User talk:Andyzweb/Archive2

I've removed the prod, take it to AfD if you wish, this is a very notable show in the FLOSS community, with very notable hosts and guests. JACOPLANE • 2010-01-18 14:56

Allright, I'll post my views on the AfD within the next day or so. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2010-01-18 15:10

Hmm, perhaps I was not allowed to remove the prod. If so, feel free to reinstate it. Even so, I think the article should go through AfD rather than being deleted outright due to the notability of almost all the guests. JACOPLANE • 2010-01-18 15:11

OK, thanks. Sorry about that, it's been a long time since I had a look at the prod rules. Is there perhaps an article that you're interested in that I could have a stab at improving? Maybe that way I can make up for my screwup re: the prod. JACOPLANE • 2010-01-18 15:15

Allright, give me two days and I'll see what I can come up with :) JACOPLANE • 2010-01-18 15:19

Hi. I declined your speedy tagging on this article. It cites, among other things, a review in The Times which is more than enough to pass A7's 'claim of importance' requirement. If you think it's not notable, feel free to AfD it. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andyzweb. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The Bugle, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle is an official web publication of The Times co-written and hosted by two professional comedians, John Oliver and Andy Zaltzman, who are both considered notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Were the publication very new or perhaps a personal side project, I could understand a request for speedy deletion, but it has been commissioned and published regularly for more than two years by a major media source (i.e., The Times). Please explain your reasoning for why this publication is non-notable. Thanks. —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my nomination. I think the article can be improved by editing, and the he is clearly notable for more than one marketing campaign. Pcap ping 07:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Skyscrapers between 50 and 99 meters, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Arenlor (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Hi if I wanted to make a query listing: all wikipedia articles that are in the Category:Living people and have images, where would I begin to look for that kind of documentation. andyzweb (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the ENIAC programmers could reasonably be called "computer scientists"; I don't think any of them referred to themselves that way, and I don't think you will be able to find any reliable source which refers to them as such, either. Jean Bartik and maybe one or two others had careers working on instruction sets and/or logical design of follow-up machines, but as for the rest, their duties were limited to programming, i.e., devising and implementing setups for running programs on the machine. It should also be said that the field "computer science" was decades from being formalized as a discipline during the time they were working on computing machines. Additionally, I thought I'd let you know that I'm opposed to drive-by tagging generally and drive-by tagging in the absence of discussion of issues on the talk page specifically, and I'll revert any clean-up tags I find at the tops of articles. As talk content improperly placed in the article space, cleanup tags are basically blight and unhelpful for the improvement of articles. See my user page for more information. Robert K S (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They called themselves programmers, (their job titles were "computors" or something like that), but they all had a similar education compared to computer scientists of that time (math, physics, electrical engineering, engineering). and they don't quite fit the Software Engineer category because their job was not strictly assembling instructions. In fact because of their closer ties towards mathematics I'd say they practiced Applied Computer Science. Whatever, add whatever category you think they belong in. andyzweb (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their jobs as computers came prior to their work as ENIAC programmers. Many (though not all) of them were in the Moore School computer corps doing computations on radar research and ballistics (firing/bombing) tables using desk calculators and the differential analyzer prior to the time that the ENIAC was available. As I mentioned, there were no "computer scientists of that time" because computer science as a formalized field wouldn't develop for decades. Most of the people involved with computing machines at the time were physicists, electrical engineers, or mathematicians. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is always wonderful to know that lukers who I have never met approve of what I am doing. Thank you. I work hard here...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. This barnstar is awarded to Andyzweb, for helping other editors and his wonderful acts of kindness. Ikip 00:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andyzweb, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Jack Klaff - a page you tagged - because: Please check the article's history before tagging for speedy deletion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know another wikipedia article where you would find the tracks on Lady Gaga's Red And Blue EP. Regards SunCreator (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arguably the Red and Blue EP was done by Stefani Germanotta and the Stefani Germanotta Band, not part of the works done by recording artist Lady Gaga. side note: I have the ep and love it :-) andyzweb (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A weak arguement indeed. Let me pose another.

What article can we find anything about a song called Future Love by Lady Gaga? You can watch it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8v3RVeELQw. SunCreator (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

true true, but perhaps that belongs on Lady Gaga discography or in the section discussing lady gaga tours. as a matter of fact it is mentioned in the article The Fame Ball Tour on which the song appears andyzweb (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The The Fame Ball Tour is a more sensible solution for that track as so far it's only a live track played on tour. IGaga in an interview implied that she was against recording it, which in turn implied it won't be released. So it won't be logically on a discography. Other unreleased tracks can't go in The Fame Ball Tour however as they have nothing to do with the tour; nor would they logically fit in a discography. Although looks like that going to happen. SunCreator (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi there its me!? yess!! thats right me! 68.62.243.243 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andyzweb, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Holiday pay act 1938, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify this as notable British legislation from 1938. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This section on prehistory is not from my pen. I first removed the stuff altogether, but then decided to keep the parts on the Ancient Near Eastern scripts. But I would not object against removing unreferenced stuff again, if you deem that appropiate. Email's out. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit. You will probably want to add to your user page Wikipedia:WikiProject Lady Gaga/Userbox
—Iknow23 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added to User:Andyzweb/Userboxes ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 06:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, You have a whole page of userboxes! Cool—Iknow23 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an incurable disease. At one point they were all on my user page but it just became a mess so I had to create a subpage so neaten things up. Also I just peeked at your contributions. Dang you are a rockstar editor. I am going to have to give you a cheezburger or a barnstar or something. keep up the great additions to Wikipedia we need editors like you! ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 06:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, Ok. ...Well thank you. I also recall seeing your name on some Project Page posts and/or Project contributors lists around :)—Iknow23 (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very involved in wikipedia anymore, but I was pleased to find your message regarding my illustrations! Just being curious: in which university are you studiying?

Cheers, CyrilB (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]