Forum Talk:Content

Pat Palmer's User Talk Archives

Archive 1, 4-27-07: User_talk:Pat_Palmer/Archive1

Unix-like

Yes, I've had the pleasure of working with several variants of Unix in the past, actually. Thanks for the note, though :-) --Joshua David Williams 21:41, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

Your JIT image

Pat, what did you create

with? It looks a lot more professional than my

. I'm running Linux, and the closest thing I've found to making professional-looking diagrams is maybe OpenOffice Draw. Eric M Gearhart

Re: "He he. That thing is a patchwork."
Yes mine is too unfortunately. I started work on it during a slow shift at work with MS Paint (when every link we monitor is green it gets boring in Iraq...) and finished it in the KDE equivalent of paint, Kolourpaint. It's a big hack too unfortunately. I will try my hand at recreating it in maybe OO.o draw or GIMP or something. Also I'd like to add more descriptive icons to each layer, such as Tux on the OS layer, Duke on the Java layer and something that represents "programs" on the "Actual Java Program" layer.
In reference to Paint Shop Pro, I've read about Paint.NET, which is an open source "better Paint than Paint." Have you tried it? If I can I'll try and get it working in Mono on Linux :/ Eric M Gearhart

If you're rested....

..feel free to take her away. There is clearly something obvious I am missing in the stacked if statements. We could revert back to only having two groups but I am pretty sure from the checklists i have seen we will need to be able to accomodate three different workgroups. Chris Day (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

I think i figured out a partial solution. I say partial since the group2 parameter must be used before the group 3 one, but i think we can live with that. See what you think. Thanks for any input and tweek/ rewrites. Chris Day (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Number vs. Numeral

I see you've changing "numeral" to "number" in a number (no pun intended) of places. I wonder what the rationale is: my undefrsgtanding is that a numeral is a symbolic or graphic representation of a number. So, it makes sense to call 110 the representation of 6 (thought of as a number) as a binary numeral. The dictionary definition seems to allow not only "digits" but groups of symbols that, taken together, represent numbers as numerals. Greg Woodhouse 13:46, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Random comment: I responded to your comment about "human-readable" on Greg's talk page. - Greg Martin 15:58, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Images

Hi. We appreciate very much your contributions to the Citizendium. I was hoping you could help clear up a matter about the images you recently uploaded. They are lacking clear copyright and source data and need to have it as soon as practicable to avoid deletion. To fix the problem, please review the images you uploaded (click on "my contributions" at the upper-right to re-trace your steps or see the links I added) in light of Images Help—Copyrights. If you need additional help, just ask a constable or leave a message on my talk page and I'll be more than glad to assist. — Stephen Ewen 21:49, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks!

for changing my external links to references in the "Spelling reform of 1996" sub-section - I apologise for my laziness/ignorance of CZ markup! Wahib Frank 11:11, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Switch

I undid your change of switch to electronic switch on the OSI seven layer model page, but not in Quantum mechanics (where I think it's right on target). See the (OSI) talk page for an explanation. Greg Woodhouse 11:40, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Telecomunications

It sounds like we have some common interests. My masters is in mathematics rather than computer science, but I have a longstanding interest in telecommunications, and it's good to see someone with a similarr interest. Aree you planning on working on articles in this area? By the way, I work primarily on the infrastructure components of the US Dept. of Veterans Affairs health information system (yes, I'm one of those people), and so you can probably imagine that networks and telecom are no small issue. I guess I've just missed mathematics, and so I've mostly been working on articles in that area. Greg Woodhouse 14:25, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

History of computing article - ready for approval?

I just came across this article, and it's looking very good. I'll try and look at it more closely this afternoon, but I wonder how much you have on your "to do" list for this article.

Pat, my apologies on the strike-out sections. I emotionally made those edits and I regret it. --Robert W King 10:01, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Central processing unit article

Just a heads up that I've gone ahead and nominated Central processing unit for approval. (You appear to be the only person that has worked on the article recently). I think we still need to clarify its WP status, but it looks like an excellent introductory article. Greg Woodhouse 11:30, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Problematic Images

Pat, Image:Pentium_II_front.jpg and Image:I8088.jpg, uploaded from WP Commons, lack documentation that they meet CZ's two-pronged test. See Help:Images#Images_from_Wikipedia.2C_Wikimedia_Commons.2C_Flickr.2C_etc. and kindly fix this matter by either acquiring the real names of the Wikimedia uploaders, or by finding alternatives, perhaps at Flickr where a great many people have their real names in their Profiles. Let me know. Thanks! Stephen Ewen 05:02, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Pat, that you took the photo at http://flickr.com/photos/alexandre_f_j/364725756/ as public domain is completely understandable. But on flickr, "this photo is public" only means it can be viewed by the public. If you look close, that image is copyrighted, all rights reserved. As flickr, go to their search but choose advanced search and there is a place to search only Creative Commons licenses photos. If you do not find such a photo, just email the person at flickr and ask them to release the photo under a Creative Commons by-sa license. MOST people will say yes. Also, before you use the photo, you have to go into the person's profile. Is their real name there? If not, will they tell you in private email so you can actually attribute them as such? Stephen Ewen 12:01, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Timeline Format

Pat, what do you think of this? Feel free to comment. I'm still trying to find out how to make it wordwrap. Perhaps some CSS/Wiki god could make a Template:TIMELINE. --Robert W King 13:17, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Retrieving old versions of an article

Pat,

I'm sure you know this, but you can retrieve old versions of an article from the history tab. And I certainly did not intend for anything I said to be interpreted as "permission" to delete your work! Greg Woodhouse 21:10, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

WP checkbox

For the article Design Patterns I noticed that you have removed the "from Wikipedia" checkbox every time. I thought it was unintended so I restored it, because in article history it says it was from WP. Regards. If it was indeed from WP, please do not remove the checkbox again. Regards. Yi Zhe Wu 21:23, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

The flag should remain removed. Please see Talk:Design Patterns for an explanation. Pat Palmer 21:38, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for overlooking that :-). However, just a question, the rules say even one line from WP should be tagged, but there are exceptions around. I'm kinda confused... Yi Zhe Wu 21:37, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Re: Perl closure

Hi Pat, basically I agree that perl_closure isn't worth a stand-alone article. OTOH it is not really central to perl and I didn't want to clutter up the main article more than it already is. The reference in the Perl article is actually a negative one, it talks about unreferenced lexical variables going away, closure would be an example for an exception (well, a "hidden" reference actually). If at all, the link would probably fit better in the part about anonymous subroutines, which I wrote as an afterthought. So I am leaning to eliminate the whole thing rather than expanding the stub, or even including it in the main text. But if you want to give it a try, that's fine. Gruss aus China (nicht mehr lange), --Georg Heidenreich 12:32, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Welcome back

Welcome back.  :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 23:09, 23 August 2007 (CDT)