User talk:Ioannes Pragensis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives 1 2

Contents 1 Indexed names 1.1 Cease and desist 1.2 A piteous demand 2 Chess 3 Chess players and National chess players 4 Sample chess game 5 Invitation 6 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cs. 7 Regression analysis: proposed lead 7.1 Regresion analysis footnote: attempting to narrow the dispute 8 Chess 9 re:German Soldier's House

[edit] Indexed names

Hi Honza! I would like to present you an example of discussion on using original names (indexed) in my articules (i.e. César Muñoz, Jiří Pelikán, etc.), by Gene Nygaard (Do you remember him ?). I have written an articule on Luis Augusto Sánchez, and Nygaard attacks me.

[edit] Cease and desist

Please stop creating articles such as Luis Augusto Sánchez if you cannot add the proper sort keys so that the articles are indexed properly in categories. I fixed that one. Go back and fix any others you have messed up the same way. Note that spaces and any other character are also indexed, such as the one you put in front of his name in the 1930 births category. Gene Nygaard 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A piteous demand

It is pity that your writing about different articules is so aggressive. If you find a mistake you can change it. By the way, I have just changed dates in categories births and deaths on Luis Augusto Sanchez (a Colombian chess player). Earlier, I wrote an articule on Boris De Greiff (a Colombian chess player), and I copied by mistake the categories. Your demand to cease and desist from doing it in all my articules is ridiculous and piteous. Mibelz 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about in your reply on my talk page? The problem I fixed had nothing to do with Boris De Greiff. I'm glad you noticed that separate mistake you made, but you also need to stop doing indexing with characters such as "á" in the sort key, and you need to go back and fix any others you have misindexed that way. Gene Nygaard 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that since you are the only editor in the edit history of César Muñoz and some of the other missorted articles, there is no possibility that this missorting can be blamed on anyone other than you. Fix them. Gene Nygaard 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Honza, would you, as a member of WikiProject Chess, be so kind to send a message to Gene Nygaard on it. All the best to you and a Happy New Year! Mitch Mibelz 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Misach, I wrote him on his talk page, I hope that it will help a bit. Do not worry about him, try to do the indexing without diacritics and keep up good work. Happy New Year!--Ioannes Pragensis 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess

Hi, thanks for reverting my apparently bad edit to chess. However I had spotted the error, just failed to update the edit summary, so I';ve reinstated the rest of the edit. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:27 7 January 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Chess players and National chess players

Sorry Honza, but you are wrong - in my opinion - on it. There are three different categories: Chess players, Chess grandmasters and "National" chess players (i.e. Czech chess players) in Wikipedia. The last one include "Chess players" and "Chess grandmasters", presented separately for all nations.

Greetings, Mibelz, 9:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Honza! At Category:Chess players - it is clearly written there that: This category includes notable chess players who are not grandmasters. So, it is not true that every "Czech chess player" is automatically a "Chess player" at the same time. Some of them are "Chess grandmasters"!

For example, in category "Czech chess players" there are Hort, Pachman, Pelikan, Treybal, etc. In Category "Chess players" are only Pelikan and Treybal, but Hort and Pachman are only in subcategory: "Chess grandmasters".

By the way, there is a little disorder in Category "Chess woman grandmasters" because of lack some names which are in category (subcategory) "Female grandmasters". Of course, none of them is in category "Chess players".

Maybe, it is a problem with designation of categories and subcategories.

Greetings, Mi Mibelz 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Honza, I am afraid that you want to remove the category which includes more than 300 chess players all around the world. Why ? What to do in a case of nescience on a player's nationality ? I propose to change name "Chess players" into "Chess masters", like "Chess grandmasters", or create a new subcategory.

By the way, there is 9 subcategories (not 4) in Category: Chess players - see the next page. Unfortunalety, sometimes the same categories are subcategories of subcategories and/or independent categories. So, it is not a very simple way to find chosen players or categories.

All the best, Mi Mibelz 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sample chess game

FYI - the arguments look valid, but someone may need to do the transwiki, and correct the links in Chess and elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy for the info!--Ioannes Pragensis 19:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Czech Republic, an attempt to build and maintain a large and neutral database of the Czech Republic-related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of WikiProject Czech Republic.

--Darwinek 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cs.

Hi Ioannes
I would appreciate it if you would add a line to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cs. Since your name is mentioned there, I believe you may find the statement it is used as an unfair statement. thanks in any case.cs 11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regression analysis: proposed lead

Dear Ioannes: It's impressive that you could fix an article like the one you got the award for. I see that you are a recent contributor to Regression analysis. Would you consider giving an opinion for or against the following Talk:Regression analysis#Proposed lead? The reasons are listed there. My thanks. --Thomasmeeks 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So glad to hear your latest comment on the above, Ioannes, my dear fellow-critical rationalist. May I have your permission to list you at the top of "Proposed lead" (in support of the proposed lead)? Regards, Thomasmeeks

Instead of this, I would just replace the lead of the article quickly. :-) No need for more polling etc., I think. Best regards, --Ioannes Pragensis 14:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you would. That's why I'm protectihg you from your yourself (; ). You will one day possibly be a great politician, like your better known, sainted countryman. And you will have me to thank for it. Slightly more ponderously, the request for comment has the advantage of encouraging further possible improvement (which we critical rationalists so charmingly never exclude) and reflection. (On the latter, does anyone really want to revert if they in turn might be reverted by a small army of fellow editors?)

I really would like to recognize you at the top. (Woollymammoth deserves mention too.) So, just say "OK," OK (; )? (Or not, as you feel most comfortable with). BR, Thomasmeeks 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You see, and it is finished - even without the poll :-) Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 20:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but there are the advantages above of giving the opportunity for such (like the value of the right to vote even if not exercised). I believe that this article has a chance to move up significantly as a Web resource with continued improvement. You made a decisive difference. All the best, Thomasmeeks 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Ioannes. A very good Edit (especially relative to 2 Edits before ; ). I hope that it won't be your last such for this article.* IMHO it would have been even better if you had taken more seriously the "proposed lead" (the principle of charity again), sentence by sentence (noting alleged 1-5, and other, advantages over the previous Edit), as a check that you had neither introduced errors nor omitted material that was useful or helpful.§ On the latter, of course, I'm not talking about people like you & me who know more than a little about the subject. I'm not even talking only about those who know a little about the subject. I'm talking also about those who know less than a little but would like to know more and would like motivation to learn more (for example, reading beyond the lead). Many of the greatest statistical intellects of the past century wrote for such people, not only their colleagues and students. I am almost wholly lacking in such intellect, but I recommend it for others (; ). Again, congrats & best wishes.

* By the way, you might make a quick minor Edit or 2 before others (besides me) do the same.

§ You might even consider revising critically, assessing your own Edit along the above lines. I put a lot of effort into that proposed lead and feel pain in seeing such substance (not the words as such) expunged, even though those wonderful prospective readers might find such useful, relevant, and interesting. --Thomasmeeks 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Thomasmeeks, for this lenghty explanation and especially for starting the discussion about the article. - I think that the whole article including the lead is still far from perfect, from the point of view of both advanced and unexperinced readers. I hope that during the time you and other editors will make it better. Feel please free to introduce useful changes if you see the opportunity. Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ioannes. I'd sure rather have you on my side than otherwise. Like you, I prefer tightly written articles, but, given varying backgrounds, sometimes stating things in a somewhat different way help some people and not unduly bother others. BW, Thomasmeeks 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am on your side, you know :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(With that, I'll sleep better / )

\

--Thomasmeeks 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A beautiful rewrite of Section 2, Ioannes (including the well-placed "slightly misleading"). I didn't put a comment to that effect on the Talk page there only b/c I wanted you to get what is likely the last substantive word on it (& deservedly so). I still haven't gotten to a 2nd-order-of-importance Edit of the lead (& won't until the right minor Edit comes along). Watch this article soar in use in the near term thanks to expository & content improvements, which can be expected to continue. While it is easy enough to criticize earlier efforts, they brought the article to a point where professional students of the subject regard the article as possible to improve (including with replacement), rather than a hopeless cause. BW, Thomasmeeks 20:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of your response on my Talk p., Ioannes Pragensis (I use your last name by symmetry with mine). If you'd feel like putting up a section for discussion of this on the Regression analysis Talk page -- the Wiki way, that would be great. If not, that is fine too. --Thomasmeeks 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (slight proofreading Edit) Thomasmeeks 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regresion analysis footnote: attempting to narrow the dispute

Dear Ioannes Pragensis, the question of the link is (I think you'd agree) separate from the question of the footnote. I'm going to try to separate those 2 questions with the following Edit summary.

Lead: Per WP:LEAD, sect. 3 & 4 on context: * fn. restored --without [external] link -- to try narrowing dispute): "* In real-world applications, data could come from any combination of public or private sources."

It may help to emphasize that the footnote is about data sources, not about a data set, which your earlier Edit summary referred to. If we can work out remaining differences without going to the article Talk page, so much the better. --Thomasmeeks 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. On the remaining issue of the link in the footnote, I have responded to your comment from yesterday at User talk:Thomasmeeks#Link to the data page. I'd welcome your additional thoughts there. If don't hear from you in a day or 2, I'll assume that there is no dispute. P.P.S. Small point, your close of "Greetings" is OK, but would more standardly come at the beginning of communication. (Of course, you might be including it at end the end, because it is unusual ;) --Thomasmeeks 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ioannes Pragensis: In the above P.S. I had thought that 1-2 days would be a reasonable time for you to comment. Evidently I was wrong on that. Perhaps you did not respond then because of underlying other objections that you now raise.

I'd like to continue dialogue to narrow differences if possible. If this is acceptable to you, there remains the question of where it is to be done. User talk:Thomasmeeks#Link to the data page has the advantage allowing continued exchange without bringing in others who might only be distracted by it as sideshow between 2 disputants. Are you agreeable to continuing discussion there? Sincerely, Thomasmeeks 14:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that it is always better to keep the content disputes on the talk page of the article. Moreover I think that hete (the external data link in the lead) is nothing to dispute, the matter seems clear to me: the article is about regression, not about American econometric data. Have a nice wekend,--Ioannes Pragensis 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm guessing you meant 'hit' where you wrote 'hete' above. As to your next-to-last sentence, I met that point earlier in my Talk page. I am diappointed at how far short your recycled point falls from your own response on my Talk page ("3. and 4."). Here is one point on your (1) in User talk:Thomasmeeks#Link to the data page reproduced as:

Read please WP:LINKS to the end - under "External links section" it states that the best place for external links is the External links section at the end. Otherwise you "should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question" - which is impossible here, because the website is relevant only very loosely if at all.

The "External links section" states no such thing. Instead it refers to the format of references in the "External links section". Paragraph 4 of WP:LINKS (previously part of paragraph 3) includes this sentence:

This guideline only concerns external links that provide additional info beyond that provided by citation/reference links.

That sentence makes sense only if it presumes that other uses of external links in an article besides for citation or reference or in the "External links section" could be reasonable. I have 2 points here. First, you are assuming an interpretation of WP:LINKS inconsistent with the link itself: that it is a Wiki guideline to discourage external links outside of the "External links section" . Second, I was making a reasonable use of the "sources" link. It's distracting to have burn up Talk space of the article on such matters. If you would have other thoughts on the preceding that you would like to pass along, I'd welcome them. I trust that you are in agreement that the point on Talk pages is not to "win" arguments but to improve the article. Sincerely, Thomasmeeks 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (proofreading corrections) Thomasmeeks 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess

This article is full of old photos that promote a musty, stuffy and old fashioned image of the game. It is desperately in need of some modern images. Consequently, I am concerned at your removal of the 'Young and old' image. I am reinserting it since IMHO it benefits the article. If you still object then please make the point on the talk page and see if you get consensus. Unilaterally removing material without talk page discussion is an inappropriate way forward. You raise a valid point about it not being suitable to the lead para so I have dropped it down the article. However, I do not have an 'agenda'. One of the appeals of chess is that enables competition across the generations and can be played by the very young and the very old; this is a factual and valid point to make. TerriersFan 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are writting an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for chess clubs. The image of the game is not our problem here. - The second and also important reason is that the photo is of low quality, clearly a work of an amateur, and the article has already many good quality pictures. If you wish, I will write it on the talk page, but I hope that it is enough to explain it here.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:German Soldier's House

I left a comment on your remark on the article for deletion page. The new citations Halibutt have provided only back up things that link off the article, and are not directly related to the German Soldier's House. for instance, reference 5 references that there were brothels in concentration camps for select inmates, but those are not German Soldier's houses (which so far there is no evidence even existed in the organized extent claimed on the page).

please, respond on my talk page, thanks

--Jadger 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)