User talk:Thesmothete

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Thesmothete, 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! 

TheRingess 07:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ballstonstationentrance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ballstonstationentrance.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 08:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the image is not copyrighted, but I cannot say for sure. In the meantime I took my own photo and have used it as a replacement image. So I don't think this image appears on any Wikipages. Thesmothete 06:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] center vs. epicenter

Hi Thesmothete, I saw you changed my mention of the "Binnenhof" as the "epicenter" of Dutch politics to "center" (in the Tegenpartij article). I have changed it back to epicenter. I have a few arguments for this. First of all, "epicenter" can be used in this way, see the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Second, in politics, a lot of the action is below the surface, so epicenter seemed like an appropriate term here. Finally, epicenter is funnier (in my opinion) and that seems appropriate for this article. Let me know if you feel strongly about it :) Best, Slinger 17:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is not consistent its approach to the "reflect reality" versus the "preferred usage" approach to dictionary definitions. Compare its treatment of "irregardless" (usage corrected), "ain't" (usage defended) "beg the question" (usage as meaning "raise the question not treated at all), "enormity" (usage as meaning "largeness" defended). That doesn't mean it's appropriate to adopt any of those usages, including "epicenter" to mean "center" in formal writing. People started using the term "epicenter" to mean "center" because of the way the term was used without appropriate context by seismologists. In informal or uninformed communication it is has come to mean "the center of something bad or momentous", and lately, simply, "center". However, if you intend the word to mean (even metaphorically), "the point on the surface nearest the actual center" then you have used it properly and I have no complaint with it. That intent was not immediately obvious the way it was written. There has been one other non-earthquake usage like this that I have not changed. I have also avoided (not always successfully) changing "epicenter" when it appears in quotes, even though the usage is improper. Thesmothete 19:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Manual of Style indicates that "epicenter" should not be used to mean "center" because "epicenter" might be regarded as incorrect and also may be ambiguous.
  • If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternate meaning", since alternate only means "alternating" in British English (and also according to the American Heritage Dictionary).
  • Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to an ambiguous one. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternative meaning", since alternative commonly suggests "nontraditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker.

[edit] FEMAanswers.org

We need your wiki skills at www.FEMAanswers.org, dedicated to help understand the labyrinth of FEMA assistance. Please take a look and consider helping. Thanks. Castellanet 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class articles

Hi, I just wanted to explain that I reverted your change to Template:Grading scheme, because it would be quite a significant change in wording. We already have a couple of thousand articles assessed using this system, it would be a major change. Can you post your views on the template talk page? You could post it here as the topic has been mentioned before, though personally I agree with Titoxd's response. For an example of a short A-Class article that I wrote, see gold(III) chloride - is this what you had in mind? Wikipedia isn't limited by size of paper, that's why Jordanhill railway station was an FA candidate - I'd say if that topic can be considered for FA, almost anything can be! Cheers, Walkerma 21:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As you can see, I have further reverted the change by Sj that prompted my initial change -- if we had to talk about it first, then that policy should apply to everyone, not just me. It appears that you are responding to an implication that FA status should not be available to short articles. I didn't mean to initiate such an implication. I have no problem with short articles having FA status or any other status befitting their quality. I intended my edits to reflect the reality so far as it exists, and to augment it within the new system. I would encourage you to reinstate my proposal, but with edits that conform to your understanding of what the differences would be between a short A-Class article, FA, GA, etc. To me, the difference would be that when an article suffers because it is short, it shouldn't get as far as GA (unless it's just a little short), whereas an article ought to be short should not be penalized for brevity in GA, AC and FA status. I bet we're in agreement on this -- if so, why not be bold and state it in the template in a way that makes you comfortable. Thesmothete 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Thesmothete, can you take a look at my latest edit? I want us to allow shorter articles where appropriate, but I wouldn't want to see glorified stubs going through as A-Class. Is this OK? By the way, I hadn't noticed Sj's earlier edit. I think your other edits have been very helpful, by the way. I am also suggesting a change to the wording on websites, I'll post that on the talk page to elicit comments first. Thanks, and please help us out on assessing articles for WP:1.0! Walkerma 00:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit to A-Class is fine. Presumably you think the same would be true for GA? We need to think about how brevity would be treated in the lower ranks. Stubs and Starts would generally be incomplete, but B-Class need not be, if what it mostly needs is cleanup, citiations and wikification. Thesmothete 16:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arlington County, Virginia

Hey Thesmothete, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated Arlington County, Virginia as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week. The article is in need of much help and with a little group effort, it could be brought to Featured Article status! I brought this to your attention as I have seen you have contributed to the article in the recent past. Please cast your vote with your signature at the US Collaboration of the Week page under Arlington County, Virginia. --Caponer 01:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.235.45.19

Thesmothete, thanks for heads up on 69.235.45.19. I've reported this IP to the vandalism noticeboard. Hopefully an admin will put a block in place. Gwernol 04:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Senate elections, 2006

Thanks for putting my changes back in. I had not noticed the changes (apart from the date change June 29 -> July 9th (how can this be POV?) and in fact don't understand why they are considered POV - seems to be only changes in wording...--Rob 09:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting a vandal

You should've warned this guy before reporting him. Raja Lon Flattery 19:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There were already warnings on the page that said "Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning." Doesn't that mean a warning isn't required? Thesmothete 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing for our audience

TradeSports is inside baseball - while opinion polls are widely debated, discussed and published outside the narrow scope of political junkies like ourselves. We owe it to our readers to give them the most important facts first, and that means giving them things they'll recognize. They won't recognize what the heck an "independent exchange market" is, but they will know what an opinion poll is. Perhaps that's the journalist in me speaking. Anyway, I'm not denigrating your writing in any way - it's a great contribution. The question is, do we think TradeSports is more important than a TIME poll that says two-thirds of Americans think there was a GOP coverup, or a FOX News report that the Republican Speaker of the House is now politically radioactive? I don't think so. There's no real consensus either way - nobody else has expressed an opinion. Feel free to open a debate on the Talk: page for the article... I pledge not to do any further swapping around. Anyway, I'm in Pacific Time and it's about time I sleep too. FCYTravis 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your courtesy...

regarding the Foley article. Haiduc 02:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Coffee table book

Why did you revert Coffee table book to a prior version? Please offer an explaination on it's talk page. The old version you provided is not the best version of the article. Thesmothete 07:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there;

I have no idea why-I don't believe I have ever visited this page. However I access Wikipedia through a shared computer and I have recently been experiencing some abuse of my account from another user. I am very sorry for the inconvenience and I'm glad to see you have put it back to the better version. I will be more careful about logging out in future. Cheers :-) Bennyboyz3000 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The cabal is everywhere...

Yes, I am the "cabalist" who has taken the coffee table book case as requested. I have opened the discussion in the case report page and intro'd in the article's talk page. I am hoping for a positive response from all involved parties. Thank you for choosing to mediate with us! We can avoid a revert war before it even starts. If there are any new developments or if there is anything you would like to tell me, please let me know. Thanks! Antimatter---talk--- 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know that someone is dedicated to improving articles like that. As far as I can tell, the link from the grading scheme wiki takes you to the older version of the coffee table book article, so it is likely that even if the actual article is improved to FA status, people will stil link back to the stub-class article. Perhaps someone should consider a new example for a stub-class article, at least as long as you keep improving it ;) Antimatter---talk--- 08:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Hi, thanks for bringing your question to my attention. I have not been on line much the last few days due to real life stuff. I'm going to spend some time today catching up so look for an answer later today. Take care, --FloNight 14:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to think about your vote and making a reasoned decision. If I can further clarify anything so you feel comfortable putting your trust in me, please let me know. Take care, --FloNight 14:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metro

Hey, I've gotta better idea. We should just change the infobox so it says that, instead of retyping everything and making it look cluttered. How about you update the template while I continue to try to put in these figures, and then it'll be correct and complete. VitaleBaby 19:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll fix it then. I'll place WMATA Parking in it, that way it was be 100% correct. VitaleBaby 20:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User_talk%7EThesmothete_beff.html"