User talk:WB2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!



Sam Spade 17:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

As an important note here, Mr Postdlf was corrected and told I wasn't vandalizing anything, which I have not. Also, he appears to be attempting to establish that certain pages at Wikipedia, even though they remain "editable", are never to be touched by certain persons unless he knows them personally. That is in violation of this website's policy. Also, after having first encountered Mr Postdlf, I had several computers that I was working on hacked into, and United States Post Office mail stolen en-route that I had sent via Certified Mail to the Los Angeles Times. It is my opinion that Mr Postdlf is a Ciber-Terrorist, and anyone encountering or conversing with him should at least back up all their files and documents – especially those they are currently working on and are only on floppy discs or other temporary drives. If you don't and you lose your documents or access to your drives, it is only because you do not head what I said to you about this person who INSTANTLY jumps to conclusions about pages he suspiciously "vows to protect". Many of you, from experiences in the past, know exactly what kind of "user" this Mr Postdlf is – you have seen how they act on various posting pages or when playing multi-player computer games. They instantly assert that THEY are the authority, and then suddenly your entire connection is shut off. I have been told by the Computer Community that these are what they refer to as Smack Tards, and cannot seem to get by a day without "smacking" somebody.
Further, as I am also a graduate Art student and my older brother is a professor at a college in Columbus, Ohio; I am also asserting that Mr Postdlf's credentials from off of his personal page are so extremely suspicious as to cause me to allege that he is also a dangerous stalker, not just an authoritative vandal, and I fully intend to see something done here.
As I've stated before: I have had pages shut down before, and if this website continues to allow the sponsorship of such individuals, I will see it shut down as well.
WB2 20:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your additions to copyright are not only rather irrelevant to the subject, but appear to be written in the spirit of advocacy. Please stop readding them. Postdlf 07:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

And please don't insert words in all capital letters or slang terms into the middle of articles for emphasis. That kind of attempt at a conversational tone is an inappropriate writing style here. Postdlf 07:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Another concern, based on what you posted on your user page: " the articles that I print or will be printing are original with MUCH of the information completely unavailable anywhere else ..." Hopefully this is an overstatement on your part, to suggest that you will be using less common sources rather than literally sources that are "completely unavailable", or that you will actually be writing "original" (i.e., invented or theorized) information. See Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Postdlf 08:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll check, I think I mean just I'll just be using interpretations of info that has long been forwarded or had been put away for a long time and forgotten.
WB2 08:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, an "overstatement"; I did mean as you say "less common sources" – nothing like "flat original" or "raw material" – even though it is true that I do original stuff out side of writing.
Say, in the mean time, can you stop this guy Eb.hoop from vandalizing my additions to the Nathaniel Eaton page; I worked really hard on that, and he deleted all my citations.

[edit] What is "rfc"?

What is rfc, if you continue to allow the vandalism of my contributions, I'll take it up with the FBI and National Homeland Security.

I've had entire pages shut down before.

WB2 01:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the pope, I hear he's big on this sort of thing. RFC is over here. Hope that helps, have a nice day. --W(t) 01:41, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop the accusations and threats

These words, "accusations and threats", should not be used carelessly; please don't do this any more, it's not appreciated by those who discover that you are using them like persons who clog up the 911 emergency phone call system. WB2 04:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your edits on WP:VIP, and have looked at your articles. I see that you have put a lot of work into them, and I also see that experienced editors have made good edits to them, and have given you good advice. It's quite inappropriate to accuse them of "vandalism". Please take a deep breath and try to take in what people are telling you, instead of posting wild accusations and threats. By the way, your alternative suggestion on User talk:Weyes that User:Postdlf is subjecting you to "harassment" or "personal attacks" is just as mistaken, he's doing neither.--Bishonen | talk 03:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Destroying an entire page, as did Eb.hoop by simply deleting my additions, and then reincluding his completely stolen – word for word copied – so-called "biography of Nathaniel Eaton" from another encyclopedia without giving that author any credit at all does NOT constitute good editing.
Postdlf has a habit of immediately supporting any and all those who feel wronged by an edit, and then turning around and supporting his reasoning with so-called manditory editing requirements that, when one goes to the pages he uses for citations, he finds that Wikipedia rules in fact do NOT require those things.
"Vandalism" as it is defined at Wikipedia is here: Wikipedia:Vandalism; you should read it and note that many of the things that Postdlf asserts are vandalism just simply do not exist, but that which he is doing, "sneaky vandalism", is.
When he continues his personal attack upon me, it is called an "Attention-seeking vandalism."
If he conspires with others to destroy someone else's additions, then that is also vandalism.
Mostly, though, forcing me to continingly have to address this situation is another sort of intended vandalism: the sort intended to prevent me from getting back to my pages and finishing up my articles, which may yes, have some problems with them, but there is nothing to support any allegations of vandalism on my part, and making false allegations without apologies still does yes, constitute a personal attack.
When you're wrong, you're wrong; don't keep trying to add something afterwards to prove that there still might of been a good reason for "So-and-So" to falsely accuse someone else anyway.
Just apologize, and that's it.
I will respond no further along these lines; I am not your professor.
WB2 06:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Eaton & punctuation

Wikipedia:Manual of style#Quotation marks --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My concern was that you'd placed punctuation inside quotation marks, which was what I set out to correct. Going back and looking at the article, I find that (as has happened a few times recently) the editing process seems to have hit a glitch, and my edits were confused with others. I've gone back and tidied it again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd also add that we have to write as though our readers have minimal intelligence; anyone who thinks that "schoolmaster" means a slave-owner is probably beyond our help. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So I should put back the link (schoolmaster), ???
(I'll put it back).
WB2 23:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denomination

I'm not sure what the distinction between the denomination of a postage stamp and the denomination of currency is. Aren't stamps always expressed in units of local currency? Josh Parris ✉ 05:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No they are not, and they do not "spend" like coins or currency.
If you say that they do to a stamp, or even coin, dealer, you will quickly have your head chewed off.
Often, as in the case of bi-secting stamps, brand "new" denominations are created that are nothing like – for instance – the decimal system the coins or currency are based on.
Also, as in the case of early United States postage stamps, stamps are not entirely based upon the same monetary system as the coins or currency.
Back then, the denominations were as follows: 1¢, 2¢, 3¢, 5¢, 10¢, 12¢, 15¢, 24¢, 30¢, and 90¢; which is basically based upon the rule of "three".
With coins and bills, the "unit" of value is usually the 1-Dollar bill or the 1-Dollar coin (though you don't see the 1-Dollar coin too often in circulation).
Also, coins and bills "last forever", as opposed to stamps that are only "good" until they're canceled; and there is no set "unit of value" as there has always been in coins and currency.
Stamps are based upon the values that the Post Office decides with the "unit", the price it takes to send a 1-Ounce envelope through the mail, changing according to the whim of the financial marketplace or the greed of the Post Office itself.
I haven't the time to write a comprehensive separate article on stamp denominations for right now, but I may take it up later.
WB2 06:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I phrased my question incorrectly. Aren't stamps priced in units of local currency? So a three cent stamp can exist without a matching three cent coin, but the price of the stamp is written on the stamp, in units of the local currency (eg, 3c ). I imagined that was it's denomination - it's price. Josh Parris ✉ 06:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying: that the prices on the stamps are based upon the unit of the local currency.
But often times, this isn't so. Stamps tend to go off on their own tangents with 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5 unit denominations; and the postal authorities of that particular country intend for there to be a difference based upon the function of the local economy with respect to how much they are supposedly losing (an "exact" figure) by not charging that extra fraction of the unit.
Whenever the economy starts to pick back up, they are supposed to remove that fraction and return it to the people; but this never seems to happen before some other "tragic" financial happening kicks in – except in the case of WWI when the imposed 3¢ rate was reduced back to 2¢ after the War was over.
So the "unit" value is never stable or "set", and fluxuates back and forth.
If the Post Office could, I'm sure that they would form their own "stable unit of denomination"; but as it stands, post offices are entirely dependant upon the respective country's monetary system, and its more like trying to calculate pi as opposed to simply accepting pi as "a number that exists".
Under the terminolgy of monetary "units", it seems to be impossible to affix any sort of definition of what the "postal unit" would be.
Further, the answer to your question is also "no" since often times the prices of stamps are based upon the unit of someone else's currency – especially stamps that are made for foreign usages, transatlantic crossings, colonial usages, or air mail.
In those cases – especially in the cases of British, French, Spanish, German and Dutch colonies – the unit of local currency is either eliminated completely by the "conquering" power, or transformed into some third, "comprimising" form of currency that both the "conquering" power and the "conquered" power can "live" with.
But as in the case of Ireland, once the "conquered" power at least nominally regains its sovereignty, then its back to the former monetary system.
But this isn't always so; its just that the Post Office and letter carriers have somehow evolved along different economic pathways, and are never subject to the retrictions that are imposed upon the people – even during volatile times of war or imprisonment.
I'm not sure if everyone is aware, but even Saddam, himself is allowed to send out letters to persons he knows in the community from his jail cell (though not that often, and by way of his attorney, etc).
WB2 21:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Williams

Please note that Roger Williams (puritan) has been merged into Roger Williams (theologian). Logophile 1 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

Thank you. WB2 1 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Eaton

It was partly because square brackets are normally used for editorial interpolations. I know that they can be used for brackets within brackets, though that's become unusual (en-rules being preferred), but in this case the round brackets seemed to make more sense. The main reason, though, is that I believe that the use of square brackets can foul up some browsers, as square brackets have the special Wikipedia function of indicating external links. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

[edit] Hasty Pudding

Hi - I'm trying to keep the Hasty Pudding article from being deleted. Can you tell me where you got that recipe so I can reference it? Thank you. Fascinating note at the bottom - at first I thought it was some silly vandalism! My mother always told me I'd explode from eating raw bread dough. --Mothperson 19:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I forget; I was just coasting the Internet and felt that it was common enough to ignore its sourch, which by the way, had annexed ITself from another source dated to the 1890's.
I took their word for it, but didn't feel compelled to devulge who they were.
As far as the explosion business is concerned ...
There was a movie some years ago that dealt with the biography of some Swedish immigrants, and what it was like for Swedish people in general through the puritan and colonial periods of America.
I can't remember the name of the movie for right now (it was done during the 70's), but in the movie, which was an historical drama based on fact, one of the children of this immigrant family had somehow broken into the cupboard where the hasty pudding was setting up.
She had eaten the entire bowl and started complaining that she didn't feel too well.
When the family found out, they took her to a doctor; but the doctor said that there was nothing they could do to make her throw up the excess hasty pudding since the kernels had already gone to her intestine or had swollen in her stomach making it impossible to spit them back up.
The only thing they were told they could do, was wait and hope that the continual swelling of the kernels would stop before any serious internal damage had occurred.
That it did not, and she died of massive internal hemorrhage.
Who is this "deletion" guy?
WB2 06:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Since you cannot quote a source, I have removed the recipe and quote. If you are interested in early American cooking, "Feeding America has a great website. --Mothperson 14:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC) P.S. it is considered more sensible to reply to queries on the other person's talk page, unless you actually want to have your user talk page on watch lists. I do not include talk pages on my watch list, but that's just me.

[edit] Hasty Pudding 2

I'll ignore your second comment, as you are welcome to take as much pride in your school as you wish. Regarding your first comment, note that the original article was simply a recipe. By policy, recipes belong in WikiBooks, not here. If you read what I said in nominating the article, you know that I did not really wish to see it deleted, but I didn't know what else to do with it. Now that Mothperson has done an excellent rewrite, I have withdrawn my vote, and support keeping the article. The VfD will run its course, because a nomination withdrawl doesn't terminate the vote, per policy, but I am sure the article will remain in its current, much improved, form. Best wishes, Xoloz 06:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:JHarvardOlympusCigar.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. -- Carnildo 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hope that fixes things; old cigar labels are near to impossible.
WB2 [substitute for sig: 207.214.244.136 04:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/b/2/User_talk%7EWB2_3672.html"