User talk:Crimsone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Userpage • Userboxes • Talk page • Contributions • Edit count • Logs
Leave a Message for Crimsone

Hi there, and thank you for dropping by my talk page! Want to leave me a new message? Click that link above. Please be sure to add a title and signature by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your messages. To reply to an existing message, please use the "edit" link just above the appropriate section. Thanks!



  1. 28 October 2005 – 3 September 2006
  2. 3 September 2006 – 17 September 2006
  3. 17 September 2006 – 17 October 2006
  4. Awards

Contents

[edit] Changes in the article

I don't see anything wrong in the rewording. From my viewpoint, nothing is changed. If it's more easily understood by others, then you've done well. Unfortunately, I'm not the best judge of that. Thegreatdr 13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's cool (though I'm not the best judge in the world either for my lack of knowledge. lol.) To be honest, my main concern was that I thought my comment about cyclones being steered by anticyclones around their polward periphery might have been on slightly dodgy ground. I'm hoping that three or four lines can be added to that section somehow purely to improve presentation against the images.
Incidentaly, if you know of any diagrams for the warm seclusion section (or anything else to do with the cyclone models) it might pmake that section prettier and more appealing :)
Thanks, --Crimsone 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
With strong surface highs (above 1020 hPa), surface cyclones are forced to their periphery, regardless of the track of the upper level energy. But...this would be around its equatorward periphery. One could argue that weak extratropical cyclones are kept on a more northerly trajectory due to the subtropical ridge. Taking out the word poleward would be best. Thegreatdr 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess I was simply working from my own obeservations (oops! naughty me! lol) of depressions being forced poleward by a blocking euro high as seems often to be the case in the UK. I'll look at removing the "poleward" descriptor now. Thanks. --Crimsone 14:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like the subtropical ridge. I'm used to dealing with arctic highs being difficult to erode east of the Rockies and Appalachians (north-south oriented mountain chains), with a weak surface low to their south. Thegreatdr 14:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly explain it :) Thanks! Speaking of which, it seems (to my observand but untrained eye) that there are certain patterns to both cyclonic and anti-cyclonic systems. For example, prime locations to find extratropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere would be such places as the tip of Nova Scotia and the opposite side of the american continent sort of on the border of alaska and canada where they seem to hang, but also crossing the UK towards europe where they often bcome stationary against a euro high. By contrast, anticyclones also seem to find areas where they become static, such as the azores, europe, parts of the US, etc (I don't really know much about the pacific side at all. Maybe this pattern is worth a mention in some format in the extratropical cyclone article, but I was thinking more that it might be a worthy subject for the Earth's atmosphere (Meteorology) article (largely written from your zonal/meridonial definitions anyway)? I wouldn't really be able to write much about it, but I could certainly write a brief description of the fact that it happens along with an appropriate section. I doubt I'll find it now that I actually want it, but there was an image somewhere at some point that demonstrated the general high/low trends in the atmosphere.

Does this sound reasonable to yourself (as a person with real knowledge of the subject), or have I just written something completely non-sensical as I sometimes do? lol --Crimsone 15:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Climatologically, upper troughs form across eastern portions of continents, upper ridges form across western portions of continents, and subtropical ridges form over the ocean. This would force many cyclones to develop and track near the east coasts of Asia and North America. As for tracks through Europe, I'd imagine that would have a lot to do with the strength of the Icelandic low. If it's stronger than normal, systems would swing quickly through western Europe. If it is replaced by ridging, that would force cyclones to track southward through central and eastern Europe. There may be a graphic out there with preferred extratropical cyclone tracks already. A simple web search should find it, if it exists. Thegreatdr 16:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Would that make Europe the odd one out (possibly due to the NAD?) The reason I ask is simply because the Euro high seems often to position itself center to east of the european continent, but that still has it right in the middle of a landmass rather than on it's eastern side (That said it's not a persistant high - the current setup showing hat lack of persistance quite well (hence the comparatively quite powerful lows this weekend producing some messy weather :) .) Equally possible is that I've got it wrong - UK weathermaps given by forecasters rarely show anything beyond europe. I'll have to look back through some archived charts to confirm or correct my view here I think.
If you think of Eurasia as one continent, it should make more sense. Thegreatdr 23:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
As to the Earth's atmosphere (Meteorology) article I mentioned earlier, I've just made a few substantive (and not so much substantive) edits to hopefully hold it together a bit better. It probably needs moving to a better name (as per the project talk page) but I'm still not sure of what that should be. I'll see if I can find that image later - I've done a lot of searching for various evasive things on google today, and as much as I like the google graphic, it gets to be a little too much to bear after a while! lol --Crimsone 16:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velupillai Prabhakaran page vandalism

Hi Crimsone, Pls go through this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Velupillai_Prabhakaran&diff=82998537&oldid=82954817
Here Iwazaki has framed up two entire sections of his own, literally without any citation at all. The citations he has pointed to refer to a newspaper article which he has read sometime ago and is not a piece of evidence which can be verified by everybody who would be reading that article. It is something like 'I-saw-that-in-news-once' kind of a link. A strong msg needs to be sent out to Iwazaki who is violating almost every single policy of Wikipedia, Civility, NPOV, Verifiability, etc...I kindly request you to step in and take some action to avoid blanking-out vandalism and reverting to uncited versions of the article which transitively refers to Vandalism. Pls go through my posts here to justify removal of the sections and how he has responded here
The user has also been issued a final warning for Civility but continues his spree of personal attacks and diplomatic vandalism. Check this Iwazaki Talk page
This seems to be going on for almost a month inspite of several friendly suggestions and also Admin warnings. Kindly help. Thanks Sudharsansn 13:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Btw, with respect to Iwazaki's accusations, I think the talk page in itself pretty self-explanatory about who is trying to uphold Wiki policies and who isn't. Thanks for your help in trying to settle the situation and I would appreciate more help bcos this article seems to be constantly vandalized by only Iwazaki and his decorum in the talk page, isn't that credible either. Thanks! Sudharsansn 14:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What should I say: "Buddy, these cases are closed(buddy ?!! i consider this is a insult/name calling)". When someone thinks that 'Buddy' is a derogatory word, I really think it's pointless to explain things!! The talk page is pretty much self-explanatory, so I really am not going to comment on this issue at all apart from watching Iwazaki break all Wiki policies - Civility, NPOV, Verifiability.....etc....Kindly step in and avoid this pandemonium. Thanks again Sudharsansn 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I can only recomment that you follow Shell'sadvice on her talk page and take this to WP:DR. A useful first step would be for you both to agree to take a break from the article for a while (Wikipedia is a big place!), after which I can only recomment either the informal WP:Mediation_Cabal, or the more formal Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.

I simply don't understand enough about the subject to mediate this content dispute myself, and I'm afraid that I don't really have the time to do so anyway at the moment. Crimsone 16:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. It would be nice if you would just follow-up on the civility as it is totally intolerable on the talk page. He is talking in a derogatory manner about the parenting of other editors which is uncivilized!! Thanks Sudharsansn 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I can't see any comment by this user where he talks about the parenting of other editors at all. I'm more than willing to accept the possibility that I've missed it, but if this is the case, please provide a diff and an exact quote. Crimsone 18:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"Didnt you parents tell you not believe everything u hear ?? so, why dont you think rationally before jumping into any conclusions ??" This is where he talks about upbringing of fellow editors? Why does he talk about my parents? Isn't it something which is beyond civility and limits? Thanks for your help Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Not only do you keep a watchful and kind eye at WP:PAIN but you find time to fend off muggers from my talk page as well! Thanks for being so supportive and thoughtful. Shell babelfish 10:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Crimsone, i'm having a lot of concern for many biased sources used in the above mentioned article.So i challenge them in the talk-page, if i can't do it in the talk page ,where should i do it ?? And please be noted that, i have never vandelised the page nor done any personal attacks..

But the user Sudharsansn, had deleted some of my valid points..I consider this a s vandelism.I have already given the sources, all printed materials..Please take an appropriate action --Iwazaki 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

None were 'deleted', there was a discussion going on in the talk page and things were done with conern for ppl working on the article. Refer to the talk page for every documented evidence! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iwazaki

dear Crimsone, i posted my reply on my talk page and looking forward to your reply.. thanking you --Iwazaki 10:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can help explain the process. You have a problem with source A. You go to the talk page and create a new section - you state that you have a concern with source A and give details about why you think this is not a reliable source. Don't attack the source and refer to policy reasons that the source should not be used. Discuss with others on the talk page. If you cannot come to a compromise (remember, be civil and courteous while discussing this)then you should look into other options as explained on the disputeresolution page. I hope that helps. Shell babelfish 11:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


thanks shell, i always use talk pages to discuss things..and some people here are even blaming me for writing too much!! anyway i'll have to go the dispute resolution section,sooner than later.
shell,i sent a diff ,about insults made to me by the user Sudharsansn..As i have said it many times, the sarcasm started by him..Real insults were made by him..Please see, my-talk ,where i have listed some insults..I do not know how he get away with any warnings,for which he actually started..

Also for your benifit i have copied the post he put at Sechzen page..look how insultive are those words ?? can he treated me like that ?? Where is the good faith here ??


Hi Sechzen, there is a new kid, literally a kid, who is going beyond limits with scant respect for fellow editors and has gone overboard with his civility almost thrice inspite of friendly suggestions. Kindly intervene and warn him so as to avoid trivial conversations. He is dragging in things like how his parents brought him up, how we all should have been brought up, how he wants to honor the SL Army, how much of a pre-school kid 'I' am for all the good work I did on the VP page. I would pls ask you to interfere and issue him a strict civility warning and ask him to go through WP policies. The link is here and the user name is User:Iwazaki Thanks Sudharsansn 06:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

first two bold statemenst are insultive..laters are incorrect and baseless..I never called him(see my diff) a pre-school kid..What i said was ,one of his sources lack any real info regarding Srilanka and thus can be considered as written by a kindergarten kid..I dont know why take it for himself ?? other than clear intention of "misleading others" about me ..
secondly, we are in the prabhakaran page,and i wrote nothing about the SLA..B ut strangely ,he accusse me for being an army puppet ?? What ?? edits i did had nothing to do with the army,but he's using them to tarnish me and mislead others
and,i never questioned the way or how she should have been brought up.Why should i care that ??its none of my business..All these happened because he made complains that i write too much in the discussion..and i said, i was merely replying others and use bit of sarcasm to say,that i wont disapppoint anyone who ask anything from me(and that good habit comes from my fathers side)..and he has,mysteriously taken it has an insult and totally exaggerated it..

and still..hes not been warned !! --Iwazaki 19:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

New kid is not an insulting word, it only means in slang that you are new to Wikipedia. In your talk page, you have pointed out that 'buddy' is an insulting word!! What more should I say? Whatever I have quoted in the parah above are all statements made by you which I brought to the attention of fellow editors. I never accused you of being an 'army-puppet' or whatever that term meant, I just said your statements go beyond the NPOV as it seems to align with the SL army intentions. Why do you even have to bring in your upbringing in a Wikipedia talk page, honestly?? All editors in the page do not see the need for me to be warned because I was only pointing to your own statements that were made about me, and also effectively concluded that inspite of several friendly suggestions, you were getting back to your 'father's side', 'mother's side' claims. A simple reading of the current talk page would quite clearly reveal, to any administrator as to who is going against WP:NPA and who isn't.

Btw, what is a diff between a kindergarten kid and pre-school kid, both of them effectively mean the same as per your own confession of the fact that you did call me all that.

There just isn't enough WP:AGF for you to understand that we are only working on a page and anyone can edit or challenge your views with proper evidence. It is not offensive to make edits or challenge whatever you have written, that is the core of Wiki. So pls stop pointing back at me with this propaganda.

To the admins, I have always pointed Iwazaki to Wiki policies when anyone of them has been breached, but he considers it as a personal insult than a suggestion and has already done his part in justifying every single action of his in his talk page inspite of clear-cut evidence pointed out by admins!! The talk page is very much self-explanatory, anyone can read through it to clearly understand the fine line between attacking content and attacking people. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My final word on this matter

C'mon guys, this is MY TALK PAGE - not some kind of common land open for shooting season!

This is quite clearly a dispute between two editors in particular, being Iwazaki, and Sudharsansn. The dispute appears to revolve around two things - Content and incivility. While I have little knowledge of the article subject in question, it is quite clear to me what is happening. In essence, both editors have somewhat opposing views on certain areas of the subject, and niether is willing to give ground - one on the strength of offline or subscription only sources, and one on their weakness. Inkeeping with the nature of disputes, and on the basis of diffs provided, incivility has taken place on the part of both sides, with personal attacks as defined by WP:NPA having been made by one of them out of frustration and percieved offence.

In line with wiki policy, I will assume good faith of both editors in suggesting that in each case, incivility/personal attacks on one sides are the result of the percieved antagonism of the other - that is to suggest the lesser of two evils, where what is evident is a personality clash over a language barrier. While some of Iwazaki's edits are questionable against the status quo of the article up to this point, it is clear that Sudharsansn has failed to assume the good faith of this editor. Likewise, in not recognising that Sudharsansn has the best interests of the article (thus the encyclopedia) at heart, Iwazaki has also failed to assume good faith.

In the interests of demonstrating the harmful nature of disputes, this dispute (to my knowledge from 15 minutes of research) has spilled out from the article to the following pages...

  1. Velupillai Prabhakaran
  2. Talk:Velupillai_Prabhakaran
  3. WP:PAIN
  4. WP:ANI
  5. User talk:Crimsone
  6. User talk:Shell_Kinney
  7. User talk:Iwazaki
  8. User talk:Sudharsansn
  9. User talk:Elalan
  10. User talk:Sechzehn
  11. User talk:Cerebral_Warrior
  12. User talk:Snowolfd4
  13. User talk:Durova
  14. User talk:Sharz
  15. User talk:Ricky81682
  16. User talk:RaveenS
  17. User talk:Ganeshk

It's quite clear from the above list that the amount of disruption arising from this dispute is somewhat disproportionate to the dispute itself, and so I would suggest that it is in the interests of both editors to minimise further disruption and to resolve this issue amicably. It is worth remembering at this point that the encyclopedia has around one million articles that any editor here may work on and improve. On this note, it is also worth considering that this article alone (ie, to single it out) is insignificant compared with the larger picture, and as such it really should be no problem for both editors to agree to a self imposed designated period of time during which neither editor will edit this one particular article, or until such time as this dispute is resolved. During this period, both editors need to engage, in good faith, in the dispute resolution process...

I would suggest that both editors require neutral ground to discuss their differences - to this effect I am prepared to create a page in my userspage to this effect - all discussion in relation to the dispute can be made there. Alternatively, both editors may choose to make efforts to resolve the dispute off-wiki.

Both editors need to take a good look at their respective failures to assume good faith and realise that this one issue is fundamental to the creation of almost any dispute, and thus it is fundamentally important to assume good faith during dispute resolution. Part of this will inevitably be for Iwazaki to realise that Sudharsansn had the best interests of wikepedia at heart, and for Sudharsansn to realise that Iwazaki also had the best interests of wikipedia at heart. This may be a painful thing to do, but is nessecary never the less. Both editors also need to realise that when two editors of an article have opposing views, there can be two possible outcomes - either the editors become ingaged in a dispute that spirals out of control, or the two editors can collaborate in creating an article that conforms to a neutral point of view and takes account of both sides of the issue. A further requirement may be that both editors realise that they are both equally responsible for the dispute, while both equally right in their motives - there is no blame at this stage, only a problem to be solved.

This may or may not involve the assistance of an uninvolved third party as an informal mediator. It may also be worth considering that even if either of the two editors disagree on the finer points of the statement written here, whether to start with, or wherer continued disagreement for them, it provides a useful framework for each editor to "start afresh", and resolve this dispute - this is a point that I hope both editors will take notice of, as I am sure that both editors have the best interests of wikipedia at heart, and that the reason they are here is to improve wikipedia rather than to engage and continue in a negative and destructive dispute.

Failing the ability of both editors to come to an amicable agreement in this way, it may be required to request formal mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Failing this still will inevitably require an Arbitration Commitee ruling on the dispute, which could affect either or both parties in a negative way. It is in the interests of niether party to allow the dispute to go this far.

In the mean time, with the exception of any simple (ie, yes or no) vote of agreement or disagreement with this statement, any further comment on my talk page shall be removed and will be considered disruptive. I would advise other wikipedians of the same, though it is their choice as to how they shall consider any further edits on this subject. Please realise that I have given this dispute a considerable amount of my time now. Please also know that I am not and will not become directly involved in it (for quite understandable reasons) - this is my view and my advice to each editorwhich can be taken or left. Hopefully this shall become the beginning of the end of the issue, and I hope to see both editors engaged once more in the task of improving wikipedia. --Crimsone 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Crimsone, I understand your point and I have already initiated an amicable way of resolving disputes in the talk page. I appreciate the time you have spent in taking efforts in resolving this dispute. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 11:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] With regards to the conversation on WP:AN/I

The user personally attacked another editor (with whom I was commiserating over the incident), and so I blocked him for 48h. I don't think this will solve the problem, though it might send a message that his behavior carries consequences. (It's his first block.) Please let me know if you have any future altercations with this user. Cheers. -- Merope 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem Merope :) If it crops up again I shall let you know. Thanks --Crimsone 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Hi Crimsone,

I am a relatively new user on Wikipedia, although I have contributed in the past occasionally without having a user name. First, I would like to say Hi!:)

Two days ago, my contributions were being constantly rv by User:Mikkalai, who refused to give any account of his actions. I discovered at least 5 articles that he has targeted, and reverted not only mine, but also other people's additional work on those articles. He would comment them offensively, and using threats. I don't like confrontations, so I stepped out and waited for justice. I reported him on "Personal attack" page, but apparently the issue is not sufficiently strong to demand action. Apparently targeting a person is ok, as long as no racist language is used. Whatever... I have finally learned from other users that apparently he thought I was a "ghost" of some previous user who had been baned, and with whom Makkalai was waring. Perhaps he liked waring, since his comments are very agressive.

I have noticed that yesterday you took action on one of these 5 articles, Northern Maramureş, and reverted Makkalai's edits to mine and Khoikhoi's. I would like to thank you for the fact that you care about others! I would like to expand that article in the future. If that wouldn't be too much to ask, could you maybe sometimes read through, and tell me about POV issues in it. It would be great to be able to have the oppinion of someone neutral and detached. Only if you can.

Last but not least, you have an excelent user page, it is very peaceful and stimulating! I was very glad to see it, after continuous distruption coused by others. Nice to know that people like you are around! Best wishes, :Dc76 23:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK tornadoes

I know it seems petty, but the article stated that the UK recieves more tornadoes by land area than any other region in the world. It is true that as a whole country they have greater tornado density than any other whole country, there are areas in the US which experience a much higher tornado density, i.e., oklahoma, about 2/3 the size of the UK, reports 52 tornadoes annually [1]. I was going to change it to be more accurate, but in my opinion the statement "The United Kingdom has more tornado reports per area than any other country" seems a little off topic...but I could be wrong. If that is put in, it should mention other areas in the world prone to tornadoes as well (see tornado), but again, it seems a little off-topic for an article on extratropical cyclones. IMVHO, of course. -Runningonbrains 17:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a very fair point. To be honest, I only added it to mke it less US-centric in the knowledge that we have a very special climate here in the UK due to the NAD in no small part coming into contact with either cold northerlies or siberian easterlies in the winter from Europe - I felt the contrasting airmasses that tend to converge over the good old maritime climate of the UK would be perhaps one of the clearest land-based exapmples of how it can all fit together outside of the US. Of course, understanding your thoughts now, I agree that it probably should be left out. the "Great Storm of 1987" is probably a better UK example though, but even there it's slightly confusing the issue, because it even caught the Met Office off guard (largely due to a lack of observations at sea and a lack of knowledge of Extratropical cyclones at the time). It's certainly the one that the UK would best remember. Besides that, I can only really think of the severe flooding over much of Europe a few years ago to balance out the US element, or more recently, the still quite tropical feeling remnants of Hurricane Gordon from this year. Any ideas?Crimsone 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *snort*

Okay, this just made me laugh. I've given the editor a final warning and will monitor his edits. Thanks for reverting the vandalism and updating my counter! -- Merope 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extratropical cyclone and cyclone

When the word inaccurate is placed in that specific sentence, it is implied that an extratropical cyclone is not a cyclone, which is not correct. It seems like you're grappling with the idea that extratropical cyclone is a cyclone, but the term cyclone is not specific enough. It's as if cyclone is not a specific enough of a term for extratropical cyclone. Either way, the term cyclone is used for extratropical cyclone, as well as other cyclone types. There has got to be a better word choice, if you don't wish to use the new wording. It also doesn't look encyclopedic to use the term inaccurate in an article, especially if we're looking for the articles to be accurate themselves. We're nearing the three revert threshold (within 24 hours) for this sentence. Thegreatdr 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

lol. No problem Thegreatdr. I don't really consider it reverting to be honest. I's more of a case of just trying to find the right way of saying it. It's not that I disagree with you at all ( Honestly don't - your summaries make good points), I'm just trying to improve the article in light of both the article itself, and it's ongoing FAC discussion. I didn't really revert, and nor did you - it was merely a case of attempting to improve the wording.
The latest version you've written is pretty good. I've just copyedited it for flow and clarity, and It's probably the best that statement has been with your edit.
The one thing that has eluded me though is a solid reference for the third paragraph of the warm seclusion section. I've been able to source the comment that says that they are more prevelant over the Ocean through references mentioning zero surface drag and the increased heat of the gulf stream allowing them to form. I can't find a source at all though for the statement mentioning the occurance all year round for the SH but not the NH. WOuld you happen to know of any? Crimsone 20:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment (the Cerebral Warrior issue)

User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior#A_Proposal_by_crazyeddie crazyeddie 15:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I just joined this week and I'm not sure what I'm doing entirely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.143.59 (talk • contribs) .

Not a problem. Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) at the end though, as this shows who the comment was left by. At this point, I don't know who you are. lol. This should be done at the end of every talk page comment. You would also benefit from signing up for your own account (the "sign up" link at the top of the page). Crimsone 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Like this? ~~~~ How is that helpful? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.143.59 (talk • contribs) .
No :) - you don't include the "nowiki" tag. The nowiki tag ensures that the software running this site doesn't parse any of the text you write as code to be formatted. If you use the four tildes on their own without the nowiki tags around them, the software will replace then with your wiki signature. Crimsone 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: New articles

Nothing to be sorry about. Keep cranking out those articles though! :-P Runningonbrains 22:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Extratropical cyclone

Oops. This one slipped my mind and I forgot to read it over again. Sorry! I'll take a look at it later today. Gzkn 02:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Quill-UBX2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Quill-UBX2.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's a PD-Self image. I've just gone back to insert the tag - I thought I'd selected it from the list, but obviously I hadn't. Thanks for letting me know OrphanBot :) Crimsone 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Templates

I was wondering why I wasn't being added to that category. I'll be sure to take a look around. Lily Towers 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Article counter

I am just taking the same numbers for importance as our mathbot-generated assessment table, and then taking the total numbers for quality and subtracting the numbers found at the tropical cyclone table, which should in theory yeild the correct numbers for just the meteorology project. Unfortunately, I havent had time in the last few days to update it, but I will do it now. -Runningonbrains 16:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot's and the creation of them

Hi Mets :)

We've a need for a bot of our own over at Wikiproject Meteorology (WeatherBot is the working title. lol), we're discussing it, and there seems to be a fair amount of work to give it. I would love to write one, but I have no idea where to start - could you posibly point me in the right direction please? Many thanks, Crimsone 02:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I've commented/responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology#To Bot, or not to Bot... to keep our conversation public. —Mets501 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you're a very good one.

Whew! I happened across the article on transphobia while searching for trasgendered day of remberance events in New York City. Always curious to see how the discussion goes, I took a peek. As a (trans)genderqueer person, I'm very-very happy that you're so steadfast, kind and clear. You're a good ally. 207.237.229.226 05:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)katie

[edit] Have you stopped smoking yet?

I know that it is hard to stop smoking but one of your userboxes still says that you smoke. I would like you to stop. I don't care if picking your nose is bad but smoking will affect your health. It will make your life shorter.Jason12345 03:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I could come up with some semi-humourous tongue-in-cheek reply here like I did last time, but I'm not going to. Instead, I shall make the rhetorical comment quite bluntly and quite clearly - What does it have to do with you, and what makes you think you have the moral right and duty to tell me how to live my life?
As I said previously, I'll stop smoking when I'm good and ready to, and when I'm capable of doing so - NOT because somebody hasn't got the common decency to mind their own buisiness with regards to my smoking. By the way - more smokers die of non-smoking related causes than those that die of smoking related illness. Smoking certainly isn't illegal, and smoking respectfully (as I do) isn't even anti-social. Please leave my talk page alone if this is the only reason you have for leaving a message for me, as it's interfering comments such as the ones you're making that are doing me more harm through stress than cigarettes are at the moment. In my current depressed, extremely stressed, anxious and reclusive condition, there is not a doctor in the world that would attempt to encourage me to quit now (sure, they'd help if I said I'd like to try, but at this moment, merely the extra stress could drive me to complete breakdown, and given my serious lack of self-worth at the moment (in spite of my caring and helpful nature) I'm not about to set myself up for a quite obviously foreseeable failure.
Once more, I don't want to hear any more on the matter from yourself or anybody else, and any further comments on the non-issue after this rather clear and deliberate reply will be considered deliberate trolling and thus removed from the page. Thankyou. Crimsone 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
No offense, but I think making statements about one's personal life, habits, interests, etc via userboxes is equivalent to inviting comment on them. I don't like it when people ask me if I'm still a feminazi, a grass and twig eater, or a blind apologist for a go-nowhere dinosaur political party, but I don't really have grounds complain, IMO, because I volunteered the info. On another note, I hope you feel better soon. Anchoress 03:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the get well wishes :). I'd have to say though that my userboxes are not really there to invite comment on my personal life - they are there for the reason they exist on wikipedia - to demonstrate a little about who people are editing with and any possible biases or flashpoints they may have. The smoker one is on my page purely because I occasionally edit the smoking article, and I whish to be entirely transparent in doing so (not that I tend to edit with bias of course, it's just to be perfectly up-front about my own personal involvement in it). Crimsone 03:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Anchoress, any talk page on wikipedia should be dedicated to the task at hand: building an encyclopedia. This isn't myspace. ---J.S (t|c) 04:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugs

I just saw on the admin board that you're having a rough go of it. I wish you much relaxing and many chocolate chip cookies! Your kindness will be sorely missed around here, so you take good care of yourself and get better :) Shell babelfish 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: AN/I message

No bother, my pleasure! Snoutwood (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/User_talk%7ECrimsone_6974.html"