User talk:Worldtraveller/Old stuff 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

 Worldtraveller on television! BBC2, 8.30pm Monday 4th April 

NB: I may well reply here to your messages for the sake of conversational continuity. Then again, I might reply on your talk pages. I'm indecisive like that.

Hi Worldtraveller, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Questions? Help || Village pump(everyone gathers here) || Admin links: Deletion || Undeletion

Helpful links: Editing || Writing a great article || Naming || Style Manual || Policies || Reassigning old edits.

I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. You can also leave me questions at my talk page. +sj+

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:


Contents

[edit] Re: Naming of astronomical objects

Worldtraveller wrote:

I see you've redirected a large number of astronomical articles, eg from NGC 1435 to Reflection Nebula NGC 1435. Just curious as to why? I think it's redundant - the catalogue designation is the complete name of the object. The object type is never part of the name in this way.

NASA and SEDS naming convenience, and human readability. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical Objects for old discussion. —Joseph | Talk 21:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Worldtraveller wrote:

That discussion looked to be inconclusive? Anyway, while of course someone would usually refer to 'the reflection nebula NGC 1435' in a discussion about the object, its name is just NGC 1435, and reflection nebula is the type of object it is. Where you have lines like 'Open cluster NGC xxxx, also known as NGC xxxx', that's just not true I'm afraid - the object is known only as NGC xxxx.

Renaming as you have done would be like renaming 'Honshu' to 'Island of Honshu' or 'second' to 'unit of time second'. As an astronomer, I strongly prefer not including object types in astronomical object article titles, unless there's a disambiguation issue.

I beleive the problem here is the use of the words "also known as", when it should be something like "referred also as ___". I have already discussed this same subject many times and I always say the same thing:

Take for example the AK-47 rifle. Up to this date I haven't met a serviceman that refers to it as an "AK-47", they always use the term "AK-47 rifle". The same thing happens with news reporter.

In reality, the object is not only known as NGC xxxx, although the official name is NGC xxxx. Take for example the Pleiades Open Cluster, it has more names than a prostitute working 4 corners.

Sometimes you have to get out of the bubble: don't think as an astronomer, think as a 8 year old. You are writing the article for both, the general public, AND astronomers. Referring to it as 'NGC xxxx' makes people feel dumb as they just see a number and an acronym. However, when you use the form "Object Type Designation" the person has a better idea of what you are talking about.

Basically, if you were writing the article for the scientific community, it is redundant to specify the object type. The most important fact to take into consideration is that Wikipedia is written for a broader audience (from children to scientists to amateurs or to simply passive readers).

When you have the chance, take your time to read the W3C recommendation referring to the titles of webpages. Now imagine that you have 20 windows opened with NGC objects, would it be easier to find the object you want to edit when the windows titles say 'NGC xxxx' or if they say 'Object Type NGC xxxx'. (And beleive me, it happens a lot when you use tabbed browsing).

—Joseph | Talk 23:41, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed that you followed the convenience "Object Type NGC #" in one of your own papers: [1] =P —Joseph | Talk 23:49, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


I agree with much of what you say, but still think that the article titles need only be NGC xxxx. You're absolutely right that astronomical objects have loads of names: what I meant was that the NGC designation is one complete name and doesn't include the object type, and similarly they are never called the Pleiades Open Cluster by anyone, simply the Pleiades or M45 or Melotte 22 or even H0346+24. It is just not accurate to say that an object is called for example 'Reflection Nebula NGC 1435, also known as NGC 1435'. It's not: it's called NGC 1435 (among other things), and happens to be a reflection nebula.
Of course, any article worth anything about an NGC object must include what type of object it is, but this is sometimes disputed or unknown anyway, further complicating the article title if naming articles by your method.
If an article is titled 'NGC xxxx', and starts by saying 'NGC xxxx' is a whatever object, and is in category:object type, that seems to me to be acceptable to both the 8 year old and the astronomer. It also makes it easier to cross-link as you can just enclose an NGC number in double quotes without needing to check what object type it is.
Pleased you have looked up a paper of mine! Got a couple of others as well, referring to the planetary nebula Abell 30 and the planetary nebula NGC 1501, but this doesn't imply that the object name includes its type. Just as the wikipedia article should start by stating what the object is, so my paper starts by making it clear that I'm talking about planetary nebulae.
So just to summarise, an article called 'object type NGC xxxx' is not accurately titled, makes cross-linking more difficult, and the information contained in such a title is better placed within the article itself.
All this is just IMHO of course. But you can trust me, I'm a doctor :) Worldtraveller 22:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, but my main concern is that an article title must be unambiguous and at the same time provide all the possible information that it can about the article subject (see the WC3 recommendation). For example, I really liked how an anon user titled the Spindle Galaxy in Sextans: it is completely unambiguous, precise, and detailed. I even moved NGC 5866 to Spindle Galaxy in Draco because it is an excellent idea.

In the case of NGC objects, using the designation as the article title is unambigous: there are no two NGC objects with the same designation, however it lacks certain information that the designation can't provide: the object type — it is precise and unambiguous, but undetailed.

I'm pretty much just following the convention used by NASA, SEDS, ESO, and Scott Hudson (see the WikiProject talk for links).

Another thing to consider is how certain search engines work or worked: some of them parse a webpage title first for the submitted search query, and if they can't find a match on the title, then they search the whole page. Google doesn't work like this IIRC, but others do... or did (that was back in the 1990s, it may have changed).

Perhaps, we should consider a different approach. How about we use the titles "Object Type NGC #" but use the NGC designation as the main name? For example:

NGC 1435 (also referred as Reflection Nebula NGC 1435) is a reflection nebula in the Pleiades Open Cluster in the constellation of Taurus.

In the case where we don't know the object type, the designation is sufficient. See NGC 2264 for an example.

And yes, it is nice to chat with you and see a professional's point of view. =)

—Joseph | Talk 17:25, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not too sure what you mean by 'the convention used by NASA, SEDS...' etc. Looking at the SEDS NGC catalogue pages([2]), their page titles are just the NGC catalogue designation, with object info in the article. I agree that titles should be unambiguous but I still think the object type is superfluous. Spindle Galaxy in xxx I am very opposed to, I'm afraid, because there would be hundreds of thousands of spindle galaxies in any given constellation. Object type NGC xxxx I can just about live with, but removing the NGC designation from the article title altogether seems totally counter-productive!
I am not comfortable with your article titling mainly because it may give the impression that the object type is part of its name, which it really never is. If you want to title the article your way then we need to be absolutely clear in the main text. Although of course one might refer to 'the planetary nebula Abell 30', it is simply wrong to say that the object is called 'Planetary Nebula Abell 30' - that's just not true.
In my view, the following is totally clear, unambiguous and accurate: take the article titled NGC 1435, and I think it should start like this:
NGC 1435 is a reflection nebula in the Pleiades open cluster in the constellation of Taurus.
The 'also referred to...' bit is misleading and unnecessary - same as if you were to write Mars, also known as the Planet Mars. NGC 1435 is a reflection nebula, but it's not called Reflection Nebula NGC 1435. The Pleiades are an open cluster but they're not called the Pleiades Open Cluster. If the article is situated at NGC 1435 but has a redirect from Reflection Nebula NGC 1435, or vice versa, that's no problem, but it is wrong to suggest that the object type forms part of the object name.
Hope that argument makes sense! I really think we can accommodate all our views and satisfy the 8 year olds and the astronomers if we follow the above convention. Worldtraveller 21:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Woah sorry, forgot about this discussion... I will have to add your talk page to my watchlist. =/

NASA and SEDS use the Object Type XXX convention on page titles, see [3] and [4] for examples. Scott Hudson doesn't make the same thing in page titles, but he refers to them with the same convention, see [5]. ESO makes the same thing for their images, see [6]. Why shouldn't we? Basically, the less information that you give to the reader, the less chance you have that they will enter your website (in this case, Wikipedia). For example, I noticed that you moved Messier 73 to M73 which beleive me, is a bad decision. :/ "M73" tells nothing to people, while "Asterims of Stars M73" or "Messier Object 73" is specific, detailed, and direct to the point.

The problem here is that we are not handling objects, or data, we are handling clicks, ie: visitors, and we want all of them to use us, not to use another site. Again, see the WC3 recommendation regarding page titles, it is the most important thing of a webpage, why should we limit it to a designation number when we have so much space to describe the page?

It is like giving the page title "Celica" instead of "2004 Honda Celica" for the car model.

—Joseph | Talk 05:25, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault, should've put a note on your page to tell you I'd written more.
Anyway, as I say I can definitely live with 'Messier Object Mxx' as an article title and can perhaps learn to cope with 'Object Type Mxx'. M73 I could've moved to Messier Object M73 - my main concern there was that it's not certain it's an asterism so Asterism of 4 stars M73 could well be inaccurate.
Also I wanted to change the initial description - your aim of reaching the broader audience is of course laudable, but I really think that saying it's known as M73, Messier Object M73, Asterism of 4 Stars M73 etc etc is just duplicative and confusing. So I changed it to M73, also known as NGC 6994.
As I say, it is known as M73, and while it may be referred to as 'the asterism of 4 stars M73', capitalising it as 'The Asterism of 4 Stars M73' is definitely inaccurate because no official name with any organisation or in any catalogue includes that description of what the object type may or may not be.
If the article title was Messier Object 73, would you be happy with the description as it is at the moment in the article? And would you be happy if this way of describing objects was extended to other M and NGC objects?
(I'd move the article myself but no time right now to sort out all the links from other articles)

Yeah, totally, as long as the Messier doesn't have a name by its own (like the Crab Nebula for example). If you find an article that uses a description that is uncertain, then move it, but explain the move on the edit summary. I never move stuff back around, except when they are incorrectly named (for example, someone once moved Messier 84 to Lenticular Galaxy by accident).

I really have no problem in moving M73 to Messier Object 73, but don't worry about it. Leave it at M73, someone will eventually move it back.

I can't see any other object that has an innacurate name, check out Category:Messier objects when you have a chance. Hmm, maybe move Spindle Galaxy in Draco to Spindle Galaxy NGC 5866?

Thanks for all your help, wish I had BBC2 here. =/

—Joseph | Talk 00:12, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] leoN

I put a reply on the FAC page in regards to the Noel Gallagher site. It may seem as if I am trying to aggravate you. I assure you, this is not the case, I have the page's best interests at heart and I could see little real ground for your comlaints. Clearly you are not a fan of his work (the opposite perhaps), and this appears to have clouded your vision, but, save putting "Noel Gallagher isn't half a twat", I can't see how to satisfy your requests. Cheers anyway.--Crestville 19:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I appreciate it. Don't worry, not taking any of this personally. You're absolutely right I'm not his biggest fan, but rather than that causing my judgement to be clouded, it seemed to me that your judgement is clouded by being something of a fan (by the looks of things). The article often reads like the kind of biography you'd find on a fan site. If I were to write an article from my own untempered point of view, it would be as harsh and critical as yours is flattering, but much as I'd like to see "Noel Gallagher isn't half a twat" in there somewhere I'm just suggesting a more NPOV, somewhere in between yours and my personal views of the little f*ker :) I'll try and explain the points I made further on the FAC page. Cheers - Worldtraveller 11:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think its easy to take his tounge in cheek arrogance the wrong way. He does tend to know what he is talking about, when he fancies being serious (trust me). Fucking Manc cunt. Could I ask you to have a go at casting an objective eye over the article it down a bit? Also, though I'm not right fussed, some people get a bit uppety if yer don't reply on their talk page. Cheers.--Crestville 21:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fisherman on Lake Tanganyika.jpg

Hi! <supplicate>I don't suppose you'd be willing to upload the large version of the image to the Commons?</supplicate>. But it's a nice shot, regardless! — Matt 14:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When you say the large version, do you mean the 700x462 version which is the largest online at the moment, or the 3500x2500 I mentioned being able to produce? If the former, I will certainly consider it (don't know much about the commons, need to read about it), but if the latter then there are two problems - a) not sure I'd want to upload such a high-res file under a GFDL license, and b) can't find the original slide at the moment so can't scan in at highest resolution anyway :) Thanks very much for the kind comment! Worldtraveller 22:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I did mean the latter. I'm curious — why not GFDL a high-res file when you're willing to GFDL a low-res one? Of course, how you license the images is up to you, but I'm just interested in the reasons for the distinction. — Matt 00:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Atitlán

Hi. Great work on "Lago Atitlán" article. I'm glad we now have a much better article on the beautiful lake. However as we're going with the proper Spanish name, I moved the article to Lago de Atitlán -- also incorporating a couple of things from the older "Lake Atitlán" article (like the category and link to the German Wikipedia version of the article). Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 22:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you know has been updated
and a fact from the article Maximón, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

-- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:14, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Award

I hereby award you with the Brilliant Prose Rose for your work on Planetary nebula
Enlarge
I hereby award you with the Brilliant Prose Rose for your work on Planetary nebula

Keep up the good work in working on the article and trying to get it promoted to featured status. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:24, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Thanks!

I came across one of your pictures while going through hundreds of pictures for the untagged images project. After having tagged scores or hundreds of images as being of dubious provenance, it's great to see someone uploading so many great photos of their own under the GFDL. I'm helping with this project because I think pictures add so much to the articles, and I want those that are used to be truly clean. I've contributed a few of my own, too (not as good as yours). So I just want to say thank you for your great contributions. (They are all tagged, right?) Kbh3rd 03:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ryanair

Ryanair is on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, your support would be great. CGorman 16:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plasma

[7] Does the non-ionized gas also emit light?

Yup, not a large proportion of the total but it does. Neutral oxygen at 6300Å can be quite strong in some cases, and other neutral species emit strongly in infrared. Worldtraveller 05:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hm. neato.--Deglr6328 17:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cat's Eye Nebula

Hi, Worldtraveller, great article! Excellent clear writing and organization—sorry I can't say the same for my footnote disquisition! I only meant that I've never seen non-consecutive footnote numbers in a text before. But I'll be perfectly happy with just being told that that's the way it's done in your field. Or with being told by a pointed WP:FAC silence from other contributors that it didn't bother anybody else. But what I meant to suggest as the "normal" way of referencing particular points in the text (by way of addition to the general reference section that you have) was like, uh... suddenly hard to find an article with footnotes now, although I know they're there... well, Attila the Hun. Although those notes are more explanatory than referential.
Please just forget my nonsense about supplying page numbers. I thought you had some books in the reference section, but now I look carefully I see they're all journal articles (I was fooled by the titles being italicized), so I'm sure there's no need for page references.
Another thought, though. Since your reference section isn't anyway in alphabetical order, why not just shuffle the list around a bit, so as to get the footnote numbers consecutive that way? :-) Mind you, some FAC hardass could come round and insist that they be alphabetical, see WP:MOS, but why anticipate trouble? (And no reader would in practice have any trouble finding their way round your reference section, no matter what order it's in.) Best, Bishonen | Talk 10:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking arbitration

I've filed an arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. Johnleemk | Talk 07:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cerro de la Silla

Hi Worldtraveller, I just wanted to let you know that I posted a cropped version of the Cerro de la Silla picture on FPC, and am wondering what you think. Thanks alot! --Spangineer ∞ 22:21, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I generally try not to screw up people's talk pages, but this time I did, and fixed it with this edit. Sorry about that. --Spangineer ∞ 22:27, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


Did you know has been updated
and a fact from the article Bok globule, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

- Mgm|(talk) 09:30, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision

Hey, you were involved in this dispute deeply and certified the RfC. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Johnleemk | Talk 06:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - been watching developments there and will weigh in shortly, probably later on today. Worldtraveller 11:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bok globule

Hi -

(I tried to leave a longer message last night but WP was playing up and it ended up getting eaten, so this is a shorter summary, unfortunately).

Thanks for the message and the explanation - no offence taken. The comments re rough sphericity and comparison to GMC came from a couple of websites, but I'll gladly defer to you (galactic objects are a bit off piste for me: I was only an astronomer for 3 year, 9 years ago, and I was a quasi-cosmologist come radio astronomer then).

Keep up the good work - I've been impressed with your articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryanair

Thanks for all your hard work in helping get it to FA standard. CGorman 16:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diffuse Interstellar Band

I just stumbled on Diffuse interstellar band. In lieu of dropping a stub template there, is there anything more that can be added? I was left wondering whether "diffuse" was a reference to spectral line broadening due to doppler shift, who discovered DIBs, and a couple other details. Thanks - not trying to create work for you, but this is outside my expertise and I found it a very interesting article. Jeff Medkeff | Talk 21:18, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krakatoa

Not sure what happened to cause the reversion - thanks for putting it back. Wizzy 04:44, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Orion.jpg

Thanks for alerting me to this. After the pic was removed, the references to it all over the place were not so i figured a glitch somewhere. i will now go and remove its references and my nasa tag. i know that all of nasa's pics are free but didnt even consider that POTD might not be. in any case, ill try to fix what i have done but i cant actually delete it. Cavebear42 17:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the original author (robgendler at worldnet dot att dot net) about getting this re-licenced? Alphax τεχ 02:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear fusion

Thanks for quickly confirming that. I was too lazy to do it myself :) --jag123 17:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Buckingham Palace

Thanks for your comments on Wikpedia featured article, a war time section has now been included, its a bit rushed and may need a copyedit, I can never see my own mistakes! Giano 15:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting section, exactly the kind of thing I hoped to see! I just gave it a bit of a copyedit. By the way I'm glad you put the Eleanor Roosevelt story back in, it definitely adds something to the article! Worldtraveller 16:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote and copyedit. Yeah I liked the Eleanor story too, there's another good one about an eastern potentate barbecuing a pig on the astrakahn carpet in the Belgian suite, and Iliescu? what's his name(mental block - Romanian dictator who was shot) pinching the ornaments, bit not enough space, and people son't seem to like the anecdotes only want the serious stuff. Giano 16:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nicolae Ceausescu. -- ALoan (Talk)
Surely there's space to include stories about light-fingered dictators and alternative catering arrangements! They sound like they'd make great additions to the article! Worldtraveller 17:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It won't be long before people start suggesting it is carved up as being too long, I had to fight tooth and nail to keep John Vanbrugh together, I might slip them in if its ever featured, trouble is where do you stop, half the guests at the Garden parties pinch the teaspoons Giano 17:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I bet their budget for replacement crockery is quite sizable... well, if you don't want to put any more anecdotes in, then maybe I will slip them in myself. Then again, I should remember that I'm a socialist and anti-royalist, and should busy myself on less bourgeois articles :) Worldtraveller 17:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Funnily enough, so am I! (Well leftish anyway) Which is why I had a bristle at Mark's comments on POV etc, my interests are purely architectural, but on this subject had to become a little more encompassing and neutral. Giano 17:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Oh, yes, that is pretty funny, you and your The Queen! Bishonen | Talk 19:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC))
OK the stories are in - Why not - lets have a laugh! I'm not British anyway Giano 18:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krakatoa

Greetings. The information comes from the forward of "Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded, August 27, 1883" by Simon Winchester. It's an average rate. I'll give more explanatory data when I get home and look it up.

Have you seen Anak Krakatau? I've only read about it. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hale-Bopp sodium tail.gif

Excuse me—what makes you believe that this image was {{GFDL}}-licensed? I can't find any such statement on the web site of the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes. Lupo 16:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The web page I got it off said any image use should be credited as appropriate, but did not mention any further conditions. This page asks that images be credited, and says that some are copyrighted - this particular image is not claimed to be copyrighted, as far as I could see, and so I assumed the image could be released under the GFDL. Worldtraveller 16:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so. The GFDL explicitly allows making derivative works, i.e. changing the image. Unless they say so, you can't just put a GFDL tag on it. It's more like "{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} the author is credited". But maybe it's best to ask their PR contact (Javier Méndez) about this; he wants to be informed anyway. Lupo 19:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Surtsey satellite image.jpg

I've listed this image on Wikipedia:Copyright problems#February 24. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:12, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - looks like I didn't read the page closely enough, and assumed the usual NASA PD situation applied. Ah well, you say on WP:CP that you've contacted the creator of the image so maybe we will yet be able to use it. It would be a shame to lose it. Worldtraveller 16:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I contacted NASA to clarify its current copyright status, not the people I suggest are the current copyright holders, that would probably be fruitless since they appear to be in the buisness of selling access to images like this one. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:19, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

[edit] Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Amazon map.jpg. Please leave a note on that page about the source of the image because of copyright law. Thank you. --Ellmist 00:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, it's created by me from public domain maps, but was superceded at Amazon River by a better map anyway, so it's now not used in any articles. I'll list in on images for deletion. Worldtraveller 00:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bbc2

Congrats! What's the occasion? Who do you appear with? +sj + 04:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am in the quarter finals of University Challenge, appearing for University College London. And browsing Wikipedia formed an essential part of my 'revision'! By the way, I should've said this last August but thanks very much for the welcome!! Worldtraveller 14:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Benjamin Mountfort

Thanks for the vote, I was still shuffling while you were voting! I agree with your points, and have shunted things about, have a look and see what you think. This project was a challenge to see if a pretty mediocre architect could be raised to featured article; the genius was left over from its early stubby days when I thought there was a risk he could be deleted as non notable! Giano 18:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was adding my support to the nomination even as you typed this message! I just did a quick google, he only gets 300 hits - that's quite an obscure person to write such a lot about, I am very impressed. I get more google hits than that - I am more convinced than ever that I deserve a wikipedia article! Worldtraveller 14:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I just looked so you do; allthough some of those travellers look a little odd! I wish you'd mention that figure on the nomination page to the two who wants me to write even more, there again perhaps not, they'd probably want it sent to Votes for Deletion Giano 16:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And even the real me as opposed to my occasional online alias gets more hits ([8])! I'd probably nominate the thing for VfD myself, if I hadn't also just noticed that my own Silverpit crater only gets 150-odd hits :) Worldtraveller 16:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Amazon at Iquitos.jpg

I can't read Spanish. Does the permission to use this image apply specifically to Wikipedia? In other words, can third parties copy this image? Thank you. --Ellmist 01:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The original permission is this: Respondiendo a su solicitud, le informo que accedemos a la utilización de las imágenes de la web a condición de que se cite la fuente., which translates as To answer your question, I inform you that we agree to the use of these images on the web on condition that the source is mentioned., which doesn't appear to be Wikipedia-specific permission. However, the original question doesn't appear to mention the GFDL or licensing such that other people can copy and redistribute. I will see if I can ask a Spanish wikipedian to clarify the situation. Worldtraveller 12:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help on hydrochloric acid

Hello Roger, thanks for your help sofar on the hydrochloric acid wikipage. It isn't finished, of course: discussion. Met vriendelijke groeten, Wim Wim van Dorst 17:27, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Hi Wim, no problems - it's been nice to see the article grow and improve! I think it's looking really good now. Worldtraveller 18:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Dufferin

Hey WT, what is your sense of how Lord Dufferin is coming along? My feeling is that with the additions you have made recently it is close now to suitabilty for FAC nomination. To my mind the only remaining serious issue is the resolution of the potentially copyvio material left over in the GG of Canada section. That material is also stylistically distinct from the parts of the article that are your work product, and in any cases contains some information of only tangential interest in the context of Dufferin's broader career. Once these issues are resolved, and you are in agreement, I will nominate for FAC. Fawcett5 02:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fawcett5 - I think the article's definitely looking better, and once the Canada section's been appropriately rewritten, I'll be pretty happy with it I think. I'm going to try and find some more suitable images, and because the whole thing's been worked on somewhat piecemeal over several months I'm going to go through it and make sure it's all flowing nicely, but then I hope it will be ready for FAC. Thanks for all your comments on it, they've been very useful! Worldtraveller 18:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Riel

Hi Worldtraveller, in the next few days I will be embarking on effort to bring Louis Riel, which is now back in peer review following a withdrawn FA candidacy (not mine), up to what I would consider FAC worthiness. There is some good stuff there now, but still a bit too spotty and stylistically inhomogeneous. Since I consider you to be one of the more skilled writers/editors around here, I was wondering if you might consider participating...it was fun working a bit on Lord Dufferin with you, although this time I will be doing more writing. Anyway, if you get a chance, please keep an eye on the article — your assistance would be most appreciated. Fawcett5 00:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice!

Nice very recent message on that talk page, WT! Please see my post on Filiocht's page for my imputed flood of abuse, especially for the date of it. Bishonen | Talk 17:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the list, but please, please can you and your pals just leave me alone. I see that Worldtraveller is part of the same clique. I'm not perfect, but unbelievable though it might seem, neither are the four of you. I think I make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, but the treatment I receive from your set is more than I can take. What is in it for you? I have had plenty of rational discussions with other users. Every major problem I have had has been with the same group of users. Please, please leave me alone. I will not start any fights. I will never post on any of your user pages again. Wincoote 17:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention there, you got to it before I could. If this proves to be a problem again, feel free to call on me as well. --Michael Snow 17:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alone? ME leave YOU alone, Philip? I haven't spoken to you since January 12!! (I deny attacking or insulting you before then, either. I posted pleas--three messages in all--and then I learned not to do that.) How many times since then have you attacked me on your page? Insulted me? Asked me what my MOTHER (!) would say about the way I keep abusing you? Told the world that people leave wikipedia because of me? Implied that Bishonen floods your page with personal attacks, to the point where she needs to be posted on an "Ignore list"?? All this for over two months WHILE I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO YOU? You have the nerve to talk about ME leaving YOU alone? In all seriousness, and this would make a big difference to my quality of life: will you, please, leave me alone? Will you please not put my name on your page? It's been a very long time since I did. --Bishonen | Talk 18:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Worldtraveller, I apologize for using your page for communication with Philip, but he has many times forbidden me his own talk page, and more importantly, in January I told him that I would not post on it again. I've kept that promise (not quite the impression you get from the announcements on his page, is it...?), and intend to go on doing so. --Bishonen | Talk 18:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance. I had not realised you were part of our clique, or that I belonged to one. Sorry! I do not intend to comment on Pcpcpc at the moment, which is not to say that I won't in the future should it be necessary; but hopefully someone with the power to permanently block him is watching that page. I am at a loss to understand why it is here on your page we are having this discussion, perhaps an administrator may feel the need to investigate that. (further apologies if you are an administrator!) Thanks again Giano 18:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I also hadn't realised I was part of the clique! (and I'm not part of the administrator's clique/cabal/fifth column/masonic lodge either :)) Bishonen, no need at all to apologise for communicating via this page - you're always welcome here. I'm just sad to see that this whole business has caused such upset. Worldtraveller 23:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have just left a very verbose message explaining the clique, catch it before its deleted! Giano 23:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Still there. Totally reasonable, I thought. What a to-do. (In case Philip is reading, no doubt I am a member of this clique too.) -- ALoan (Talk) 00:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
More than likely Aloan, I think I shall start charging an admission and protection fee (I am Sicilian!) Anyway its past my bedtime so I'm logging off, sorry to be using your user page like this WT. Happy Easter! Giano 00:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Returning to margin: please excuse my trespassing on your Talk page, but I just wanted to say nice job. My message was just deleted without having any impact on his behaviour. If you do lodge an RfC, please let me know, as I am actually quite mad about his behaviour yesterday, even after sleeping on it. Best, and good luck with University Challenge. Filiocht 09:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] diffuse, emission nebulae

Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered.

Since one cannot consider the usefulness of the category, if it were emptied out, it needs context. So, rudimentarily replacing the missing content will allow proper evaluation of the category. Emptying it out before CfD means you'd never know if a category were useful, as most voters only go through a cursory examination. 132.205.45.110 23:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and you're right that it was not the proper procedure that I emptied the cats first then listed them for deletion afterwards. Appreciate your thoughts on the CfD page on this. Thanks - Worldtraveller 23:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright tags

Thanks for uploading Image:Nicaragua Departments.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Tagishsimon (talk) 12:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/r/User_talk%7EWorldtraveller_Old_stuff_1_f0e4.html"