User talk:Paul A/2004-1

Nice job on Peter Pan - thanks. Jamesday 01:19, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I have listed Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, to which you contributed substantially, on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --Smack 05:25, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Paul, how does one merge the pages, together with histories? I proposed two mergers, see Talk:Karelia (republic) and Talk: The Noble Republic. Now to proceed properly? I fail to see this in wikipedia rules. If there are none, please post the advice to the two talk pages, so that people don't do something what happened with Fake book :-) Mikkalai 00:44, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I just poked my nose into the sandbox to see what you were up to. When I was there a couple of weeks ago, I'm sure the introductory text section was protected. Are you a sysop, or should I find one and ask them to protect it? The sand box is supposed to be somewhere that newbies can mess around in safely, making the introductory text editable will just make it awakward (and people will yell at them for messing it up!). Fabiform 05:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm a sysop, but I wouldn't know how to go about protecting or unprotecting the introductory text. As far as I know, only entire pages can be protected; protecting the entire Sandbox seems a bit counterproductive.  :)
(As for what I was up to, I was trying out a bug somebody had just pointed out on the Village Pump, to see if I could pin down what was causing it.) —Paul A 05:47, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've just asked this same question on the pump, I'm sure I'll be swiftly disabused of my idea that the top of the page used to be protected if I'm wrong.  :) Thanks for your speedy reply, by the way.  :) Fabiform 06:06, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Please do convert Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums to the wikimarkup, especially now that I tried to delete a section and mucked the whole thing up again. Tuf-Kat 17:58, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

---

Paul, thanks for your interest in clarification. I've replied at User talk:Jerzy#Infinite monkey as-of. --Jerzy 07:03, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

---

Anne McCaffrey

Thanks for pointing out the compilations I accidently added to Anne McCaffrey. I thought I had eliminated all those. I just rechecked those three. However, I think The City and the Ship is actually new, as the publisher labels it as "The Eighth book in the brainship series". Would you mind if I added all three back (possibly four) with notes indicating the books included in the complilations? That way, someone else won't be similarly confused and re-add them. -- ssd 05:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They're all definitely reprints - I checked the publisher's web site. The City and the Ship is The City Who Fought, McCaffrey's collaboration with S. M. Stirling, and The Ship Avenged, Stirling's solo sequel. (Pity. I got quite excited when I thought there was a new one in that subseries.)
Adding them back with a note about them being compilations sounds like a good idea.
--Paul A 05:40, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Please add a summary of what you did on an adit before you commit it; this is done via the "summary" box. It helps to tell why you did a particular thing, or exactly what you wanted to accomplish. Falcon 04:47, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, which I somehow unaccountably never learned for myself in all the months before you came along.
Was there a specific edit that you wanted more information on?
--Paul A 15:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I cannot remember exactly which edit I am referring to; if it ever comes up again I will let you know. However, one would think that knowing such a thing, one might make a habit of it everywhere in the actual wikipedia? Falcon 20:44, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Um. In case you hadn't noticed, I do make a habit of providing edit summaries. (Recognising sarcasm when people use it to your face can be a useful life skill, by the way.) This is why I assumed that your original suggestion about providing edit summaries was prompted by a specific edit: I know that I occasionally slip up on specific edits, but I don't need nonspecific advice that it is good to provide edit summaries, because I know that already. --Paul A 00:08, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recognising sarcasm when it's used in a text-only medium can be difficult. Text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language, and it's easy to misjudge the mood and intention of the person who wrote it. -- Cyan 20:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Apologies. Thanks for clearing up the mess. --Tagishsimon 13:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Sysop help available?

Paul, i've got a problem that probably needs a sysop to fix, if it can be fixed at all. Got a minute to at least consider feasibility? --Jerzy(t) 03:45, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Thanks, P. Quick question (tho i think i'd be obligated to explain why i want it): can a sysop log off a particular user IP or user acct, without any permanent effect resulting? (It's my acct i'm talking abt!) --Jerzy(t) 04:02, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Well, i'm staying at a Bed & Breakfast & using their computer. But thru a confusion, i started the evening on the lady of the house's computer, thinking her workroom had the "library" computer i'm supposed to use (to which i've now moved). When the error was pointed out, i left so hurriedly to relieve everyone's discomfort, that i forgot logging out from WP. I've noted that logging on from a second IP doesn't log off the first, so i believe that IP still has me logged on, and if their browser includes the WP pages i visited in its history, their going to them would leave them in a position to edit under my user name. But i'd like to avoid rehashing of the situation with them that getting access again would entail. [blush] --Jerzy(t) 04:25, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Change your password. You can't remotely delete cookies from someone else's computer, so there's not really any other way to do it. -- Tim Starling 06:15, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both; Tim's response was cryptic when applied to the problem i was trying to state, so after taking his advice anyway, i read Wikipedia:Technical FAQ#Does Wikipedia use cookies? and did the clarifying experiment it suggested: i terminated my browser without logging off, and found that restarting the browser and entering WP made it invite me to log in.

For the sake of any bizarre person who interprets my problem as i intended, the simplest response that applies is

If they dragged you away from the terminal before you could kill the browser, then they can of course continue your session. But as long as the browser terminated, and assuming you didn't use the "remember my password" feature, it's as if you did log out.

So thanks again; my mind is at ease. --Jerzy(t) 22:39, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

---

Small apology

Paul, i am terrible with recalling the contexts of names (and faces, for that matter); i'm embarrassed to have brought you my sysop-request without acknowedging our previous contact abt inf-monkeys. It only was upon seeing your name again, after a few days, on the inf-monkeys pages that i realized i hadn't msged you as a stranger!

I'll also mention here my appreciation of your kind response to my "back-seat driving": i'm not willing to do the systematic research that i see as called for by the inf-monkey article, and your willingness to in effect "do my research for me" is IMO laudable; thank you.

I'll add this 'graph to the talk page, as part of the (fully-)public discussion of the article:

I think that's great! The only phrase that bothers me is

how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play

I may be indulging my taste for excessive precision by mentioning it, but i find it a little confusing in that it fails to distinguish between the collective nature of the project (in the sense that any monkey can complete a play) and the individual nature of the completion of any single play by one monkey. I especially fear my excessiveness in this case, in that i have no alternate wording to suggest for making the distinction clearly (tho i'll sleep on it).

One question does occur to me, tho, and its answer might help: isn't one user of the program letting their machine simulate one monkey, and if so, might that focus offer a less tricky wording?

--Jerzy(t) 03:37, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

---

Question about Quotes

Paul, Could we talk about the quote you removed from the Raymond Chandler page. WHile I agree with the notion that quotes generally go into wikiquotes, my understanding was that a small number of illustrative quotes was accptable. Given that Chandler defined a whole new style of fiction, and that the quote really defined his style, I felt it was appropiate. What are your thoughts? I am new to the wikipedia, and I am anxious to get along. Michael --Michael L. Kaufman 16:14, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Everything you say had occurred to me, and I was on the verge of restoring the quote anyway; I have now done so. Thanks for the nudge. --Paul A 02:06, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I just found the WP a feww weeks ago and I am enjoying the whole process. Michael L. Kaufman 05:15, May 27, 2004 (UTC)