor 05:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking of templates such as sub and sup. Here is an example. Maximus Rex

Oh, right. Most articles don't need five of either, though. I expect the limit will be removed eventually; there have been other complaints about it. --Eequor 05:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it's a chemistry article more than five templates could easily be required for one formula. Expecting a limit to be removed won't make it happen. Currently the limit exists. I intend on removing sup and sub from Wikipedia:How to edit a page as their use should be discouraged. Requiring a database query everytime a few characters of html would suffice is wasteful. Maximus Rex 05:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Templates are poorly implemented, then. It should be easy enough to cache their expansions. --Eequor 05:46, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sumatriptan

Why is Sumatriptan disputed? ElBenevolente 21:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is it correct? The article's consistent use of "tript" instead of "trypt" concerned me. I haven't had time to investigate it myself. --Eequor 22:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear as if the original author misspelled 5-hydroxytryptamine, however the rest of the article appears correct and is consistent with the product's monograph. The spelling of sumatriptan is correct, and it is a member of the triptan family. ElBenevolente 22:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just curious, what was your objection to the paragraph you deleted from sumatriptan? The information in that paragraph is consistent with the monograph. ElBenevolente 23:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd read an article which had both the cause of migraines and the effects of triptans close together. Sorry. ^_^;

The original information in the article on the mechanism of action of sumatriptan was information from a medical text published in 2003 and is correct.

That paragraph isn't really important to the individual articles anyway. Triptans should be discussed in detail on their own page. --Eequor 23:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tetrahedrane

I was wondering what source you used for this page. According to this site "Tetrahedrane, however, is more strained than cubane and continues to defy preparation as an isolable compound, although derivatives of the basic structure have been made." I am not sure that site is up to date or not, but the tetrahedrane currently seems to suggest that tetrahedrane can be created and is stable (which as far as I can tell, it is not). Maximus Rex 03:31, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Odd. Google finds so little information about it. --Eequor 03:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oops

sorry E, I didn't realise I was creating that redirect in your user space... I was just bored and saw a red link that i thought should go somewhere... oops... I better go back to reading about SIRS then.. Erich 06:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hahaha. Don't worry about it. I so don't care what happens on my Greek alphabet pages. X)

--Eequor 07:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Xymtex

Shinsaku Fujita, A Macro Package for Typesetting Chemical Structural Formulas - Manual for XyMTeX Version 1.00 Iorsh 07:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, wow. XyMTeX is far more powerful than PPCHTeX, isn't it? --Eequor 16:43, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fenris

I cleaned up Fenris a bit, which you'd listed on Wikipedia: Pages needing attention. If you could look over it again and see if any additional clarification is needed, I'd appreciate it. The information currently in the article is basically the entirety of the Fenris legend (at least, as far as I've been able to discern), so there's not a lot that could be added. Spectatrix 16:53, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the reason given for Fenris agreeing to be chained. It doesn't seem to make sense that he would allow himself to be chained because he was told he wouldn't be able to escape. It's also unclear how the gods can be said to have tricked him. --Eequor 17:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I clarified the article a bit more to better explain Fenris' motivations. How does it sounds now? Spectatrix 23:07, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

Ah, that's clearer. --Eequor 23:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of certain religious subcategories

Hi. I listed a few sub-subcategories in Theosophy and Satanism for deletion on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, on a consolidation theory that we didn't need quite so much subcategorization for only a few articles. I presumed my listing would lead to a VfD-style debate over the next few days, followed by a decision. I was surprised to return a few hours later to find =bang!= the deletion had been done. I believe at least some of these categories were yours, and I don't want you feeling something has been snuck through underhandedly. If you want to argue for these categories, feel free to do so, and I will support whatever consensus emerges. Also, I don't want to criticize anyone who was kind enough to respond so promptly to my request, but I think we may need to formalize some procedural safeguards on category deletion. --Gary D 03:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categories are so easy to remove. I don't really mind, but my intention in creating them was to make the Satanism categories consistent with those of other religions. Otherwise Satanism is marginalized, which is not NPOV. --Eequor 04:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I am happy support a uniform, NPOV rule: I would say that any religion that has 13 or so articles only needs one category. --Gary D 07:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To-do template

You seem to be getting overly-zealous on the edits to Template:Todo. If you have concerns, please discuss them, because the lay-out and "simplification" really is a little over-board. If you're not willing to discuss in Template_talk:Todo, then can I ask you to step away for a while so that the interested people can can consensus on the format and usage of it? Thanks. -- Netoholic 08:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's no discussion on the talk page. Also I don't see what the problem is; I've hardly changed the template. There was some unnecessary HTML and CSS that I removed. It's odd to call me overzealous when your most recent edit changed the entire appearance of the template. --Eequor 09:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On seeing that you were making so many edits, I reverted and implemented some lay-out ideas that I'd been thinking about. I've been working on that template along with a couple other people for a few days now. I guess I don't understand the arguement of "simplification". The idea of a template is so that you can put a lot of nice coding into it, to help the appearance, and have it replicated easily. It's been an evolutionary process, which is why I asked that maybe you step away from it for a while. Honestly, to me at least, it feels like you came into it tonight and steam-rolled everyone's work in progress (even listing some of Pcarbonn's work on VFD). If you feel the HTML and CSS is unnecessary, that's more opinion, but if you think it is leading to technical issues, feel free to fix them. Please don't just blind-side other people's efforts, though. -- Netoholic 09:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I haven't steamrolled anything. I tend to make lots of little edits as I notice things that ought to be fixed. There has actually been very little change since the last time I looked at the template, and some changes were simply wrong. --Eequor 09:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really don't understand what the appeal of that CSS is. It doesn't actually do anything that can't be done in less space. --Eequor 09:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What changes are "simply wrong"? I guess I can't answer for those things unless you tell us what you think is wrong.

CSS is an important and powerful tool. I didn't like it at first either, until I really started to learn it. Wiki already uses it, along with XHTML. -- Netoholic 09:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say I dislike CSS; actually I'm rather familiar with it. As for the problems, see the list at Template talk:Todo#Kneejerk reactions. --Eequor 09:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On a different note, Eequor, be careful with the category, in several cases (here, here and here) you've removed the {{PAGENAME}} indexing from the category, which forces all the articles under the "T" (for "talk") heading in the category. Adding pagename allows them to go under whatever the name of the corresponding article is, spreading them out better, and making the category more easily scannable by the human eye. (Which is why categories have the headings in the first place). While we're at it, please keep the category inline with something else (anything else really) so that extra blank lines are not created. Perhaps its inadvertantly destructive editing like that that Netoholic may have been referring to when calling your editing overly-zealous. —siro χ o 12:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

The problem with using {{PAGENAME}} for the sort order is that it used to categorize everything under {, which is no better. It seems to work now, though. --Eequor 17:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Projects

I'm totally confused by your recent juggle to Wikipedia:Projects, etc. Why the abolition of the distinction between projects in general and the more structured wikiprojects? Why do this unilaterally with no discussion (or at least none I saw: was it discussed somewhere? I shouldn't presume)? Was any content dropped in the process? (with no written explanation of what you did, I can't tell. -- Jmabel 17:26, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Short version: Be bold. ^_^v

Longer:

Wikipedia:Projects seemed mostly dead, containing a number of ancient redirects which were only linked from that page, most with names that would not be searched for. See Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. It's amazing that a page with the unlikely name Britannica Public Domain/Status managed to survive for two years.

Further indication of the page's inactivity is found on the talk page, where Kingturtle posted a comment in February (with no reply). It seems unlikely that there is anybody with whom a discussion might be held.

The contents of the Projects page I moved to its talk page, and I redirected the page itself to the better organized Wikipedia:WikiProject, as it had apparently no meaningful content. The organized projects were incorporated into the WikiProject hierarchy.

I found that Wikipedia:WikiProject deserved to be split into smaller sections. It was already beginning to develop page breaks to keep the categories distinct. The largest changes there were from alphabetizing the categories to make them easier to find, and cleaning up the lead section.

May I ask what called your attention to the changes? --Eequor 18:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. One of the main things I'm involved in here is Wikipedia:Translation into English. It was linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject. It is not linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject because it is not organized as a WikiProject. I suspect it may not be the only active project for which this is the case. The fact that not many new projects had been recently added does not mean that the projects pointed to are dead.

I guess I will move it under Wikipedia:WikiProject and hope not to get into a fight about the appropriateness of that. -- Jmabel 04:04, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I moved that to the Wikipedia section, actually. It looks like you found that, though. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Eequor 06:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page moves

Please remember to fix the links to pages that you move. If the page is linked to from a lot of places, it is best to discuss the move on the talk page before carrying it out. Thanks. Angela . 00:49, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, right. Sorry... I thought that page must surely not have redirects to it. It didn't even have a shortcut to it yet. Did I miss sth important? --Eequor 01:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I was right. There are only two redirects to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, and I created both of them. Links will continue to work properly. --Eequor 01:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource deletion

I see that you have marked a large number of pages for deletion. Nevertheless, no reason is given for wanting these deletions. A brief reason for each one at Wikisource:Deletion requests would be appreciated. A large part of these relate to source code, about which I know very little; with a little explanation you may even find that I agree with you on a significant portion.

In this general vein, I am also puzzled by why you would characterize some of them as "inclusion disputes". Apart from your suddenly wanting them deleted, there has been no dispute. Please answer me on Wikisource. Eclecticology 05:51, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

Mathematics

You are my new god - List of "You have two cows" jokes under mathematics. I'm sure I don't need to point out the logical error, but I haven't laughed so hard since reading the Cartesian Dualism under that section. What's this? Philosophy, crytography, chemistry, mathematics? I'm astounded that there's anyone else in the world who's vaguely like me.