User talk:Dacoutts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello Dacoutts, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Daverocks 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Dacoutts Dacoutts 08:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Category: Science fiction games

Can I suggest that you make Category: Science fiction board games a sub-cat of Category: Board games and then remove the board games category from any articles you add sci-fi board games to? Cheers --Pak21 10:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - how do I do that? --Dacoutts Dacoutts 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Firstly, apologies for not replying to this earlier! In general, to make Foo a subcategory of Bar, just add [Category:Bar] to the Foo's Category page. There's some better documentation about all this at Wikipedia:Category. Cheers --Pak21 11:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit summaries

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've been making some very constructive changes (to the Malthus article, especially). You should try to use edit summaries; they really help other editors when reviewing changes to articles, and the accepted Wikipedia guideline is to always fill the summary field. May the Wiki be with you.--ragesoss 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still a bit new at this. That's good advice, and I'll do my best to follow it. --Dacoutts 23:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fetus into Man

Fetus into Man <-- I thought that was an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie ;) --JWSchmidt 23:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted lists

Hi there, you were complaining that I tagged two lists that you uploaded to Wikipedia as a copyright violation. Problem is that these two are not merely a compilation of data (like the phone book) but there is much editorial input involved. As such they are likely copyrighted, and like a copyrighted photograph they can't be reproduced wholesale. (One may quote from them, saying for example "Vancouver was rated the 'World's Most Livable City by the Economist in 2005".)

These concerns must be addressed, as they increase the legal exposure of Wikipedia. Pilatus 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth do you mean by ...but there is much editorial input involved... and As such they are likely copyrighted, and like a copyrighted photograph they can't be reproduced wholesale.?
Please bear in mind that both lists represent much less than 10% of the complete lists of cities. Also, the information listed is just the ranking, not the in-depth analysis of each city's ranking. As such, the ranking itself represents an absolute minimum of the information available in the surveys by the EIU (perhaps as little as 1% of the total city information available per city).
For a comparable example, please see The 100 and read the debate on copyright there. --Couttsie 23:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The 100 and the "World's most livable cities" lists aren't really comparable (or so I think, Raul's 4th Law again).; The 100 is a book of nearly 600 pages with an essay on the 100 people on the list, so one can argue that reproducing the list isn't a such a substantial part of the book and could be considered part of a review. The purpose of the "most livable cities", on the other hand, is to list the world's most livable cities. If one cites without much comment the top 15 (and people are most interested in the top and bottom anyway) one might somewhat convincingly argue that that is reproducing a substantial amount of the work.
Someone more experienced in copyright law than either of us should review the case. After all that's what WP:CP is good for. Pilatus 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone more experienced in copyright law than either of us should review the case. That's entirely reasonable - how do we make that happen? --Couttsie 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design (Reactionary Creationism)

Might I say sir, what I damn good job you did with that write up you did on Intelligent Design's introductory paragraph, explaining how it is just a modern version of Lysenkoism. I salute you, sir. --Ricimer 10:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 3% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 2 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 05:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Humanist International

I don't understand these see also links you added. What do they have to do with the Humanist International? Tedernst | talk 20:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comments requested

I have been assigned this case by the mediation cabal to see what would be an acceptable compromise in these matters. May I have your comments at the following link as to what you believe the issues are and what would be acceptable to you as some sort of compromise? Many thanks.Chandler75 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC) link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-28_The_Humanist_papacy

See Wikipedia_talk:Counter_Vandalism_Unit#IHEU_long-term_and_complex_vandalism
See Talk:International_Humanist_and_Ethical_Union#Clarifications_and_apologies

From IHEU talk:

Plover: If the IHEU cares enough about capitalizing Humanism to change their website when the use of lower case is pointed out to them, then that seems fairly clear evidence that it's a meaningful convention within the organization.
Rohirok: That they changed their website from h to H is compelling, and I admit that always capitalizing without an adjective is their general practice, as evidenced by much of the website.


[edit] NPOV tag on Secular humanism page

Dacoutts, am I correct in thinking that you added to the Secular humanism page the tag that 'The neutrality of this article is disputed.'? If so, since that was added a lot of references have been added and the wording you most objected to was altered... would you consider removing the tag, or is there something else you are looking to see done? -Rhwentworth 18:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AHA Membership figure

you wrote "The AHA unfortunately only has 6,000 members" - can you please provide a citation and add it to the AHA page. Thanks, --Couttsie 09:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I got the 6,000 member figure by emailing and asking, I do not believe it is listed anywhere on their website 2ct7 21:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/c/User_talk%7EDacoutts_db77.html"