User talk:Fran Rogers

Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Will (Talk - contribs) 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to the Bugs Bunny page

I noticed you removed a full section in this page, this should have been disscused first, however it would have been kept, why? every major character has a section listing references on other TV programs , video games and other media, this one is actually very short just look at the one in the Superman page it has photos and all and it's not lke Seinfield is relevant to it in simpler words it's part of page desing, I however noticed the title of the section is incomplete so I will change it to "References in other media" , anyway you are new so you won't get a report or anything-Dark Dragon Flame | talk

I was {{toomuchtrivia}} tagging, pruning, and removing a large amount of trivia and "cultural references" sections from articles at the time as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Official_policy_on_.22Cultural_references.22_sections_in_articles, where an administrator confirmed that despite the fact that "cultural references" lists are widespread, they are mostly against WP:TRIV. These references are already more concisely described at E. Peterbus Unum and Gex (video game series), which are probably the best place to discuss those references.

I will admit though that I may have been too hasty with deleting it altogether. Looking at the article again, a paragraph near the end of the "After the war" section would probably be a good place to add a short paragraph mentioning Bugs Bunny's influences on other media, and maybe give a couple consise examples. Krimpet 06:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, I will shorten it and move it tomorrow until then I will leave it there so I can have an idea of what is important about it when I'm making a summary-Dark Dragon Flame 07:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is it, I made a summary of the two paragraphs and fused them together in a somewhat small one, I also removed the "References in Popular Culture" section-Dark Dragon Flame 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiplex

Thank you for your efforts to eliminate this neologism. I have been thinking of doing the same thing for a while, but never got around to it. --NE2 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes it's something that's kind of irked me for a while particularly because of the clumsy way the term is often used. Unfortunately it seems that this is going to be an enormously massive undertaking, much much bigger than I originally thought, as it seems hundreds of state and interstate route articles use the terms "duplex" and "triplex" in their (automatically-generated?) route logs. Krimpet 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be more careful... I don't think "concurrencyed" is a word. Maybe "overlapped" would be better? --NE2 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I've been trying to automate the process somewhat by finding-and-replacing different conjugations of multiplex/duplex/triplex (see the bottom of User:Krimpet/monobook.js for my current criteria); I've been working on the PA routes one-by-one and trying to review the results and refine my search terms as I go along, but that one slipped through the cracks, I promise I'll try not to let that happen again. Krimpet 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add my thanks on eliminating "duplex," et al. To my mind, a "duplex" is a house divided horizontally into two dwellings. Coemgenus 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. Regrettably, I have declined your request as you do not have 500 mainspace edits. You are welcome to apply again at a later time. Feel free to contact me with any questions, alphachimp 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Gooey

my friend, i agree with you, Gooey can be proposed for deletion, do you want to do it, or do you want me to submit it? Pernambuco 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You can do it if you want, I'll admit I'm kind of lazy and didn't do it right away =P Krimpet 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of taco fillings

Please note that I have added List of burrito fillings to this AFD (as suggested by one of the voters); you may wish to add a comment or reconsider your vote. Brianyoumans 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Iranianism

Hi Krimpet,

I just wanted to contact you because of your vote to keep with major cleanup at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Anti-Iranianism. There is a movement on the article's talk page to do just that but it is being met by some fierce resistance by the creators of the article. Would you mind taking a look?

Thanks, GabrielF 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, at least this message spurred me to look for the opt out procedure for this unbelievably annoying bot, it's a PITA to go back and add forgotten tildes a few seconds later only to find the bot has "helpfully" done it for me. Krimpet 18:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your vendetta against "multiplex"

Where's your consensus for this? I have found no serious discussion of this change over at WP:USRD and there is nothing in the Manual of style (AFAIK) that says we can't use neologisms in the actual article text (we just can't create articles about neologisms, or rather protologisms).

I know one user (SPUI) has said "concurrency" is the preferred official term (if so, someone better tell NYSDOT to get in line as they seem to use "overlap" a lot), but there's been no consensus on using that in articles.

You seem to have been here for only a month and a half. Behavior like this can, if and when it annoys enough people, get you on Requests for Comment. I strongly recommend you go to the roads project talk page and try to get consensus for this. I reverted your edits to New York State Route 55 since you removed a link to the actual concurrency article in the process. Is that really what you wanted to do? It seems counterproductive unless you believe policing the language as used on Wikipedia should come at the expense of the project's effectiveness as an information resource. I would venture the same has happened in some other articles. This would bolster a complaint against you that you have disrupted Wikipedia to make a point.

I really would prefer this be settled on a project talk page, as it should be, rather than through a multifront edit war. Just a friendly warning, but a warning nonetheless. Daniel Case 19:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding neologisms is indeed a style guideline, as per WP:NEO: Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people.

That's "generally speaking", of course. And in the strict sense of the word, it's not a neologism, just a new usage of a word that's been in English since the 16th century.[1]. I don't find its usage in road articles to have too many of the problems that neologisms are supposed to have ... engineers, being resourceful people, brought it over from its "communicates two or more signals over a common channel" usage, and I don't find its application to roads to be stretching that too much. It's a testament to the adapatability of the English language IMO.

If an established dictionary starts listing that use as such, will we have to go back and re-edit all these articles.

"Multiplex" and its related terms in the context of roads are neologisms, being used almost exclusively in the "road geek" community, and can be highly confusing to the uninitiated; to the layman, a "duplex" is a type of house.

I think most laypeople today are not that thick. We all know that "full duplex" is about our Internet service. I think that most people may be a little jarred when they see "multiplex" in a Wikipedia road article, but they'll quickly figure it out from the context; especially when "duplex" and "triplex" are in the mix.

(Having to link to the Concurrency (road) article just to explain what a "multiplex" is, is illustrative of how confusing the term is.)

Then why did you delink that article here? That makes no sense if it's about understanding (non-road people think "concurrency" has something to do with prison sentences, and then there's this). We have an article; it should be linked to from every applicable road article because even when people understand what it means, they might want a little more background.

That's what I meant about disrupting to make a point. Your methods seem a little ham-handed.

And while you're at it, could you consider going around and, per my example here, use "double-route" or "triple-route" to modify "concurrency" where the same article had previously referred to duplexes and triplexes? If you want to avoid readers getting confused, it's essential to make that distinction.

Replacing arcane neologisms makes the information more accessible to a wider audience, which is exactly the goal of Wikipedia; how is this "at the expense of the project's effectiveness as an information resource"?

See above.

I announced my intentions to replace this neologism at Talk:Concurrency (road) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways a couple weeks ago, and I waited until receiving support from others (see my talk page above...), with only support and no opposition until now, before replacing things on a larger scale. How am I "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point"? Krimpet 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is too typical of this place lately. Just like the whole fair-use publicity-photo jihad, not enough outreach was made. I think I'm typical of a lot of road-article editors in that I tend to spend time working on articles about one or several states' road systems, and rarely check any of the high-level project pages, least of all WP:HWY. Your support seems to be largely NE2.

Had you reposted your proposal on all subproject pages, particularly the individual states, I think you would have gotten more feedback and been on firmer ground. As of right now, I don't consider this to have adequate consensus. Daniel Case 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to build consensus by posting it in a more general forum where I figured more people would see it; had I known that editors didn't generally check higher-up projects, OK, I would have posted it on the more specific state projects. But as WP:CON says, "silence equals consent", and nobody had objected until now; I had no intention of working against consensus. I will discuss this in some of the more specific forums before I continue, if you feel I should.

Some discussion is underway already at WT:USRD. Seems to be running about even.

People are a bit paranoid because, as the newsletter below this notes, there is an effort (not likely to succeed IMO) underway to delete all road articles, and some people wondered if this was part of that. Daniel Case 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll also admit that one instance of de-linking to Concurrency (road) was a mistake, yes, it was not my intention and I apologize. Nevertheless, I stand by my position that "multiplex" and "duplex" et al. are unacceptable neologisms (and I did mention that they are only neologisms in the context of roads). While you are right that most people will eventually figure it out from the context, ideally they should not be "jarred" by any terms even on the first read. In addition to being the terms used by state DOTs, "concurrent", "overlap", etc. already carry the dictionary definition of "convergent" or "meeting at the same point". (Another problem is that "multiplex", "duplex", etc. are often used in inconsistent, ad hoc forms, such as "has a multiplex", "multiplexes", "A and B multiplex", "the C/D multiplex", which seem to contribute to a rather unprofessional, jarring tone.) Krimpet 06:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to live with "concurrency" for now while I write letters to the major dictionary publishers urging them to include this meaning. (I've already made the appropriate wiktionary edits to multiplex, duplex and triplex, but since we don't consider Wiktionary acceptable as a source for non-neologism status (although it would pass its criteria for inclusion), it won't have any affect. Still, lexicographical reform has to start somewhere.

It's always nice to be getting out of the weekend with that sense of collegiality returning. Daniel Case 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion at WT:USRD, I would say there does appear to be a clear consensus that "multiplex" should be avoided. While I am going to wait a day or two to make sure, I don't really see anyone else objecting to my replacement efforts. Krimpet 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're getting a reasonable consensus (I think you make a better case by pointing to it as jargon, which we are supposed to avoid.

It occurs to me we ought to follow the examples set by the American, British and New Zealand railfan communities and have some sort of List of roadfan jargon. Daniel Case 04:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more

See this edit. The image (very crucial to the article) disappeared for a while. We can't rename images, so we have to keep their names. Daniel Case 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, a small mistake, you easily fixed it... what point was there in pointing this out to me on my talk page? Please don't start henpecking. Krimpet 16:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

-

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1	10 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Notability of state highways is challenged Important deletion debates Featured subproject Featured member From the editor
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/N

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 20:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Global Warming

I just wanted to clarify something. You wrote, "Controversy is not a valid reason for deletion; deleting this article - even as bad as it is now - or any other controversial article would lessen Wikipedia's value as an information resource."

The issue is not that because there is controversy the article should be deleted. The issue is that, based on the edits, deletions, reverts, etc by the administrators, there is no controversy and thus the article is irrelevant. Thanks for your time. -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the edit war enough to know completely what's going on, but what I meant is that an edit war is no excuse for deletion, no matter how hopeless it may seem. The controversy over global warming is a very prominent subject, and should be detailed in Wikipedia in an NPOV manner, as hopeless reaching that goal may seem. Krimpet 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

File:New Jersey blank.svg The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 2	24 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Notability of state highways is upheld Deletion debates Kansas Turnpike is now a Good Article Featured subproject U.S. Roads IRC channel created Featured member Infoboxes and Navigation subproject started From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing as revenge?

I find it interesting that within a minute of disagreeing with me about the Cyrus Farivar article, you have chosen to question my own biographical page's relevance. Hopefully those members of the Macintosh community who know me will find citations to my relevance! Jsnell 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I happened to come across the article on you, created by Cyrus himself, when I was looking at Cyrus's edit history and noticed it was unsourced. If I were acting "vengeful," I could have instantly added it to AfD, or worse I could have assumed you and your coworker Cyrus were in cahoots and accused you of a conflict of interest at DRV. But did I? No, I assumed good faith and simply tagged your article with the {{notability}} tag, inviting you or anyone else to add sources to back up its notability. WP:AGF is one of the primary guiding principles of Wikipedia; I suggest you bone up on it yourself. Krimpet 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it time ?

Don't you think its time to let I-476 become a good article? It's been 8 days since the tag and i haven't seen many changes. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 13:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I too feel it meets GA criteria now, but we need an impartial third-party reviewer to make that determination as per the WP:GAC process. Krimpet 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, good luck with the WP:GAC process. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 17:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions

Hi, I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) deletion discussion. If you haven't participated in the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans discussion, which involves essentially the same issues, please do. There's also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination). I'll asking everyone who participated in one to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in more than one. Best wishes, Noroton 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)