User talk:AlbertCahalan~enwiki

Hiya, Welcome!

Hello, AlbertCahalan~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Graphics_tutorials: I couldn't find any indication yet that the Abiword, KWord and Ted are used for vector graphics. It might be unclear in the list of word processors, but Word was in there because of Wikipedia:How_to_draw_a_diagram_with_Microsoft_Word, and similar things are possible in OpenOffice, so that kind'a explained their appearance in the Wikipedia:Graphics_tutorials page (although they're all useful for laying-out existing images of course). Just a quick explanation of my removing Ted, although you're welcome to chat more and show off those word processors' use in graphics work maybe with another tutorial on using one of them? Ojw 23:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neither Ted nor Abiword can themselves do vector graphics, but both word processors can import images to place in documents. Samboy 08:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Policy[edit]

Please note that it is Wikipedia policy that, in issues of US vs. Commonwealth english usage, articles remain at their original title, whoever that favours. I have consequently restored the article at Healthy eating.

Sure, but that wasn't the issue. Lousy word choice and bad grammar are popular in all English-speaking parts of the world. I suspect the non-English speakers screw stuff up too. AlbertCahalan 00:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have also noted your comments on User:Jimbo Wales' talk page. Wikipedia:No legal threats is of relevence.

~~~~ 12:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What threat? For you, Wikipedia:Assume good faith is of relevance. AlbertCahalan 00:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is quite clear on US vs. Commonwealth English. The article should retain the original English usage, and not be flipped to the other form. The article originally used the Commonwealth English term, "Healthy eating". Changing this to "Healthful eating" is therefore a violation of Wikipedia policy in this matter. I should point out that "Healthful eating" is your opinion of what constitutes "better word choice", most people in the Commonwealth would disagree. Had the article originally had "healthful eating" and you had changed it to "healthy eating", I would also have restored the original form, as this too would be a violation of the policy. But it was originally "healthy eating", and so that is the terminology the article, under Wikipedia policy, is required to retain.

Wikipedia policy may be quite clear on US vs. Commonwealth English issue, but how does that relate to this? I'm sure that errors in grammer, spelling, word choice, and so on are not restricted to any one part of the world. People in the USA often confuse the words as well, to the point that it is semi-legitimate to treat them as synonyms. Nevertheless, accuracy demands that the distinction be made. AlbertCahalan 09:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary from the UK has "good for your health" as the one and only definition for healthful. It has that definition for healthy too, but only as the second definition. So the distinction is part of Commonwealth English too, and thus should be made. AlbertCahalan 10:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The OED includes all 6 million English words, including cowabunga, and not just common usage. It even includes anacranistic words and terms, and those not in standard usage, such as interfrastically. In Commonwealth English, it is adverbs, such as x-ly, that describe verbs, rather than adjectives, such as x-ful, which describe nouns. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

W.r.t. User talk:Jimbo Wales, rather than asking for "lawyers to ensure" such-and-such, you should first read Wikipedia:No legal threats.

I read it. If you wish to accuse me of threatening someone, please do tell me whom it is that I have allegedly threatened. Come on, this is ridiculous. I posted a comment there because I myself was nervous about how the local authorities might handle me, along with other contributers and the servers. AlbertCahalan 09:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggested you read it, nothing more. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 07:28 (UTC)

~~~~ 09:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith[edit]

means that we should assume that others have good intentions. It does not mean that we should assume that articles or parts thereof are well-written, when they are not, or assume that no citations to sources are required, when they are. Regards, Nandesuka 01:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Childbirth[edit]

Hi Albert, A agree totally with the comments you made about good Nutrition improving birth outcomes. Regarding pain in childbirth, I do not think anyone really understands the reason for pain during birth, and attempting to remove pain without understanding its cause can have unforeseen and negative consequences. I think that nowadays it is well known that position greatly affects pain, as any woman who was constrained to a particular position for the benefit of medical equiptment could tell you.

What is your opinion about the amount of space given to mortality in the article? Amnonc 09:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My last revert on Childbirth[edit]

Sorry about that last revert; I misread your edit as saying that you had deleted the section indicating that the amounts of pain experienced by women vary, and replaced it with just a paragraph saying "some women sleep through childbirth"; I didn't realize that you had just added the latter paragraph. If I had understood that, I wouldn't have reverted it. I'll try to read more carefully in the future.

I still disagree with you about the choice of words for the caption, because I've certainly seen plenty of smiling women in the hospital, nursing immediately after birth. But I'm content to let that issue work itself out on the talk page. Nandesuka 00:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali[edit]

NAMBLA LGBT discussion[edit]

I noticed a while back that you contributed to the discussion on whether NAMBLA is an LGBT discussion. Currently, we are taking a tally on who believes it should or should not be listed in the LGBT organizations category. I thought you would like to know in case you had an interest in making your voice heard on the matter once more. Corax 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another (official) poll[edit]

Just thought you'd like to know that another poll (mediator-conducted) is taking place toward the bottom of the NAMBLA discussion page in which users are asked (yes or no) if NAMBLA should be categorized in each of the pedophilia organizations, pederasty organizations, and LGBT organizations. Regards, Corax 22:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the shoe is on the other foot[edit]

You may view your edits are injecting humor into a serious subject. I, and I suspect others, see them as nothing more than childish vandalism. You were quick to object when I added humor to your user page and I suspect you felt much the same as others do when you add your own brand of humor to other pages.

My reaction on first seeing the page for 'Bondage programming languages' was one of disbelief, I had never heard of the term in the three decades of writing compilers and language analysis tools. But still, perhaps I missed something, so I searched Google. Then I read your user page and the penny dropped. This was all a prank on your part.

I actually made my changes before the proposal for deletion occurred and I am pleased that somebody has taken the time to go through this process. Derek farn 20:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The jargon file contains some entries that are essentially satire; to quote from its Wikipedia entry "Critics lament that the new maintainer has added words of his own invention...". If you beleived the term was in actual use and made page edits in good faith then I appologise for my actions. Derek farn 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OLPC page[edit]

I have yet to see any of what you learned from Mary Lou Jepsen and Walter Bender added to the OLPC article's Hardware section. Do you intend to do so at some point? --Basique 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common problem[edit]

Dear Wikipedist editor, I want to submit to your attention an our common problem: disruptive contributions and edit warring operated by user Derek farn (talk). This latter shows systematically a provoking behaviour and lacking of respect for other people’s work, typical of vandalism. I’ve sent this communication to many people having the same problem in order to organize a collective protest/action request directed to e.g. the Arbitration Committee or Requests for comment/User conduct (this latter procedure requires the participation of at least two users) or to the Wikipedia Community. If you agree with this initiative please contact me at this dedicated email address: clipeaster-1971 AT yahoo DOT com. In order to avoid creating of a forum section dedicated to Derek farn I suggest you to delete this communication once you’ve read it and, then, be in contact via email. Any suggestion are welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

AlbertCahalan, before you delete this message from Structuralgeol you might like to read the outcome of mediation on the power law article Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-05-08/Power_law. I have no idea why Structuralgeol thinks the two of you have something in common. Derek farn (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As another user pointed out to me that suggesting to be in contact outside wikipedia is not a correct way, for transparency reasons, so I conclude that we need to correspond via talk page. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Your account will be renamed[edit]

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called AlbertCahalan. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name AlbertCahalan~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

21:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed[edit]

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

10:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]