Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:56, 7 June 2007

I generally reply to posts by editing your talk page. I could watchlist you, but I don't check my watchlist often enough. Misplaced Pages notifies you when someone has edited your talk page. I like that feature.

Welcomes

Hello Mckaysalisbury and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Misplaced Pages:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

You forgot to sign

Hi! Just a friendly note: You forgot to sign your vote on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Year 10,000 problem. You can sign your posts by entering four tildes (~~~~). — David Remahl 19:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to sign one, and within minutes, I get hammered ;)

;-). Happens to the best of us. — David Remahl 19:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

teh teh

You're welcome. Thanks for the kind words. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 12:43, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Mars Desert Research Station front entry and greenhab.jpg

Hello. I moved this back to being the talk page for the image. Nice pic, BTW. I'm not sure exactly what you were wanting to do, but if you were trying to rename the image, I've got some bad news -- see renaming images. If that isn't what you wanted, you can probably find your answer in either HOWTOs Index or Modifying a Misplaced Pages page. SWAdair | Talk 01:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relational database

Both the citations you gave are good examples of bad articles. They are both bad in a manner typical of technical articles: overly theoretical regurgitation of dull classroom lectures. No good purpose is served by their presence, but it is a daunting task to rewrite such a mass of verbiage -- so daunting that few attempt the Stygian task.

I intend to insert in Relational database a lucid description of the beast -- not the theoretical model, not a plug for FileMaker, but the thing itself, filmed as it were in the act. Is there a cabal of WPdians waiting to jump on me for this? — Xiong (talk) 02:28, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel my initial remarks were confrontational. My comments were directed more toward the discussion, not to the stub. I just took a look at the page history; it's a sight. For some abominable reason, this has been the focus of a long-running edit war; I gather considerable content has been written and removed. I guess there is a cabal.

Actually, the article itself, Relational database, isn't so bad. It's just way too short, a stub; almost a disambig where there should be a glorious article. The articles to which content seems to have been moved are just terrible. They don't need "work", but a complete overhaul. I do not intend to do that overhaul, either. But I do intend to put together a lucid article on the subject which, I imagine, interests most readers: relational databases themselves, not the theory which discusses them.

I hope you may be willing to lend a hand. — Xiong (talk) 07:10, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

You and I are in perfect agreement, I think. I don't know where I'd be if I didn't have the power of a good RDBM tool -- FileMaker Pro. I came to the article, Relational database, by way of a desire to set WP firmly on the relational road -- I do not consider it to be there now.

Can't discuss RDB without laying the groundwork, so I've attacked the much simpler Flat file database first. Please let me know what you think. — Xiong (talk) (post facto)

Well... let me preface my reply by saying I've been somewhat abused by One-Thinger WPdians lately. Forgive me if I'm a little acrid or mistrustful. I don't know how well you know FileMaker Pro. It is greatly improved from the FileMaker of the Bad Old Days. I grant that it is unsuited for scaling up to a massive database, with hundreds of thousands of records and tens of thousands of queries per hour. It's a tool best used by anything from a single user up to a small company -- say, 1000 users, not all of whom access the DB at one time. But these are engine limitations, a statement of horsepower. And despite what I've said, I see FileMaker, Inc. is pushing their products into ever-larger companies.

I don't have the money, inclination, or need to upgrade to the latest version (7); let me note some of the features of mine (5.5):

• Fully customizable layouts -- Setting up a layout is as easy as drawing with a pen tool. Layouts -- forms, reports -- are almost too plastic. Fonts, colors, styles, borders are editable as a matter of course. Field formats -- besides a straight box full of text -- include menus, radio buttons, and check boxes, all of which use a value list that may either be static or dynamic. I especially like dynamic value lists. Field formats are tied to the layout in which they appear, as distinct from field types -- text, number, date, etc.

• Relationships -- Fields from a related file can be used in a layout just as if they were local to the master file, or inserted into a portal to display one-to-many relationships. So long as match fields ("keys", in SQL jargon) are properly defined, you can create and delete matching records in the related file from within the master file (if permitted).

• Lookups -- Data from a related file is copied to the master file one time only. E.g., a file containing invoices looks up prices for products. The actual prices may change later, but the prices shown in the invoice do not change.

• Self-joins (self-relationships) are possible. I've done some weird things with self-joins. I admit, sometimes I've broken it with this kind of stuff. But I've created solutions in which data typed into one record forces the creation of a related record in the same file.

• Any field (except media containers) can be calculated. Defining a field as a calculation opens a window and you type away. Fields from the master file and all related files are available as atoms from a menu, as are all functions. The functions themselves are so comprehensive that you can emulate nearly any spreadsheet. Of course, you can do much more.

Of particular note are the many calculation functions that return some aspect of system status. Status (CurrentPortalRow), for example, tells you where the user is. Or, you can fiddle with other DB files, as in FieldStyle (dbname, layoutname, fieldname). This returns a status word, depending on whether the target field is a straight text field, or perhaps a menu, or list of radio buttons.

• Fully scriptable -- Almost anything you can do at all, you can script. You can add or delete records, switch layouts, find, sort, print, etc.; you can define any object (including a displayed field!) as a button that invokes a script. I've done some weird things by defining a field within a portal as a button; FileMaker understands which related record the user has "pushed".

The script engine has been upgraded to allow for all the usual flow control functions. I've written several solutions that makes very heavy use of scripts; for a notable example, a slot machine that operates entirely within one record, resorting to a very complicated set of scripts whenever the "handle" is pulled. (The slot machine is also relational; there are, oh, IIRC, 2 related files, one with the reel icons, one with payoffs.) It's even possible to script SQL queries, to access foreign systems.

• Security -- I admit, security is not as robust as it might be. You can protect whole files or control access to certain layouts and certain fields. You can roll up a finished solution into a sort of kiosk mode and you have a lot of control over what the user can do; you can lock almost the entire UI out and replace whatever functions you like using scripts and buttons.

• Getting out of the box -- I'm not as interested in this as others may be, but FileMaker is "...Level 1 ODBC compliant, with limited Level 2 support." More interesting to me is the ability to publish solutions -- databases, with their layouts and their scripts -- on the web. This ability is unfortunately limited in my version; I gather that the more $expensive developer versions do much much more. Search for "filemaker hosting" -- I can host a simple solution right from my desktop, or pay somebody else to host it for me; it's a niche market. Pricey, too: FileMaker, Inc. is always sure to get a piece, by controlling the number of files that can be open at one time.

I intend to use FileMaker Pro to demonstrate RDB, not just because I like it, but because it's what I've got, and because its layouts and dialog boxes are so visual and easy to understand that they make good examples for someone not steeped in the subject. And, after all, if you already know all about RDBMS, you won't care to read a simple introduction to the subject.

FileMaker, Inc. is giving away a free 30-day trial. You might want to check it out, but I suggest you plan the 30 days for when you can afford the time to exercise the demo. Let me know if you plan to do this, and I will send you some old solutions and demos you can play around with. (It doesn't matter what box you're on; FM is almost totally transparently cross-platform). Who knows, you might decided to beg, borrow, steal, or even $buy it for yourself. — Xiong (talk) 15:00, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

James Earl Salisbury

Thanks! I just wanted to see what you thought and such. I gave some counter-feedback (or something like that). I'm glad you responded. =) — Indi 11:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Relational database 2

Hi, thanks for your interest in editing this article.

What we need is an article that bridges the gap between the mathematical terminology used in a strict definition of the relational model and the popular terminology used by people who work with relational databases. For instance, an explanation of the relationship between "relations" and "tables". At a minimum I feel this article should explain the terms covered in my attempted rewrite at Talk:Relational database/rewrite. When I suggested this rewrite many complained that it was not true to the relational model; since I am not an expert in the relational model I could not fix this problem and abandoned the rewrite.

If you have any other questions or concerns you can put them here; I have watchlisted you. --Ideogram 08:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

K, I'll put my response here, note, I copied your notice, and totally messed with it. Comments round one. Yeah, it's not perfectly in line with the realtional model:

• "This would result in a duplicate row, which is usually not allowed" In the mathematical definition (and in "truly relational databases"), it isn't allowed, but some (SQL i.e. non-relational) DBMSs allow it. This has strong correlation to primary keys "Most tables are created with primary keys." in SQL systems. In relational systems, all tables have at least one candidate key.
• "We are using the primary key of the organization table as a foreign key in the person table." "Primary keys" aren't technically part of the relational model. Keys are all some kind of constraint. Foreign Keys have to reference a Candidate key, and the primary key (if the DBMS supports it) is a good idea.
• I understand what you're trying to do with the relational integrity section, but could it be phrased in such a way that doesn't show a violation of a key, like saying "suppose we tried to delete row x".
• Normalization either needs to be pulled, or more detail should be included. It's a big leap from saying "data duplication" to "3NF"
• Joins, do we have to use SQL? I propose a relational Algebra. Maybe a translation in to SQL might be necessary (also, you're using MySQL variety, a SQL flavor that conforms to the SQL specifications would be better)
• Indexes are not really a part of the relational model (you admit this), so again, I'll say either more or less data. (oh, and saying "directly" is a bit of an oversimplification).
• No, Views *are* stored in the database, (unless the DBMS violates rule four of Codd's 12 rules)
• SQL is not part of the relational model, and so, doesn't really deserve a section like you mention it, and it is not a standard part of all relational databases.

Having said all of that, I think I still prefer the overall feel of the current relational database article. It might just be me liking the technical side of things, but I think the techinical stuff is the important part of the article. Simple English Misplaced Pages maybe? McKay 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to start with my proposed rewrite as a base. I simply wanted to reference it as a list of terms that an article about Relational Databases should cover. If you prefer to use the current article as a starting point that is fine. What I'm trying to say (which other people didn't seem to understand) is that we need an article that talks about both the theory of the relational model and its implementation in modern relational databases, so that someone wondering "Why are Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL all called relational databases?" can get an answer that isn't too mathematical. --Ideogram 08:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, you misunderstand the term. Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL, are not relational databases. Some people call them Relational Database Management Systems, but relational databases they are not. The changes I made to the Relational database article today reference some of those differences (ordered rows and columns, three-valued logic...). But specific reasons as to why Oracle isn't "truly relational" belongs in RDBMS or Oracle. McKay 09:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the argument that relational databases are only those databases that conform to the relational model. I simply do not agree. Only theoreticians claim that my examples are not relational databases; the term is well-entrenched in popular usage.

Fundamentally this is a disagreement over terminology. However, the fact that Codd invented the relational model does not mean he owns the term. If you look at Talk:Relational database you will see my mention of a Google define: search that shows abundant evidence that the common usage of the term is not limited to databases that conform to the relational model.

As an encyclopedia it is not Misplaced Pages's job to prescribe correct usage of terms. We should be following the common usage and writing about what people expect to find when they are looking for an explanation of the term "relational database". --Ideogram 09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In summary, when someone asks "Why are Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL all called relational databases?" (and in fact they are called such), the answer "They aren't really relational databases" is not helpful. --Ideogram 09:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Yes, I'm the kind of guy who doesn't think that Oracle (or any other DBMS that employs SQL as its primary DDL and DML) should be called relational. But, I understand that that is my point of view. It is a matter of fact that the world calles Oracle a Relational Database Management System. Therefore, the Misplaced Pages entry on Oracle should refer to it as a Relational Database Management System. And likewise, the Relational Database Management System article should reference Oracle as one of the most popular. So, yes, we disagree over termonology, but I don't think we disagree as to what the wikipedia article should say regarding this terminology. Namely that both camps are a valid way of looking at it. Codd created the term, Codd doesn't own the term, but Chris Date's Definition and Larry Ellison's definition should both be mentioned.

What I actually said was "Relational Database" does not equal "Relational Database Management System". The article in question is "Relational Database". What I actually said was that Oracle is a Relational Database Management System, but Oracle is *not* a Relational Database. Relational Databases can be created in Oracle though. McKay 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For reference I duplicate from Talk:Relational database#starting on a rewrite the results of my Google search on "relational database" here.

• Introduction to Relational Database Design
• 15 Seconds: Introduction to Relational Databases
• Introduction to Relational Databases
• Definition from Whatis.com

All of these articles do not make a clear distinction between "Relational Database" and "RDBMS". I feel that all of these articles do a better job of answering the questions a typical novice will have about the term than the current Misplaced Pages article. Again, I invite you to do a Google search of define:relational database and see how many entries reference the relational model. I seem to recall there is only one other instance besides Misplaced Pages.

By my evidence you are still insisting on a definition of Relational Database that is at variance with its popular usage. --Ideogram 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're still missing what I'm saying.

• "Oracle ... is a ... relational database management system"
• Oracle is *not* a Relational Database
• Oracle can be used to make Relational Databases

McKay 09:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm missing what you are saying. If you read the articles I linked to you will see that they do not draw the distinction you are making. --Ideogram 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're almost on the same page now. A Relational Database Management System enables you to build Relational Databases. But Relational Databases still store data. Example: At the last company I worked for, we had Microsoft SQL Server (an RDBMS). Using it, I created a Relational database that I called "ULS". This database stored data in it. Now, for how those links verify this:

• EDM/2 "A relational database stores all its data inside tables, and nothing more." If I also stored data in files in the file system. My collection of data could not be called a "relational database", because it stores data outside of tables.
• Whatis.com: "A relational database is a collection of data items organized as a set of formally-described tables" The ULS database has collected the data, and has organized the data into relational structures called tables, or relations.

McKay 10:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Consequently, google:"define:relational database management system" invariably describes software, or applications, it also references the term "database management system" and applies the "relational" adjective, and in some cases, lists commercial software applications. A relational database is a logical structure.

If I understand you correctly you want to call the Oracle software that creates the database an RDBMS and the actual collection of data the relational database. This distinction is not important to me. What I hoped to achieve by listing the links is to give examples of what I think any article on the term "relational database" should cover. Do you agree with that? --Ideogram 10:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an RDBMS is an applicattion, software, code. A relational Database is a collection of Data, structures and data stored in memory. An RDBMS can monitor several Relational Databases. While this distinction may not be important to you, it is a valid and important distinction. This distinction is probably at least one thing that needs to go the relational database page. Some of the things mentioned in the articles you linked could be mentioned. Those articles are good references for the source material contained in the page. McKay 10:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) The Misplaced Pages article as it stands is woefully inadequate. It only explains relations, and a one sentence description of normalization. Do you agree that the topics listed in my example rewrite need mentioning? --Ideogram 10:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Relational Database has a template at the bottom mentioning the following subjects under "objects":

Trigger | View | Table | Cursor | Log | Transaction | Index | Stored procedure | Partition

If I were to do a brief outline, I'd do something like this

1. Definitions
   1. Simple
   2. Formal / Mathematical
2. Prerequisites (Horrible section header name)
   1. Briefly cover Database
   2. Briefly cover Relational Model
3. Objects
   1. Table
   2. View (Relvars in general?)
   3. Constraints
      1. Superkeys / Primary Keys / Candidate Keys
      2. Foreign Keys
      3. Other constraints
         1. Table and column constraints
         2. Transition Constraints
   4. Stored Procedures (and other "code", like triggers)
   5. (Indexes?)
4. Normalization?

DDL and DML should be covered in RDBMS, and that should cover all of the topics you had in your rewrite, and in the original article.

Transactions, Logs, Cursors, (indexes?, ) and partitions should all be covered in DBMS or RDBMS.

What do you think?McKay 10:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

K, In any case, I'm going to bed. I'll get any further messages in the morning.

I think if you could write an article following this outline that would be great. Good night. --Ideogram 10:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I spent the morning writing this up. it is available at User:Mckaysalisbury/Relational database for your perusal. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Obviously, it could use the "see also"s and "external link"s available on the current version of the page. It could probably use some references, but I didn't really look anything up. All this was basically from the top of my head. So someone should probably go thorugh and find valid references for the thigns that I said?McKay 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Provo, Utah

Well, I'm still puzzled by something. What 2000 data are you referring to on that page? The data from List of cities in Utah (by population) was (and I guess still is) based on 2005 estimates from the Utah Population Estimates Committee. What 2000 info are you talking about? Also, the 1RR isn't a rule, and I felt like I could explain myself well enough on the edit summary, so I felt no need to bring up the discussion on the talk page. Also, I'm wondering what exactly you meant by your last sentence? It doesn't really make sense to me. Generally, your entire post doesn't make sense...I need clarification of what you're trying to say. bob rulz 08:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I know what you're saying. However, the estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau actually aren't more recent; the UPEC estimates are for October 2005, while the Census Bureau estimates are for July 2005. It's just that the UPEC estimates are released earlier, because they only have to do Utah estimates while the Census Bureau does estimates for the whole country. However, while the accuracy of either of them is debatable (the Census Bureau doesn't have the greatest track record for accuracy), the Census Bureau is official, and using Census Bureau estimates maintains consistency throughout the entire country. I think we should use Census Bureau estimates for the sake of them being official. I was updating the information last night when I completely screwed everything up and didn't have the patience to fix it...so I just gave up. I might update it today. bob rulz 23:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Michigan

If you check out E.F.Codds entry here you will see that he got his doctorate from Michigan in the late 60's. His work with the database group there led to the development of Micro, a relational database management system. Micro was used by acadmics at Michigan, Alberta and Wayne State Universitys to manage microdata.

As that this system lived and died before the internet existed, no documentation regarding it will be easily found on the net. There are of course dank and spider infested physical archives. What from these physical archives do you need?

Robert Bressan 14:00, 8/2/2006

I've found a link int the ACM journal documenting a system in production existing 1972. Association for Computing Machinery SIGIR Forum archive Volume 7 , Issue 4

Do you have other problems with incorperating this change or shall I go ahead?

Bressan 17:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Robert Bressan

Leet

You're going to need a better reason then "This page sucks" to add all of those templates to Leet. In fact, doing so again without said reason, it will probably belooked at as vandalism. tmopkisn 06:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a post to the talk page. Finished about 10 minutes after I made the changes to the leet page. Give me some time! WP:AGF McKay 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, your post to the talk page didn't really explain anything. "This page sucks, so I added some this page sucks templates." Oh, and don't worry about it, you've got all of the time in the world. tmopkisn 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A longer explanation has been given, but I don't think I'm up to keeping up with the edit count on leet, particularly with people who don't WP:AGF, so I'm out. I'll focus my energies elsewhere. McKay 07:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, and I'm sorry to have upset you. But, do what you must, I won't be stopping you... tmopkisn 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

StarCraft Ghost "revert"

Hello. You have sent me a message about a revert about the StarCraft: Ghost article. I didn't revert anything, although I did add the category "vaporware" to the end of the article, since, the game fits the parameters of vaporware. If games that had actual demonstrations but have had a long and protracted development cycle, like the video game S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl have vaporware tags on them, why not apply these tags to StarCraft Ghost? StarCraft Ghost has been announced for a while, and it has yet to materialize as a real product. - XX55XX 19:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Periodicity

Sorry to bother. If you have questions regarding authenticity, please use the internet archive. The information is freely available and has been for a long time. The subject is current and you are right there is a better way to explain this. Wish I had the time. Will start working on it though, could you please add whatever to the information, but don't delete as it is timely and relevant. Thank you. This was added by anon user User talk:71.215.54.11

Sorry for messing up your page, I really don't know how to let you know things.

google 1ceres

yahoo 1ceres

There is a definitive publication regarding

1ceres as a planet and the periodicity

It may not be in as organized a manner that is preferrable

but, it beats Science.com HANDS DOWN regarding the subject.

You aren't looking.

Try the archive, and 1ceres is the most popular web site for 1ceres.

And, until redefinition becomes accepted 1ceres is the name of the object.

I am again sorry to display it this way. But, it has been open for debate for a long time.

thank you. This was added by anon user User talk:71.215.54.11

Scrum (rugby)

I've had a go at making the introduction more user friendly. Sometimes it takes somebody from outside to point out what all the 'experts' miss.

What I think may have confused you is the term 'set scrum', this term is archaic and is not any use to the article - I have deleted it.

What is more confusing but cannot be avoided is that there are two different sports called 'rugby'. They differ from each other much more than US and Canadian football do. Both have scrums but the scrums are quite different, but there is only one type of scrum in each sport.GordyB 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Black hole (disambiguation) and Micro black hole

RVs are only ment for own editorial work, so who is doing the vandalism? And please check your references about micro black holes because the new adapted name is "black hole analogies".(Scientific American, December 2005, An echo of Black Holes), --Quasarq 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see some investigation is done by a computer freak. Nevertheless you are right at some point. Hawking named: mini black holes. "Black hole analogy" is a newer term for a quantum phenomena which is a smaller definition. But my reference is right, a "Black hole analogy" IS a mini black hole (not reverse). I change it again because most probably you don't have the scientific literature. I know my points are controversial but very often I'm right in the end because I base most of my work on WP:VERIFY and WP:REF. And please can you change my work back because evidently you just based your conclusions on opposite opinions. High regards. --Quasarq 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

o YES, you refer WP:MOS. As I'm not an English native, you better help in this regard instead of RVs, because we share the interests of black holes apparently --Quasarq 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

87.211.151.42

See also: User talk:87.211.151.42. You will probably need to look at the page's history, as he likes to delete messages sent to him.

I deleted your "id". See Help:Talk page --87.211.151.42 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It states clearly: Help:Talk page Etiquette Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them. (I boldened) I realize other pages say otherwise but I stick in this context to this.

The policy WP:FAITH Assume good faith is apparently strange to you, as I was just trying to write something and was accused of vandalism. As long as you do not apologize I assume you continue to invade the space at the IP address and continue to harass that page. There is no policy that states I have to create an account. So the IDs you label are at your own account. --87.211.151.42 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet numbers

The Minor Planet Center (MPC) (and yes, wikipedia *does* have a link to it) is the official minor planet naming and numbering service - and they operate under the auspices of the International Astronomical Union - the science's "governing body". The MPC release electronic circulars (and MPEC refers to Minor Planet Electronic Circular) about various topics - including minor planet/comet discoveries, minor planet/comet naming, and also regularly updated orbital elements and coordinates. Searching google for "Minor Planet Center" received 233,000 links. The IAU's website says that "When the orbit of a Minor Planet becomes well enough determined that the position can be reliably predicted far into the future (typically this means after the Minor Planet has been observed at four or more oppositions), the Minor Planet receives a permanent designation - number issued sequentially by the Minor Planet Center, for example (433), (4179) or (50000)."

So it's clear that the IAU believes that the MPC is the official numbering service for minor planets.

The MPC IS notable - it holds the definitive source catalogue for all minor planets. Richard B 12:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fibonacci number

Yes. I know the 3Revert rule. Can you pls tell what you mean by "Malcontent". How can one single word supported by a reference can be called as "Malcontent". I am also curious to know your feelings about this.Bharatveer 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 05:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mckay, Pls see the talk page of Fibonacci number.-Bharatveer 14:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

AVL_tree

Could you pop over to the AVL tree discussion page and respond to my comments, please. Toby Douglass 11:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

QM

Thanks. I usually do just make changes myself, but my limitations are mainly in communication, so it is often better to make suggestions. I did change the first paragraph in the QM article to include E&M early when I was here, and my changes remained for quite a while. Now it may be worse than before I worked on it. I was just saying to my wife "At least maybe some of the other authors are learning from me." David R. Ingham 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In a case like this where my changes have been reverted (after a long time), it is better to make discussion first. I no-one answers I feel confident in making changes. David R. Ingham 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Provo

Those were filters I added. I originally had it set to change LDS Church to the full name, but I figured some people wanted to keep it shortened, so I simply set it to avoid redirects.

Although the LDS Manual of Style doesn't mention this, I like to use the full name of the church for the first instance on each article, with shortened versions thereafter, and I try to avoid redirects in general. Also note that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints requests that the term LDS Church not be used.

As to the easter egg effect, that doesn't apply here since LDS Church already redirected to the same page. The page on piped links is here: Misplaced Pages:Piped link, although it doesn't appear to be a policy per se, and I'm pretty sure I have not violated it. Although now that I look it over I have seen it violated several times in other articles. --Lethargy 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I did find Misplaced Pages's policy for redirects which states that redirects don't necessarily need to be avoided, so I'll need to start complying with that. In this particular case, it is probably best to just unlink LDS Church since there is already a link for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with a note that LDS Church is an alternate. Anyway, I'll try not to step on your toes again. :) --Lethargy 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

E.F. Codd

Thanks for your comments about my edit of the article. I have added a reference to the source. Janm67 16:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:IAU planet debate

I found an explanation for your creation of Category:IAU planet debate after I nominated the category for deletion. I agree that it was useful in the short term, but I really think it should be deleted and the articles should be shifted into other categories. Do you have any ideas on what needs to be placed within new categories, if anything? Category:Dwarf planets seems like an appropriate place to collect many of the articles that are central to this discussion (the objects in question, the lists, and the debate page itself). Is any additional categorization needed for the peripheral articles (most of which appear in some other appropriate category, such as Category:Trans-Neptunian objects)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Submillimeter (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Battle.net

I noticed your recent edits to Battle.net. I understand the edits you made may be more correct in American English, they are not necesarily more correct in British English, and WP has a policy of leaving things that are correct in one locale. Personally, I don't care, and I'm only telling you because the Brit's can get pretty angry for changing these kinds of things. Good luck and have fun in WP! McKay 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about my Battle.net edits.

System.out.println("Wow, you know a great number of programming languages!");

System.out.println("I only know java.");

s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, glad I can help. Oh, your user page looks broken in IE, do you care if I tweak your user page to fix it? Merry Christmas (with a little Java present for you). McKay 05:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could tell me about the changes you would make to my page beforehand. My page, in any case, is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox. That bit of Java was great! However, I don't know if this is a problem for you, 'Out' should be 'out' since Java is case-sensitive. Happy editing and happy programming! s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

happy holidays!

Thanks for your signature! sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 12:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wei-Hwa Huang

I restored the usage of {{US-sport-bio-stub}} to that article. As used by the Stub Sorting project, sports includes people involved in mental competitions as well as physicals ones. If that seems strange, let me point out that while not part of the Olympic Games, billiards, bridge, and chess are all non Olympic Games sports recognized by the IOC so we're not the ones who originated the idea. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the sport article to indicate the broader uses of the term (with links and references), while keeping the primary focus of that article on physical sports. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

nullarbor demoparty

Hi, the demo party article has been nominated for deletion, and I would appreciate it if you would be able to add your input to the article and discussion. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/Nullarbor_(demo_party) -- Aboeing

Thanks for your help :) Much appreciated.

-- Aboeing 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

spelling

You might want to double-check the box at the head of your user page. 3rd line. DGG 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks McKay 15:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Beast (disambiguation)

What I did, per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

• I moved {{wiktionarypar|beast}} to the top of the page, and removed {{TOCright}}, as there was only one "section"
• I removed items without articles, and "Beer nickname for Milwaukee's Best," which seemed dubious.

—tregoweth (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the italics was my mistake -- I misremembered a MoS note about links on disambig pages, and thought that they were supposed to be presented without extra formatting. —tregoweth (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

MDRS

Looking through the 50 some 'Landmarks of f00', there is a mishmash of stuff--like anything that might attract people. 'Government of f00' did not look right, but could be. 'Economy of foo' that I am now creating for each state might work. There is no 'f00 science' set of categories and--from my inspection of all the states I don't think there is much to put there. Your thoughts? Thanks Hmains 04:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have it! 'Buildings and structures in Utah' It must be a structure. Hmains 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for pleasant conversation. Hmains 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pilgrimage (demo party)

revert. Redlinks are appropriate. Encyclopedic articles could be written, but they haven't been written yet.

The article for Northern Dragons has just been deleted by Proposed Deletion. I don't see how a Polygony article could ever survive WP:NOTABILITY as the only notable thing they did was to organize Pilgrimage. A search for PartyMeister reveals this is the only article which even mentions it, so, while it's more likely to be created as an article than Polygony, I wouldn't expect that to happen either. --Vossanova 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

136.2.1.101

Comments left for IP addresses that are clearly marked as shared are very unlikely to be received by the correct person. 136.2.1.101 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: BlizzCon

You're welcome, and thank you for inspiring me to make the edits! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 02:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii Health (AfD discussion)

• Moved to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wii Health
• Moved to User talk:Quarl
• Moved to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 13 § Wii Health

• I was actually just reading the DRV myself, but I appreciate your notice on my talk page. Leebo 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii Play cover art

I really do not think that a straw poll is the right way to solve the issue of cover art in computer games issue. Given that the game has just been released in North America, I'd assume a definite increase in popularity of the article and its talk page from American users. This issue affects more than just Wii Play, indeed, a similar scenario has just happened at Kororinpa: Marble Mania, which also involved a page move with a vandalised redirect (although I'm ashamed that after an admin reverted the unilateral move, I too vandalised the redirect).

I am pretty liberal on my use of cover art. Indeed, I can understand what Tim means when he says "the version shown does not matter", I have personally uploaded cover art from American and European versions of games (Psychonauts and The Ship (computer game) are some examples). I was involved in Yoshi's Universal Gravitation page move, yet did not change the American cover art. I've clarified my own position at WT:CVG#Cover_Art_question_-_Wii_Play, but similar to Naming conventions, and Manual of Style dictations, unless there's an overwhelming reason why the original was inaccurate, it should be left as is. - hahnchen 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Orem, UT

My edit was not a test edit, nor was it of a "sandbox" nature. I removed Tahitian Noni International from the list because it did not come from Orem. It was originally founded in Lindon, and is currently headquartered in Provo. Neither of these facts qualify it as coming from Orem, hence its removal from the list. User_talk:70.58.32.173

Noni

{{helpme}}

I've got a problem with vandalism on Noni. If I revert again, I'll be violating WP:3RR. There are the exceptions of obvious vandalism, but I don't think it qualifies as obvious vandalism, so I've decided not to revert again. There was one user User:Mpfox2006 who I reverted a few times, and put the {{test3}} template on, so I think he created User:Eddie200700000 as a sockpuppet. McKay 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already posted at WP:AIV, which is what I was going to suggest. Let's see where that gets you. I'll check back. —Xhantar 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Eddie200700000 is likely a suckpuppet of Mpfox2006. Both accounts have made similar edits, and only to Noni. I'm reporting at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. Also removing your {{helpme}}; I'll watch this page and follow up (you can reply here). —Xhantar 20:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP is a good idea, but I wanted a quicker resolution because there was vandalism that I was trying to get resolved. WP:SSP is notable for its slowness, and usually for having a ginormous backlog. :D McKay 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mpfox2006 and Eddie200700000 have been blocked indefinitely. —Xhantar 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello !

I am grateful to see a stand at Mario, and I suspect the article will stay. There is no clear consensus to have it removed. I am new and just beginning to learn, but the learning curve progress gets cloudy for me, when I am forced to fight personal attacks rather than substantive debate. Thank you for your clarification of issues and help at the line. I am done with that case, but not with Misplaced Pages. Thanks again, Lee Nysted 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Elevator surfing

Thanks for the prompt input re: the addition I made to the vladding article. Unfortunately, there is no published source; these long-ago episodes of college dorm elevator surfing were led and participated in by yours truly. While I realize this appears to contravene the Misplaced Pages guidelines on reliable sourcing (and I gave thought to the admonition that sometimes it is better to have no information than unsourced information), I thought it important to indicate that this form of vladding goes back at least thirty-odd years. Cheers, Jhw57 12:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the well-meaning suggestion, I'm not about to travel thirty years back in time and start writing articles for college newspapers to satisfy the vagaries of someone's interpretation of WP:VERIFY. Further, I doubt that any college newspaper would publish an article about the origins of elevator surfing for fear of being seen as encouraging such activities. I will have to leave the detailed origins of elevator surfing in the dark. That being said, I am going to edit the unsourced clause about the sport having its origins in urban exploration. There is a reference to an individual's web page that provides some detail on elevator surfing, but it is merely partly entitled "Urban Exploring Techniques" with no further reference to urban exploration. The individual at least indicates that his interest arose from his undergraduate experiences. ] 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD for mini game lists

Another AfD for the MP minigame lists has started, we will appriciate your help as you proved decisive in the previous Afd. Follow Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames|this link and help the continued existence of these articles. Henchman 2000 09:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also one for the MP2 list. Bowsy 09:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI... I adjusted this. The AfD was actually closed as No Consensus not a Keep. Yeah, the end result is the same, but it is an important distinction. Generally I refrain from editing other's comments, so I hope you don't mind too much.--Isotope23 15:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am confused! ? The Mario 3 closed because the nomination was withdrawn. Is that unusual? Lee Nysted 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the Mario 2 AFD? Does that one stay up? It would seem prudent for an Admin. to speedy keep it until further notice? Thanks for the info.Lee Nysted 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I believe you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Someone moving lengthy comments from a vote-like page to its talk page is not out of the ordinary or a punishment. If you will look at, say, most current AFD discussions you will see that most comments are quite short. In the future if you want to make a comment of multiple paragraphs, you might consider writing a short version for the main page and linking to a longer essay in the talk page. Grouse 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There may not be any such policy. Not every action on Misplaced Pages is according to policy, and not everything an admin does is as part of their administrative role. It is custom, not policy. Grouse 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User Boxes

I really need help with making one of my own and i tried the wikipedia:user boxes or whatever thing but it confused me :( so can you help me make one please. Robert Coombs 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Coombs

Alright thank-you for your help.

Mario Party 8

I "ignored" the warning because it was no longer relevant. Nintendo officially issued a release date for the game. There is a big difference between citing an official release date and vandalizing the page with speculative dates. Zomic_13 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: My apologies for accidentally putting this on your user page instead of your talk page initially.Zomic_13 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Black hole electron

The equations below are easily verified to be approximately correct. If the last equation is numerically correct, then all are numerically correct.

2Gm/c squared = 2/3(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

Gm/c squared = 1/3(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

m = (c squared/3G)(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

G = (c squared/3m)(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3)squared

The (L3) value is (2pi)squared times one light second while (Le) is the electron Compton wavelength. Do you see any way to add some of this information to the "B h electron" article without being too speculative ? DonJStevens 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The electron is a balanced configuration with additional properties that match the Le/2L3 ratio. Other length dimensions have the same ratio as shown.

Le/2L3 = L2/L3 = L1/L2 = L4/L1

L1 = 2pi(3/2)exp 1/2, times (Planck length)

L4 = 2pi(3Gm/c squared)

Compliance with these ratios restricts the electron mass to one specific value. Gravitational potential determines the blue shift ratio L1/L2.DonJStevens 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiger (disambiguation)

Thanks for noting WP:MOSDP in your edit summary. That helped me figure out where I went wrong so I could go back and clean up a batch of dab page changes I just made. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiLoco help

{{helpme}}

We've got a vandal. User:WikiLoco. He really isn't contributing well to the pages he edits. Sure, some of his edits are fine, but many of his edits have been deemed as inappropriate. As per the comment at the top of WP:ANI I posted a notice to WP:AIV. The response I got there was that because it wasn't "obvious" cases of vandalism, that it should go on WP:ANI. So, I made a post to ANI to which no one responded. This is very frustrating, because it's taken a lot of effort to do the right things, but I feel like not only am I getting nowhere, I'm not even getting constructive criticism. McKay 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's adminstrators are all volunteers, so sometimes nobody picks up on something. ANI was the right place, but unfortunately something else major came up around then, and so nobody noticed. If the behaviour continues, I suggest posting again to ANI; there probably isn't much else that can be done, and I hope you have better luck next time (if you point out that your previous comments were ignored, hopefully you'll at least get a reply...) --ais523 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was checking up on this, and it seems that the administrators mostly ignored the issue again, unfortunately. (There's nothing much that can be done about that, unfortunately; I've had similar frustrations before.) The user in question has now received a final warning, though, so if they vandalise again soon (within approximately the next 24 hours), WP:AIV is more likely to work, and if they vandalise again later you can give them a final warning yourself ({{subst:uw-vandalism4}} or {{subst:test4}}, depending on your preference). I'm not an admin myself, so there's nothing else I can really fo about this. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are doing well, but I'm too new to see if this has not been looked at by some admins. Actually, I found you through his page (he added a release date for a Dragon Quest game that has not been announced, no problems yet, but I'll tell you if it develops into something ugly). BTW, it'd be nice if you could help in Dragon Quest, that is, if you have sources; most DQ articles lack sources, but that's because they are hard to come by and/ or translate... Gracias. Nos seguimos viendo. Icecypher 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

It survived one: the other was withdrawn due to it being too soon. No consensus certainly isn't a decisive keep in any way. It's been about a month: and no major changes have been made to the articles to make them seem not like a game guide/how to play guide. 8 is the only exception, since the game isn't out yet. But when the game comes out: I can bet it will turn into a game guide as well. Keeping that article (over the others, if they happen to get deleted in a new AFD..), wouldn't make much sense, as it's the same type of list: a mini-game fancruft guide. RobJ1981 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Afd for List of Mario Party minigames

There is an AfD for the above article here, if you would like to participate. Henchman 2000 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any good reason for this: . Stating your point one time is just fine, but flooding the AFD with responses that are the same to many people is very disruptive. RobJ1981 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

More unnecesary Afds

In case you haven't already noticed, there is an unnecessary AfD for the List of Mario Party Advance minigames, here. Henchman 2000 09:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Beast Disambiguation

Hey, you reverted a change I made on the contemporary usage of the word beast. It's very general information and wikipedia shares many things with wiktionary. Just because it technically belongs in wikitionary, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in wikipedia as well. The contemporary usage of the word beast does belong in the disambiguation page. Bubbleboys 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It wouldn't belong in any "beast" article. The only place it belongs is the disambiguation page. It's also too short to justify an article. Not to mention, just look at other disambiguation pages. They're dotted with information similar to the contemporary usage I'm trying to put in. Bubbleboys 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD

There is an AfD for every LMPmgs that still exists going on at the moment. Henchman 2000 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing in the AFD, however, I am going to do a WP:DRV as there was no *consensus* to delete, and the AfD hadn't ran for its full time. Henchman 2000 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That comment really wasn't necessary. RobJ1981 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It violates WP:CIVIL. People don't have to participate in any any part of Misplaced Pages if they don't want to. — Malcolm 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive

Considering I didn't realize at first what you were apologizing for and had to go look for it, it's not a big deal. Thanks, and happy editing. >Radiant< 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Turns out you reverted yourself while I was asleep, so I found only the new version in the morning :) >Radiant< 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James Earl Salisbury

I've nominated James Earl Salisbury, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that James Earl Salisbury satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Earl Salisbury and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>TeckWizBot 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of James Earl Salisbury during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Arkyan &#149; 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Backup your articles

Don't forget you can also add your articles to http://genealogy.wikia.com and findagrave.com. You can also add your dad to your own user space. If you need help contact me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

James Earl Salisbury

Just so you know, digging through some back and forth commentary on multiple talk pages between a few people about the MP deletions, I stumbled onto this article you had written. I'm actually taking your side pretty vigourusly on this one, its well referenced and notable. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that it was me being absolutly fascinated by something I saw, not any malicious wikistalking, and that its nice to be on the same side on something finally :) -M 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page, I believe you did interpret my opinion corerctly. I have to agree with you in saying that it is disappointing when you see people making straight up or down votes, "Keep per so-and-so" or "Delete per nom". I do believe a valuable part of the AfD proces is helping to determine a consensus on what does or does not qualify as notable and so-on, and constructive debate on the process helps. Although we do have processes and policies and guidelines to help us, things like notability remain subjective and require some consensus to decide what the prevailing opinion is. For what it is worth I appreciate your work in improving the article rather than just claiming it is notable without any effort to show it, or waiting for someone else to fix it for you. This one really is a borderline case, and I'll go by whatever the consensus is on the matter, so don't worry about me reappearing in a few months to renominate the article if I don't like the outcome. Cheers, Arkyan &#149; 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

There is a proper outlet for the concerns you are raising and it's deletion review. Rather than your user page and the closing admin's talk page, that's where it should be presented. By the way, my suggestion was to merge it, as I felt was appropriate -- and you did that. I don't think my concern was unsubstantiated. Leebo /C 21:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bringing it up on his talk page is not a bad thing, I was really talking more about your user page. It's just effort better directed toward deletion review. Leebo /C 21:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Database normalization

Hi, I notice you removed the third bullet point in this section (1NF):

• A table must be guaranteed not to have any duplicate records; therefore it must have at least one candidate key.
• There must be no repeating groups, i.e. no attributes which occur a different number of times on different records. For example, suppose that an employee can have multiple skills: a possible representation of employees' skills is {Employee ID, Skill1, Skill2, Skill3 ...}, where {Employee ID} is the unique identifier for a record. This representation would not be in 1NF.
• Note that all relations are in 1NF. The question of whether a given representation is in 1NF is equivalent to the question of whether it is a relation.

Your comment indicates that you think the third bullet point is incorrect and, more specifically, that it contradicts the second. Could you clarify? Chris Date has written (in "Database In Depth", page 16) that "relations are always normalized (equivalently, they're in first normal form, 1NF)". See http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/searchOracle/downloads/Database_in_Depth_Chapter_1.pdf. A relation by definition cannot contain duplicates, and a relation by definition has fixed headings.

Also see Bill Kent: "First normal form excludes variable repeating fields and groups. This is not so much a design guideline as a matter of definition. Relational database theory doesn't deal with records having a variable number of fields." http://www.bkent.net/Doc/simple5.htm ... this is what my second bullet point is getting at.

Would you agree therefore that the material about all relations being in 1NF can be reinstated? --Nabav 16:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I reckon I didn't express myself well enough in the second bullet point. What I meant to convey by the ellipsis (...) was that this representation of employees' skills allowed different numbers of fields on different records. So one could have:

                       Another       Another      Another      Etc.
                       Skill         Skill        Skill        (no limit to
EmpID    Skill         (if applic.)  (if applic.) (if applic.)  num. of skills)
-----    ------        ------------  ------------ ------------ ----------------
1        Whittling
2        Sophistry     Whittling     Cleaning
3        Fishing       Hunting
4        Whittling     Sophistry     Hunting      Fishing

I.e. the record layout changes from record to record depending on how many skills it needs to accommodate. There is not a single fixed set of headings to which all records conform. This way of representing things is both a) not in 1NF, and b) not relational. (Whatever other controversies there may be around 1NF, this, I hope, is uncontroversial.) I will attempt to revise the second bullet point to bring across more clearly what I had in mind.

Slightly more controversial is your Relation A. On the one hand, this has a fixed and finite number of headings. On the other hand, I accept that headings such as "nameofpet1, nameofpet2, nameofpet3" should always arouse suspicion. Does this representation violate 1NF? I don't know. Consider a relation which includes headings "PhoneNum1, PhoneNum2". Is that a violation of 1NF? Again, I don't know. Maybe PhoneNum1 means the person's land line, and PhoneNum2 means the person's mobile; in which case one could argue that the two headings represent sufficiently "different" things that they do not constitute a repeating group. Similarly, in your Relation A, suppose the semantics are as follows: nameofpet1 is the name of the youngest pet (if any), nameofpet2 is the second-youngest pet (if any), and nameofpet3 is the third-youngest pet (if any). All three attributes can then be said to be functionally dependent on the "id" attribute. Someone could then argue that everything is fine and this is not a violation of 1NF: the three attributes represent three different things. Equally, someone could counter-argue that the three attributes represent essentially the same kind of thing (a pet name), thus this is a repeating group and 1NF has been breached. (Certainly it would not be easy to make the case that this is a good design.) Where, I wonder, does one draw the line? How does one rigorously define a repeating group?

In your definition of Relation A, you designate "id" as the key, but in fact the "id" attribute will be a candidate key only if some such constraint as the one I mentioned applies: nameofpet1 is the name of the youngest pet (if any), nameofpet2 is the second-youngest pet (if any), and nameofpet3 is the third-youngest pet (if any). If no such constraint applies, then "id" is not a candidate key. The reason it is not a candidate key is that one can perfectly well have two tuples with the same id value:

{123, Gary, Fifi, Spot, Sheba}

{123, Gary, Sheba, Fifi, Spot}

So I'm still after a good explanation of what it means for a relation to feature a repeating group! If you can come up with a good explanation, we can put it in the article.

Next problem: atomicity. What does it mean for something to be atomic? Is it not the case that atomicity is in the eye of the beholder? A "Full Name" column (data type = String) can be said to hold values that are not atomic, because a Full Name combines a first name and a surname. On the other hand, if I am never going to need to expose the first name or the surname to the RDBMS, then Full Name is atomic enough for me. If we're sticklers for atomicity, we can say that no column of data type String is atomic, because a string consists of multiple characters. But in practice no one says this, because usually no one is interested in exposing the individual characters to the RDBMS. Further: as far as I'm concerned, my UK mobile phone number is atomic. But to someone who knows how mobile phone numbers are allocated, the first five digits of my mobile phone number are probably a meaningful chunk of information in their own right. Further: an audio stream seems to me to be in principle no more or less atomic than anything else. I despair of arriving at a meaningful definition of atomicity. But again, perhaps you have some ideas, in which case the 1NF section can be revised accordingly. --Nabav 11:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem

I agree with you that the information is historically accurate that Young was part of the First Presidency. The problem with the link is that the page linked describes the First Presidency from an LDS POV that is not concurrent with the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ. Linking information from our page to a page that does not support our belief system is not something we want to do. We want the page to reflect our beliefs in the most neutral way, however with the different beliefs and distinctions of the different restoration factions we must always present in a way that accurately portrays what we believe. I hope this clairifies why I unlinked the phrase. It was not an attack on the historical accuracy but a clarification and distinction of belief. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.149.72.72 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry I forgot to sign my talk JRN 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is correct that it does cover the 12 apostles at the time of Brigham Young, but there needs to be a distinction of that for the link. To link to a page with a majority of information that is irrelevent and contradictory to the beliefs of the other page to clarify a minor point doesn't seem correct. Linking to the LDS page with pictures of the LDS apostles makes it seem like we are in some way connected to the LDS and that is incorrect. Is there possibly another neutral page that just explains that first presidency at the time of the split? JRN 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While not wanting to argue opinion on whether or not we are affiliated with the LDS church, I thank you for your comments and suggestions about what to do. Being new to Wiki I am not as versed in what to do but as an ordained minister in The Church of Jesus Christ I just want to make sure that The Church is represented in the most correct light. Again thanks for you help and suggestions JRN 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the need to follow wikipedia policy and I do not fault you for trying to do so.

1. As quoted from the official site for The Church of Jesus Christ (www.thechurchofjesuschrist.com), "As a note of clarification, despite being similar in name, we are not affiliated with the Church of Christ nor with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – also known as the Mormon Church."
2. I do like to discuss differences between denominations and factions that arose from the split. I am very interested in why and how the different organizations came about and that beliefs they substantiated their claims on, and I would be willing to discuss and answers any questions that you would have about our faith and doctrine.
3. I am not willing to argue points of doctrine. It is belief and people are free to believe what they want. JRN 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

I am requesting that you please stop editing the page for The Church of Jesus Christ until you become more familiar with the distinct history of our organization in relation to other restoration era churches. I don't think it is proper or ethical to edit pages that you clearly have little knowledge of. If you would like to learn more about the organization and our beliefs and differences I can recommend historical and doctrinal books to read or feel free to ask me any questions. I hope this does not seem like an attack. Thank you very much JRN 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am requesting the you discontinue your vandalism of The Church of Jesus Christ page. Your changes are not cited and are POV. You cannot change a church stand because you do not agree with it. Stop immediately. JRN 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

James Earl Salisbury

Great, I restored the page and left a comment on the talk page.--Cúchullain /c 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

I will work on it, feel free to tell me how it looks once it starts to be changed hopefully in a few days...

Anyway that picture could be changed to something non-controvershal in the Latter Day Saint movement box?Jcg5029 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Something I'm sure you will like to work on

I have recently managed to get the LMPmgs userfyed. Horaay! Feel free to participate so that we may manage to make them acceptable again. Henchman 2000 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

HELP!!

I was adjusting, changing the F&D to a much more appealing and clear way, but look at it...

nothing below scripture shows up even though it is there in the editing section.

really weird

Jcg5029 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

I made a suggestion under the topic name that I feel is a reasonable alternative that best represents Wiki standards. I understand it will take some work, but I really wanted to hear your thoughts on it...Jcg5029 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just did some research and found out some very interesting information. The Church of Jesus Christ (whimp) does not actually have whimp in its official name at all. In fact, the official incorporated name is The Church of Jesus Christ. I thought it was different simply due to false information on this page. I found out this information by calling one of the General Trustees of The Church of Jesus Christ. His name is Joe Ross. Since we already concluded the official name was acceptable clearly The Church of Jesus Christ should be the page name to this site. I am fixing the errors on the site now and am waiting for discussion to draw the obvious conclusion that the name should be The Church of Jesus Christ.Jcg5029 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, I am not suggesting that the disambig page be taken away. I want all sites to be represented. Legally TCOJC must have its official name as the name of the site. I do not know how to make both happen, but they should both happen. Either way the Church's official name must happen. Period. There is no compromising this legal issue.Jcg5029 16:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, I would like to request that you cease to use the term "Bickertonite", "Bickerton Church" or other such nick name when referring to The Church of Jesus Christ. This is offensive to all members of the that organization. This is being done under the Misplaced Pages:Civility policy. Thank you. CSG 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, The Church of Jesus Christ is the official name of the organization. There is a disambig page to solve the problem of multiple names. If you use the phrase "Bickertonite" or "Bickerton Church" in any way shape or form again, you will be reported to the administration for continual usage of religious slurs (see Misplaced Pages:Civil). CSG 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

McKay, I apologize if I was not completely clear with what my request was. I will spell it out to you in completness so you can finally understand it in its fullness.

1. Use of Bickerton Church or Bickertonite is offensive.

2. (WHIMP) does not correctly describe this organization according to the United States Government as we have constantly referenced. People associated with this organization have requested that this term not be used.

3. The official name of the organization is The Church of Jesus Christ.

If you insist on using any terms other than the offical name of the organization in question, you will be reported to administration for continual usage of religious slurs (see Misplaced Pages:Civil) It is very difficult to assume good faith when you seem to show none. I dont wish to offend you on any terms. I would hope the same from you. If you must shorten the name of this organization - DONT! Please refer to it by its proper name. Thank you. If you have any other questions or if I have not been clear enough, let me know. CSG 18:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem

My problem is one of offense. I appreciate your willingness to comply with my request. I also appreciate everything that you have done for the improvement of the site in question. I would hope that we can all move on to completing the task of making this the best site we can make it. Thank you. CSG 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats great to hear that you have found another way to solve this problem. As long as it does not cause more problems, I appreciate your willingness to compromise. Thank you very much. CSG 18:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your request, but I am unable to follow it. While I understand that you don't think any other churches are called "The Church of Jesus Christ" you must see that I believe that there are other churches called "The Church of Jesus Christ". Under some circumstances usage of the term "The Church of Jesus Christ" is completely clear. At other times, I personally feel that there must be some sort of disambiguation. What can I do to specify which church it is when the usage of "The Church of Jesus Christ" is unclear. I think that there shouldn't be any problem by specifying the headquarters of said church, which is why I use the designation "with headquarters in monogahela pennsylvania" shortened to "whimp". If you cannot provide something to designate it, I will use that one, it is not offensive. Otherwise, I will continue to use that designation. Feel free to report me to the administration if you feel that that's what's right. I feel like I'm bending over backwards to meet your silly little whims. I'm sick and tired of your continual threats to report me to the administration. These threats are counterproductive. Either do it, or be quiet about the issue. I'm not going to change my actions unless you can provide a different option. There needs to be a way for me on the talk pages, to disambiguate your church from other churches which I believe share the name of your church. McKay 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly little whims are actually serious legal issues. You may designate this organization as The Church of Jesus Christ. It is simple and sounds nice. If you want to refer to other organizations use their proper name as well. It is a simple solution to your problem. I think those organizations would prefer it as well. If you need clarification on what those are, I suggest you look them up on the government registration list of corporations in the United States. I think that this is a good way for you to disambiguate between organizations. CSG 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was merely a suggestion to solve your problem, not a threat at all. CSG 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry if you took that as a WP:A, but I am honestly having a hard time with you right now. You have shown in the past that in terms of The Church of Jesus Christ you have a very strong disregard and have stated that you don't care about wiki policy "but without WP:Attributability, we don't care. Even With attributabiltiy, we probably don't care)". So when you go on to continue to refer to how much you are trying to "execute policy" after making a statement that you don't care about policy, I'm sorry but I find it very hard to not see hypocrisy when you only seem to care about policy when you can use it to your advantage. This is not a personal attack. I have quoted statements made by you on the talk page for The Church of Jesus Christ. I don't believe I have taken anything out of context. Feel free to talk further on this matter as I wish to continue to be civil. I am sorry if I am becoming frustrated with this situation. Thank you JRN 02:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What?!? Where have I said that I don't care about wikipedia policy? McKay 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not I didn't take it out of context. JRN

"I said that in that case I don't care about attributability, and you're skewing it to mean that I don't care about the rules" WP:A is a guiding policy of wikipedia. You have now said twice that you don't care about attributability. I am not puting adding any words to what you said but are quoting you exactly. JRN 16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not twisted your words in any way. I have merely quoted what was said. Please stop throwing around accusations of WP:PA. I did not make any personal attacks against you. I would ask you to please discontinue your accusations. I merely stated how I felt and why I felt that way. I wish to discontinue talking to you on our talk pages and ask you to be civil. Thank you very much 205.149.72.72 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Beast

You mind explaining what was wrong with my edit? TheBlazikenMaster 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

T-carrier

I think your {{fact}} is clearly addressed in SONET. SONET's speeds go up to 159gbps (versus a DS3's 45mbps), and fiber sees fewer errors than copper. jhawkinson 00:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rigdonite Notability

I am curious as to exactly why you tagged the rigdonite article with a notability tag. I'd like to open a discussion on that page so that it can be resolved and as you applied the tag I'm coming to you first. JRN 03:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for WP:A or something else in particular. I feel that the article is notable, but defitenely needs cited sources and some clean up. I just want to make sure we are on the same page. JRN 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How about proposing a merge with the Sidney Rigdon article. I think that would solve the notability problem. What do you think? JRN 19:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems strange to me, you feel the artcile is notable, but you placed a notability tag on it. Why not just do some research and cite yourself? I'm not sure what the process is for this -- I just don't want the page to go up for deletion or anything. I would be fine for a merge (I'd rather not). Had you begun to get some references I could help you with? Just trying to figure out the situation and help.Jcg5029 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand, I just thought if you cared enough about the article you would care enough to do research about the subject in question.Jcg5029 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Tag

The tag is for disputing the factual accuracy of a statement. It is not disputable that the church is called "The Church of Jesus Christ". It is not disputable that is the official name of the church. It is not disputable that it is the legal name of the church, since it is the publicly registered corporate name. Since it cannot be reasonably disputed that the church is called by that name, including officially and legally, the tag is inappropriate. Vassyana 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you misunderstood what a dispute tag was about. It is about the accuracy of the statement. The accuracy of the church's name is not under any dispute. If you leave this tag up you will be guilty of the same actions of vandalism you applied to me.Jcg5029 01:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, About Mario Party 8

Hello, I'm the guy who made the "un-sourced" stuff, like the Teams Names, and the candies. I do want to say that I bought the game last night, and was just being nice enough to share my knowledge with you guys. I'd like to see my topics back in. .GameboyMN 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Dan Baker

Hi, how is your progress regarding the interview? Cyborg 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke

You missed the external link to the article titled "Teen Tests Internet's Lewd Track Record", then? What about "Web woes for Stokke"? Did you click through to see what they say, and what images they contain? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On talk edits

Regarding in general, users are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages. JoshuaZ 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke

Your comments and multiple !votes on the Alliston Stokke AfD are becoming disruptive. You have made your point, please now leave it. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Your disruption has gone too far. You have reinserted material, that has been regarded as BLP violating, despite repeated explanations on the talk page and elseehere. You are entitled to disagree, you are entitled to continue the discussion, you are not entitled to replace material disputed under BLP during that discussion. Come back in three hours and behave.--Doc 16:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mckaysalisbury (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for this edit. I feel that it was unjustified. See Talk:Allison Stokke for more information.

Decline reason:

Clearly contentious area surrounding a BLP issue, which has been discussed widely. BLP issues are taken seriously and that you won't undertake to work with that means an unblock (even though there is only an hour to go) would be inappropriate --pgk 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'll unblock you myself, if you indicate you will not reinsert material that you know is disputed under BLP. You can continue disputing it, but you must not re-add it under those circumstances. Now, will you give that undertaking?--Doc 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe you don't understand. I think that you're being totalitarian, and you're mis-enforcing a policy. I think it's imperative that that content get's added. I made it very clear in my "offending" edit that the information I added was in full compliance with BLP. I've asked for the past couple days for an explanation of why sourced information is in violation of BLP and you have failed to provide such information. I'm being penalized for being bold. This single blocking is an ugly scar on my e perfectly clean block list. I intend to make sure that justice is done. McKay 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that my block log is substantially cleaner than yours, and I'm upset. McKay 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have recieved your email regarding this block, and have decided to decline your request to have it overturned. Youtube is never an acceptable source with regards to a living persons biography. Had you followed the discussion regarding that particular article you would have seen that we specifically are avoiding the inclusion of the fact that people have been leering over her photos. Since you didnt bother to do any research before wading into the situation, I believe the block should stand.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So, maybe I shouldn't have added the last sentence, but was that last sentence enough for a block? I wasn't using the content of the YouTube video as a source, but merely the hit count. The original discussion was primarily with the primary sources. Aside from the YouTube hit count, the other information was clearly secondary sources. McKay 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, you say that I didn't do my research, but I have been involved in this issue for a couple days. On the AfD and on the talk page. I feel like I had done my research. McKay 17:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the sources you were using were sufficiently reliable, although the Washington post or NPR or the Tribune links would have been good enough. I'm not going to touch the block because unlike Doc I'd prefer not to use the admin tools on topics that I'm involved in. JoshuaZ 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand your opinion. That's one thing I think Doc did very inappropriately, he blocked in an issue he's currently involved in without very clear consensus. Also, it might be worth noting that I did use the Washington Post reference, and another reference I found from google news. McKay 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this block. Mckaysalisbury made only one edit to the article, even if it happened during heated BLP/Stokke drama. And despite what Doc thinks, he is currently engaged in a content dispute regarding this article, along with an earlier conflict with this user specifically, so he should not be handing blocks to anyone in this matter. Prolog 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This block was compatible with the Biographies of living persons policy (BLP). It is the sense of that policy that being "involved" and other considerations are waived when enforcing it. It cannot hurt to add the policy as evidence in the current arbitration Doc brought against Badlydrawnjeff, if you think clarification on this point of policy would be useful. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think youtube can be used for a source to say what was in youtube, even in a BLP--it is simple observation. And also the Doc was totally wrong in blocking in a case he was involved in, and that he knew was controversial., and where no actual harm to anyone resulted. I have been asked to unblock, at the request of some unstated member of arbcom. I am not willing to do so, because I am previously involved in the discussion. In my recent RfA I said I would never take admin action in a matter I was discussing--that I would do either the one or the other. DocG should adopt the same standard. There would be reason to act in spite of that standard in an emergency where obvious harm would result, but not otherwise. If Tony adds it to the ongoing arb case I will dispute him about this.

I congratulate Mckaysalisbury in not making the promise that DocG was requested. DGG 18:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So you think he should take a principled stand against the idea that it is the responsibility of the editor seeking to include content, to justify it, he should resist at all costs the idea that consensus should be reached before including questionable content, and it is outrageuous to askhim to promise not to add questionably-sourced content to biographies of living individuals? You congratulate him on refusing to promise to follow policy even though it would get him unblocked? Now that is weird. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Biographies of living persons policy specifically permits an involved admin to block. I've added the principle to the arbitration in case the arbitrators might want to comment. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

With something like 15 minutes of the block to go! :-) The issue is not nearly settled enough to block over, any assertion of consensus is highly debatable, the block reason was a single good faith, not vandalism, edit, and Doc Glasgow is quite involved in the edit war, all of that makes the original block rather questionable. But in any case, the page has been protected due to the edit war, and is highly unlikely to be unprotected durign these remaining 15 minutes, which makes maintaining the block punitive rather than preventative. Which we don't do, per WP:BLOCK. --AnonEMouse 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just reiterating that the BLP explicitly permits this kind of block. Doc glasgow did absolutely nothing wrong. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevant sections from BLP: "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." (several sections later) "Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption." McKay 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If the issue were settled, and McKay were the only person warring over it, absolutely, Doc's being involved with the article wouldn't be a problem. But I see quite a few people arguing on the talk page that the information should be included, and it is quite disputable whether merely linking to a highly reputable source is inherently a violation of WP:BLP. I'll try to avoid arguing either side of that, as I can see both, but it's certainly not settled enough to block over. Let's hope the Badlydrawnjeff arbcom case clarifies that last bit. If the page weren't protected, or the block had a longer time to run I'd have talked more before unblocking. --AnonEMouse 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people are clamoring for the material to be added. As a result of this block and unblock, I've added a proposed principle and finding to the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

I can't decide whether I'd block you for BLP violations, trolling or just general disruption. But I'll think of something. Please save me doing that by desisting.--Doc 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)