Please leave your comments here:
Hey, Ann. Comment about your message about the Dallas article.
The photos of Dallas I found are widely-circulated pictures—in other words they are found all over the web on many web sites, so it's virtually unclear where the original source of the pictures is. However, if you would like me to state the source of the specific web site I found the photos in alternate text, I'd be glad to do that. The thing I'll say is that if I do that, be aware that the photos are most likely not the property of the web site's author.
I'm having a hard time seeing how the Dallas pictures could be too big. Must be your Mac's problem, HA! Or maybe you use Internet Explorer 1.0 or lower, lol. I myself use Explorer with 1024 x 768 screen resolution, not to mention that I've tested lower screen resolutions to make sure what your saying is false :-) Oh yeah, can't forget to say that having used an eMac identical to yours with both OS 9 and OS X, I didn't notice any drastic differences in the Internet viewing between a Mac and a Windows-based computer. Nothing like viewing something with IE and Netscape.
Anyways, talk to you later. Let me know what you think I should do regarding the images and their ownership. And quit smoking! {shakes finger} It's bad for you! ...heh, but you Europeans live longer than us Americans, so what am I smoking? Pwu2005 05:23 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The irony is that hard-working contributors like you, Tannin and me have come close to walking through the determination to impose uniformity throughout what, after all, is a voluntary activity, which we do for fun (at bit sad in itself, but still...) jimfbleak 15:40 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry for contributing to your angst over Droop Quota (though I myself never edited the formula...) - anyway, the current version seems OK to me... everything will usually sort itself out given enough time. :-) Peace, Evercat 16:01 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I've eavesdropped on your message to User:Evercat and felt I had to comment. I don't know if I'm one of the google nuts you're referring to, though I have used google as a defense on many occasions. I appreciate your work, and think that Wikipedia really needs dedicated contributors such as you who have the experience, knowledge, and resources to provide Wikipedia with good information; I agree in the strongest possible terms that google is not to be considered an authoritative source, but sometimes it's the only source of information I have that is available at my fingertips. Whenever I see a stub article that needs a bit of fleshing out, a spelling of a name that seems questionable, or an obscure term that needs a definition, google usually is quick to provide an answer. And yes, 99% of what it spits back is nonsense, but a trained eye can usually find the gem of truth among the garbage. I try not to put anything into an article unless I'm fairly certain it's correct, or at the very least, better than what was there before.
I apologize if I have bulldozed over any of your work; I make every effort not to do so, but it is Wikipedia policy to be bold, and I usually am bold if I see something that I think needs fixing. With cooperation, I don't see why conflicts can't be resolved with a productive outcome. I would encourage you to stay here and keep contributing! Of course, maybe some time away is what you need. -- Wapcaplet 18:39 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Don't leave. I'm one of those arrogant idiots you referred to who was looking forward to working very closely with you. ChuckM 22:11 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hi JT. I gather from various comments that the edit wars have been getting you down. I very much hope that you don't leave permanently as I for one very much value your contributions, and I've learnt a lot more about Irish history than I knew before, even though I'm only a £2 ferry ride and 75c return train fare from central Dublin (retired UK railway staff rates!). Take a break if you need one, but do please come back. Best regards, Arwel 23:36 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
That said I do sympathize with your current frustration but as Toby said all "damage" to any article is eventually fixed. Reverts are easy. But doing them right away doesn't always work - I've found that a few weeks of allowing the other person to cool off makes it possible to make the change you want and most of the time the other person either doesn't really care anymore or doesn't even notice the change. We also need to be tolerant of the different but completely valid conventions that different large dialects of English have. However, we do need to have documentation to back certain "conventions" up (such as the capitalization of mammal common names). So long as it is proven that a certain large dialect of English uses a certain convention then we should respect that (such as the two different date formats). IMO pushing for one and relying on a winner takes all approach for something like date formats alienates those people who use the other format (esp if the option getting the largest single share of votes gets only 30% of the total - that's evil!).
I hope this note finds you well - you and your contributions are much needed here. Our Irish history section was a sad joke before you cam along. :) --mav
Gave up waiting for a response :)
There's one thing I don't understand - your insistence that rounding doesn't happen. I've already asked a question that I think will settle this matter:
Suppose the Droop Quota gives a value of 5000.5 ; Does a candidate need to get 5000 votes, or 5001? This is a simple question, give me a simple answer. :-) Evercat 13:16 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well I wanted to say thank you for the awareness message you sent me. I wanst aware that that person was banned thought I saw some oddities in his page when I wrote him a meesage to thank him for his earlier message on my page.
Well, thank you and God bless you!!
Sincerely yours, Antonio Striperella Martin
Jimmy! Is that you sweetie at Jim Duffy because I know that boy in that biography well from really good stuff on the Internet. Sue Michael Canuck
No it isn't. My name is James Cadden. FearÉIREANN 17:44 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Oh, cause I saw you are the User:Jtdirl signing those lovely messages on that mailing list thingy as James Duffy and you are the one who created and wrote most of the article on my sweetie boy Jim Duffy. Sue Michael Canuck
I set the account as James Duffy for a friend who never used it and as it was sitting there empty I used it for wiki stuff, as I had no idea how many wiki messages I would use and thought it safer to use an empty account than risk jamming up my own one with wiki mail. (I have separate email account under my own initials which I use for getting wiki emails. I keep meaning to move my wiki list link to that instead.) As I had a book of short biographical sketches I used it to fill it details of various famous Irish people and Jim Duffy was in that so I entered information from that. I have used it for info to create many biographical pages on Irish people. You know how useful books of lists can be, Joe! FearÉIREANN 18:01 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You wrote: "Michael is a very competent contributor but he has screwed up a host of pages before by making changes before he checked. I don't edit pages I don't know background facts about. I leave notes on talk pages saying 'why is such and such called this? Why is this this way?' Other editors do the same." I replied by saying that I also do that. Before I replied, you continued thus: "Michael doesn't and his actions have already driven one contributor away and pissed off others." So I asked: "What is your evidence for the claim you make below that I have driven anyone away or angered anyone besides you? Who are those persons? When have I ever wondered why anyone 'goes into a rage' as a result of anything I've done on Wikipedia? I think these are figments of your imaginiation." You never answered, so I am reposting my questions here. Michael Hardy 00:13 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I've undeleted 2003 in sports, following a query from Evercat. I will now list it on VfD. Martin 15:40 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Unprotecting page in the interests of soft security. if Michael repeatedly vandalises it, then it might be worth protecting it, but pre-emptive page protection is dubious, and I'd want a discussion on the subject before people start using it. Martin 17:59 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Anyway, I was most concerned about the legal aspects of this - deleting the history of authorship is probably dubious. Evercat 23:12 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Although I find legalese difficult to read, the preamble to the GFDL states Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work. So it seems clear the GFDL is intended to maintain a record of authorship... the relevant section is probably 4B... see: Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License Evercat 23:36 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
But as wiki reserves the right of admission to it, it also reserves the right to restrict who can contribute to it. If Jimbo has the right to hardban someone, then they lose the right to claim authorship. In a court of law, either the GFDL literal meaning would be upheld, in which case Jimbo would lose the right to ban anyone, or the GFDL license would be interpreted in the light of the site's rules, in which case DW et al would have no authorship rights, and my understanding is the latter is the correct interpretation. Furthermore, as DW contrary to wiki rules contributed to wiki, everything contributed by him since 30th January was contributed contrary to entitlement, nullifying his supposed authorship rights.
Therefore DW had no right to contribute and so was an invalid author. In which case then his text will simply have to be deleted en masse. I don't want to remove DW's additions but that is what has been done and if it is being done to others then it should be done to him too. What I was trying to do was keep the contents but lose DW. As there is no legal right of ownership to any of the contents by anyone on wiki, he cannot claim a right to have his authorship acknowledged. Perhaps the program should be rewritten to allow for the reference to authorship of hardbanned users to be removed. DW and Michael have both shown a desire to have their work acknowledged, in part in the form of "look what I have been able to get away with while being banned". We need to find a way around this. But if all else fails then all of DW's pages will have to be deleted. FearÉIREANN 23:45 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
That is not the legal advice coming from my barrister flatmate or from his girlfriend, who studied copyright law. As DW was hardbanned, he no more retains copyright and authorship rights than does a vandal who spraypainted slogans on the side of a wall. Technically that is what he was, someone who entered wiki and placed unauthorised contributions, having been explicitly been barred from doing so, as Jimbo's hardbanning amounted to a clear and unambiguous withdrawal of any right to contribute in any way. But in case that simply means all of DW's articles will have to be deleted then. FearÉIREANN 13:28 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I also think that the Charles vs Carlos is silly. I made the change only for consistency's sake. Whoever set up the initial List of Portuguese monarchs created all of the monarch pages in English. I know that we use Carlos and Pedro -- but we also use Henry rather than Henriques -- oh - and then there's the antiquated Alphonso instead of Alfonso or Afonso (I think the norm now would be the middle version). Anyway, I thought it made sense to at least start out by keeping things consistent -- even if it's ugly. Which means we have 5 Peters of Portugal ... Boots
Like I said! Boots
The plan is, get all the articles all up to speed (dates, names, etc.). Then, worry about moving to better names (and changing links) -- and deleting the silly English names, maybe? or at least redirecting. But Since all the links are in the "correct" Portuguese format, I think focusing on content first is best. ANd thanks -- know all about the conventions! ;-) Boots
I just realized that Yahoo/Hotmail idea won't work (hey, I got a cold). Oh, well. Maybe you can figure out a way to do it. Trontonian
1. I've made it easy for you. If you go to my user page and use the research skills you doubtless have as a historian, you will soon end up at some websites of mine which will show you I have no freaking interest in Merovingian kings.
2. JHK told me that Jacques Delson and DW are assumed to be the same person. One of the things that astounded me about Jacques Delson was that there was another person who also was interested in harness racing, Gilles Archambault, and Anthony Trollope -- an unlikely coincidence, eh? The thing is, Jacques' interests were incredibly wide-ranging, going far beyond those three topics. Might not Jacques Delson and DW in fact be groups of people? That would explain their indefatigability. Trontonian
Sorry -- I didn't mean to imply you were insulting Canadians. Now that I know what's bothering everyone I'm a lot less annoyed at any questionable remarks that were made. I was just happily plugging away making harmless entries about box lacrosse and famous standardbreds when I stumbled into the middle of the furore. Interesting theory about DW. Certainly JD was keen on lists, too. His exchanges with me were very civilized, but then I never deleted anything of his. Trontonian
I've replied to you on my talk page. By the way, I must remember to access your talk page by some means other than going via your user page in future. It never fails to make me queasy whenever I open it... :P -- Oliver P. 00:48 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Mmmm... I guess there's a first time for everything. It's always hard to find comments on PP's talk page, so I'll repeat here what I said to him: thanks for the support, but I think most people here are pretty sensible when it comes to metric measurements. -- Tim Starling 01:38 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's a bit different here. Metrication in Australia officially finished in 1983, and I was born in 1981. My parents occasionally talk in feet and inches, but never in miles or pounds or anything. Give it another 20 years and maybe the UK will be the same. I can only hope the US hurries up: I once worked in a lab full of thousands of dollars worth of optical equipment (like a big mechano set of brackets and stands and things), half with imperial screws, half with metric. -- Tim Starling 02:05 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well you've opened my eyes -- it's nice that I get the chance to talk to interesting people like yourself on Wikipedia. It's all very worrying: I'm reminded of the pessimistic postmodernist forecasts I've heard, which describe increasing fragmentation and decay, e.g. [1] (http://dieoff.com/page67.htm). -- Tim Starling 03:15 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hmm, is this leaving of messages on your supporters' pages within the rules of WikiVoting? Not trying to rig the vote, I hope... -- Oliver P. 02:19 5 Jul 2003 (UTC) (A boring old sod, and proud of it!)
Thank you very much for the comment jt. I am sensible to it.
I'll say that RK is *now* *very* civil with me, and I am grateful for that. I think that with 168 help, we will overcome our current disagreement on Gaia theory. When it is done, I expect the talk page to be cleaned up of the bad words. RK has accepted to refactor his comments to remove personal attacks. I hope he will do it. User:anthere
It seems "Jar Jar Binks" is trademarked [2] (http://www.theforce.net/episode1/oldPreq/characters/jarjar) -- Jim Regan 20:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi, mm... you sure have lots of Talk archives! Nice candle beside the computer. 200 more of those, then you needn't the lamp! :-) And the wax that drip into the beer glass jugs make tasty addictives.
Could you give a word or two about User:Jiang on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? --Menchi 10:33 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|