User talk:Donarreiskoffer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives for User talk:Donarreiskoffer |
|---|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Template:Mammals & Template:Primates
I changed the large dot to a smaller one. This seems to be more visually appealing. I also removed all extinct listings from the primate template; we should include all or none, not some. However, as an experiment I created a version (check the history) that included all of the extinct families. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree the last version with the smaller dots is more visually appealing. I also think that the extinct orders clutter the template too much. So, nice work!! --Donar Reiskoffer 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfA thanks
Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of vegetable oils
Nice catch! Thanks! Waitak 07:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History of philosophy in Poland
It was very thoughtful of you to add portraits to this article. They enliven it considerably. Thanks! logologist|Talk 07:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, for creating this great article. --Donar Reiskoffer 08:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Omitting edit summaries is one of my fierced vices. I will try to fill them in, but I can't promise anything. --Donar Reiskoffer 09:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Belfry in Ghent
Hello,
I am from Flanders too but I'll write in English...
[1] the English version of this article explains the Mammelokkerlegend (with a picture) while the Dutch one doesn't. I tried to copy the link to the picture but I guess only articles on this Wikipedia can link to that picture. My English isn't that bad, but not good enough either to provide a decent translation of that paragraph in Dutch. Could you take a look at those problems?
By the way : thank you for providing a nice picture of the Belfry!Evilbu 14:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- The article looks fine now. I made a few minor changes on your input last friday. A wikilink is formed by a double square bracket, not by a single hence: [[Belfry]] forms Belfry. Anyhow if you have more questions. Feel free to ask (in English or Dutch).--Donar Reiskoffer 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] legibility
Please note the differences between these two formats:
-
- The symmetries along x→x, x→π/2-x and x→ π-x for the trigonometric functions are:
-
- The symmetries along x → x, x → π/2 − x and x → π − x for the trigonometric functions are:
In non-TeX mathematical notation, variables (but not digits and not punctuation) should be italicized, thus matching TeX style; spaces should precede and follow things like "+" and "−" and "=" and "→", and "−" should be used instead of "-". Michael Hardy 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the tips!! The result is much neater since you tweaked the layout. --Donar Reiskoffer 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trig identities
Genedial 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Donarreiskoffer - When you edited the Triginometric identities, I liked the way you simplified the layout, but the errors you introduced into the equations showed lack of attention to detail. Please be careful when editing mathematics!
- Thank you for correcting my errors. I shall take more care next time. --Donar Reiskoffer 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gaston Geens
Good catch. I'm not sure what I thought that was, but it didn't occur to me that was his city of birth. Thanks for cleaning it up. Erechtheus 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Belgian?
Hallo,
ik heb je bijdragen opgemerkt, misschien ben je geïnteresseerd in WikiProject Belgium? Neem eens een kijkje en aarzel niet om je aan te sluiten, kost niets! :-D
Moest je in België wonen en op de hoogte willen gehouden worden, is het mss nuttig van jezelf toe te voegen aan Category:Wikipedians in Belgium.
Iemand met eveneens geen spatie in zijn nick, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dankjewel voor de uitnodiging, maar ik houd de boot nog even af. --Donar Reiskoffer 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women
I deleted the article for several reasons:
- it was a re-creation of an article already deleted
- it was a copyright violation
The latter point is most important. A list in Wikipedia should not be a wholesale copy of information from another source. This list is identical to that provided by Forbes, so it is inherently a copyright violation, and cannot be accepted (copying a list is the same as copying any other content). You may discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... to determine if there is an appropriate form to include that info. As for the other articles you cited, I'll look into them. Mindmatrix 15:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- A quick inspection of List of billionaires (2006) and Sunday Times Rich List 2005 suggests they are not copyright violations, because a listing by accumulated wealth is not unique or original. Essentially, anything that can be quantitatively measured and ranked will rarely be considered a copyright violation. On the other hand, anything whose ranking depends on subjective or qualitative criteria will be subject to copyright issues. I hope this makes it clearer. Mindmatrix 15:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I now understand the logic, thank you for pointing this out. But it still seems a borderline issue to me. If a magazine publishes a list of wealthy people without a numerical value per person, the list is copyrighted. If it publishes the same list with such a numerical value, being for instance a estimated guess of his wealth, that same list would no longer be copyrighted. --Donar Reiskoffer 15:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite. The statement If a magazine publishes a list of wealthy people without a numerical value per person, the list is copyrighted isn't correct. If the list is ordered alphabetically, or by wealth (even though the value isn't stated), or by country, religion etc., then it cannot be copyrighted because such a listing isn't original. I'm not an expert in copyright law, so you may want to pursue a more detailed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., though I'd be glad to elaborate on what I've said above if you'd like. Mindmatrix 16:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I now understand the logic, thank you for pointing this out. But it still seems a borderline issue to me. If a magazine publishes a list of wealthy people without a numerical value per person, the list is copyrighted. If it publishes the same list with such a numerical value, being for instance a estimated guess of his wealth, that same list would no longer be copyrighted. --Donar Reiskoffer 15:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Brusselsmetro.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Brusselsmetro.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 01:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
