User talk:Zanimum/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Haas

Hi! Haas needs a picture if he's to stay at the top of DYK on the main page. Review the rules within the edit page and in DYK talk for more detail. Thanks. jengod 00:34, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AMA ballot counters

There are now two non-members who have volunteered for ballot counting/inspectors of election, for the AMA; namely you and User:Jwrosenzweig. Thank you both for coming forth to help us out. If you guys could decide amongst yourselves on an election procedure and let the members know what you have decided on receiving ballots that would be great. Alex S also volunteered, but as he is a member of AMA you might decide that he is not needed so he can vote without any issues of impartiality effecting the election process. You might also want to consider the issue of secret balloting (i.e. only the two of you know who voted for whom) that has been discussed a bit (I am personally in favour of such an approach, I don't think Ed Poor has expressed an opinion on it and I think Sam Spade would rather have an open election). Usually if some one person requests a secret election that should be enough reason to have one. In any case, since we only have me as a de facto interim coordinator and I've been nominated for coordinator I leave it to you guys to coordinate any discussion about that. — © Alex756 15:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some ideas for procedure, since I think this should be as simple as possible. All AMA members listed with the organization prior to April 1, 2004 are eligible to vote. On the issue of secret ballots, I don't see the need, but I'll ask the AMA if they prefer it. I have no trouble making my email address public if we need secret balloting -- do you have an address you'd be willing to make public? If it's open balloting, I think our role is mainly to settle disputes (i.e., can so-and-so actually vote?) and certify the election officially. Let me know what you think! :-) Jwrosenzweig 16:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm open to either voting procedure, Jwrosenzweig. Though I'm willing to make public my e-mail, it might be best that if we went with private voting, we used one solitary e-mail, easier to co-ordinate that way. I've created wikipedia_ama_voting@yahoo.co.uk if we need it. If we did have open voting, we should start to lay out ground rules ahead of time, on voting rights. Anyway, I think the final say is upto the AMA itself. -- user:zanimum

You should be getting an email from me presently. +sj+ 11:44, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

[edit] Caching problem?

Maybe I'm just experiencing a caching problem, but when I go to Image:HalleBerry.jpg, I can still see the image at [1]... Lupo 15:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's gone now, Lupo, but it was still there, after my first delete. It wasn't just our caches acting up. -- user:zanimum

What's the rationale for moving Hamlet (legend) to Amleth? The article is about Hamlet not Amleth, he just happens to be one of Hamlet's precursors, and naming policy would seem to favour the more familiar "Hamlet". 144.138.194.119 12:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Art: Paintings

Hi, I put this stuff in Talk instad of User_talk zanimum. I dont think it that much of a problem, but here is my reply never the less:

We can rotate though his works every so often, although unless there is reason I think the origional dusk image from the article's founder should remain unless you have a reason otherwise."

Shaun. You are not the founder of the article on William-Adolphe Bouguereau by any sense of the measure, as three people worked on the article before you.

I never claimed to be the founder, nor am I the one that put the Dusk picture there originally. Before you start editing willy nilly I suggest you have a good reason to change the images around. As I said in the discussion area, if you bothered to check:
I think the Dusk picture should remain, it is more representative of his works, which are mostly nudes. If you have reason to change it from the origional picture then please let me know here. --ShaunMacPherson 15:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even if you were, you have no more authority over the article than any other logged in or IP-only user of Wikipedia. Every user has the same amount of power in how an article should look; even Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, is no more powerful than anyone else. Even though I and 140+ others are "sysops", we have no more say than anyone else.

As you have no more authority then any other person as well. If you feel the need to change the picture there then have the courtsy to give your reasons in the discussion area.

You have no more justification to have Dusk on his page, than I have to put The Knitting Girl. However, The Knitting Girl is clothed; although nudity is full allowed in the project, whenever avoidable, avoid. There is no written rule that says this, but it makes common sense, if both works are of equal quality, which they are, than why not have the image that most people would feel comfortable looking at?

As i said before, and again now, his works are largly nudes. It is disingenuous to try and censor the artist he was by putting up non representitve works.

Besides, as much as I love the works that Bouguereau painted in his career, your gallery page is inacceptable. Unless there is at least a paragraph of unique text in each of the articles, it stands the chance of earning a place on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. However, I'm not the one to put it there. --

As wikipedia has list articles with nothing more the lists, I think it stands that there should be articles with pictures i.e. galleries. If you think otherwise you are free to put that article or any other you think should be deleted on the deletion list. --ShaunMacPherson 20:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Okay, so it wasn't you who put up the image, but it wasn't the "founder", http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=William-Adolphe_Bouguereau&action=history. It was the fourth person to edit that added the image. Either way, the new image should satisfy us both, being nine nudes, but in a more tasteful composition.
The lists have a purpose in Wikipedia, as a topic index. Someone looking for genetic order will find List of genetic disorders useful, because it leads them to wealths of information on genetic disorders. Someone interested in demonology, or mythology in general will be able to use List of specific demons and types of demons as a gateway to articles on the significance of each demon in their respective cultures. A List of Sesame Street characters, like any other list, will do nothing for anyone, except lead them to relevant, indepth information on Aloysius Snuffleupagus or Big Bird.
My point is that lists lead to information this gallery just leads to pictures. While a picture can say a thousand words, encyclopedias should also say that for their reader. Mona Lisa, Whistler's Mother and The Kiss are other perfect examples. The latter doesn't isn't even illustrated yet, but it still works as an article. They explain the significance of the painting, on the artist or on society. They don't just show, they explain.

If you could get even 50 unique words on each painting, their significance, their technique, whatever, it would be perfectly acceptable and encourageable content. Right now, it's nothing. -- user:zanimum

The issue of the gallery seems a seperate issue from the one that seems resolved now of having a representitive image up.
As for the gallery, I have spoken with bureaucrats, sysops and regular users as a part of my regular chatting on the #wikipedia irc channel. Of opinions of the gallery I got, they were unianimous: galleries are an excellent idea. If you think, and can justify, a reason why it should not be an article then as I have already said, put up for a vote on the delete list. --ShaunMacPherson 18:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-- "See this for inspiration... Nymphs and Satyr. -- user:zanimum"

Good article, I did a few too a short while ago, first 8 or so up to Cupidon on the William-Adolphe_Bouguereau list of paintings. The rest of the images are uploaded for the entire list but i may have to reupload them all since I used too short / common names for them. The website were I got the images, released under the GFDL, is here : ( http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bouguereau/ ).

If a large scale effort to document a large portion of artists is going to be undertaken it might be a good idea to put it as a Wikipedia:WikiProject so the articles could be standardized, like the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums project.

(Painting's Name) (Artist's Name) (Date of Painting) (Peroid in Art; impressionism etc.)

I'm not sure what else should be on the list. I'll see if any people would be interesting in creating / running / helping or giving ideas for a wikipedia art/painting project. --ShaunMacPherson 05:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Election

I believe that, given the current vote totals and the number of eligible voters, we can certify the election at this point. Are you comfortable with that, or do you have any concerns we should discuss (via talk page or email) first? Where will we announce the result? And should we announce a vote total, or merely a winner? Let me know: thanks! :-) Jwrosenzweig 15:57, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We might as well let it go until the end. Somehow, my simple request for notices of abstainations have enfuriated Mrs.HippieBurning, Wikipedia:AMA_Coordinator_Election#Mandatory voting, who thinks I'm reshaping the whole organization, so, despite the current unbeatable majority, we should continue on. I think we can tell the two contestants where they stand in the final polls, but I don't think that its necessary to make the exact results public. -- user:zanimum
Bravo to you, for taking the lion's share of work on the election (I felt bad, but somehow every time I checked the email you'd already been there and replied!). Thank goodness that little chapter in our Wikicareers is over with. :-) Well done. Jwrosenzweig 19:52, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Bravo to you for your representing us so well on the AMA discussion boards. I'm glad its over too, yet they say there's going to be an election every 6 months. -- user:zanimum

[edit] NASA

Although original content is nice, is text from NASA pages, like at http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/factsheet-text.html, considered fair use or public domain, for use on Wikipedia? -- useR:zanimum

Far as I know, all .gov content (unless it says otherwise) is public domain. RADICALBENDER★ 15:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)</nowiki>

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html

NASA images generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission does not include the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal...

NASA emblems should be reproduced only from original reproduction proofs, transparencies, or computer files available from NASA Headquarters. Please be advised that approval must be granted by the Public Services Division (see above information for address, numbers, etc.) before any reproduction materials can be obtained.

Any questions regarding application of any NASA image or emblem should be directed to: Bert Ulrich Public Services Division NASA Headquarters Code POS Washington, DC 20546

Tel: (202)358-1713 Fax: (202)358-4331 Internet: bert.ulrich@hq.nasa.gov

Hope that helps. →Raul654 23:34, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

All works of the United States Government are public domain. anthony (see warning)

[edit] Book template examples for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books and more

Hello! I put back the sections you took out in Control of Communicable Diseases Manual (oops! I really meant Encyclopedia of public health, sorry! AlainV 01:10, 2004 May 4 (UTC))because in addition to having made what I intended to be a good encylopedic entry (or the start of one) for an important, "classical" book I also meant the article to be used as an example of one possible form of template (one exploiting the existing automated table of contents, or TOC, feature as opposed to a permanent infobox or a minimalist variation of the IBSD) for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books. I hope you will have the time to go read that page and its talk page, and perhaps also read Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and its talk page to get the background.

I have also done two more articles in a variation of this TOC-exploiting form: One for a famous cold war era juvenile novel David Starr, Space Ranger and one for another important and relatively famous reference work the Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. This evening I will (if time permits) be putting up two more examples of important works in this style, the Cabinet Maker and Upholsterers Guide, which is a famous antiquarian book and reference book and non-fiction work all in one and From Bauhaus to our house which is a famous or notorious example of 20th century non-fiction from an equally famous or notorious 20th century author. Together, they should cover the template "genres" or "styles" which are of concern in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books.

Tomorrow (I hope) I will start putting up 4 or 5 other solid examples of another style of template (which is rather minimalist and does not exploit the automatic TOC) for encyclopedic articles in the fiction, non-fiction, reference, and antiquarian "genres" or "styles" or "types". All of them will be (like the TOC-exploiting ones) based on a Wikipedia-oriented variation of the ISBD. I would be very pleased if you would suggest changes to these template styles, or other template styles (or voice criticism as to the failings of any form of template) before or during my creation of these examples, or any time in between. AlainV 01:07, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

[edit] Lescol

I'll be forever curious why you made a redirect about a not-very-prominent drug (Lescol) to a - then - non-existing article (fluvastatin). That's why I was wondering... what prompted you? :-)
(Several other statins are now in place, including simvastatin and rosuvastatin.)
JFW | T@lk 14:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay... um, I have a confession to make. I'm actually a teenage witch.
Okay, so I'm not Sabrina. I saw it on "New Pages", and went to the article, saw it, saw the drug had other names, created redirects. Is there a stitch in time, between Brampton, Ontario and Edgware, or am I actually so much of a Wikipedholic, that I knew this article was going to be created, just minutes after I create the redirect... -- user:zanimum

Fine, there's a rational explanation then. I was not expecting many Wikipedians to be on statin drugs... Good of you to create plenty of redirects. Most patients do not know the generic names of their medication, unless they're oldtimers (one of my patients referred to metformin, his anti-diabetic drug, as metmorphine...)
JFW | T@lk 14:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC) - PS Thanks for supporting my admin vote.

[edit] Housing developments

Hi, I'm just raising a question about the articles you wrote relating to Canadian real estate. Someone approached me about it, concerned that you seem to be advertising. I looked at a few. CountrySize seems to be quite pointless, and I'm listing it of deletion. The articles on housing developments seem only slightly more encyclopedic. Anyway, while it doesn't really seem like you're advertising, you might want to reconsider whether these things belong in an encyclopedia before creating any more. Isomorphic 06:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] T. Ho and Dylan vector graphics

In the scorpion article, the picture Image:Scorpion.png is not a photograph of a real scorpion but rather a model - not clear whether origami or computer graphics. The image was downloaded by User:T. Ho and credited to him.

[edit] Minimal

Hi Maroux, good vandalism control out there. However, Manimal was an easy rewrite, not a speedy delete. -- user:zanimum

Alright, if you made it into something decent, even better. Maroux 14:50, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

[edit] Sesame Street Characters

Is that the best category name? Might not Sesame Street do just as well? Dunno. --Tagishsimon

It's like Category:Middle-earth's dozens of sub-cats. -- user:zanimum
It appears one cannot link directly to categories. Acegikmo1 04:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah, no, one must just include a colon. Acegikmo1 19:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's like middle-earth. Up to a point, Lord Copper. No orcs, last time I checked, nor the impaling of Uruk-Hai on the tusks of giant mammoths. Meanwhile, in order: thanks for taking the time to categorise the pages at all. Any discussion of the category name falls far second to the fact you did it; I wouldn't wish you to think I was entirely missing the wood for the trees. Second, it probably doesn't matter that much, especially now that categories have been moved from top left to bottom right of the pages; space is less at a premium (even assuming you ever had any concern that it was, previously, scarce. Third, all of the entries in the category are indubitably Sesame Street Characters; so it's a wee bit hard to fault you on accuracy or indeed precision.
But, here comes four. There are lots of subcategories of Middle Earth. Or at least there should be; I haven't looked. I'm just going to take a flier on that one. Yet in Sesame Street, we have, if you like, / Sesame Street / Sesame Street Characters. In the top category there are just two entries: Sesame Street is the only article. Arguably it is redundant since the description, probably, properly, should have a link to Sesame Street. And a single sub-category, the aforementioned accurate, precise, and thoroughly well named SSC. Which is the only real member of its parent category. Where does this get us (he said, losing the thread somewhat). Ah yes. Now two issues: the name - not particularly objectionable, and for reasons previously stated, meritorious & praiseworthy ... and the nigh on empty parent category. Anyone unfortunate enough to have to drill down into Category:Sesame Street will have to click on a second link to get any real payload, when they might as easily have been given the only content we have at the top level, in Sesame Street. And second, if all we have on Sesame Street is articles on characters, do we actually need to state in the category description that these are characters?. It's a hard argument to make, or a dodgy one, or possibly downright unfounded. But I'll hoist it up anyway.
It is about brevity - always a good think, except where it obscures useful information ... you can decide where you judge the two names to fit on this continuum. And it is about setting up an expectation with the user, by virtue of the ~Category ending of the stem Sesame Street, that there are other categories of Sesame Street articles, since why else would we have qualified the stem Sesame Street? There is possibly more. Are these things that are in the category ~Characters homogenous? Possibly not. I hazard a guess some are fluffy animatronic puppets; others may be actors in fluffy costumes. Others besides might be regular unmodified humans - what we might on other occasions call actors, or presenters, or some other word. If you accept there is a lack of homogeneity, then the use of the word Character, previously so solid, now looks a wee tadge more shaky. Where does this get us #2? At least to the point that there is a faint, faint, wisp-like hint of the shadow of a scintilla of doubt clouding your otherwise unimpeachable categorisation work. Did I say this probably wasn't important? I think so. best wishes --Tagishsimon

My impression of you is bleak at this point. You enjoy using the thesaurus, and possibly a book of obscure idioms, to hide the fact your terribly long winded, overly-scarastic, and even incoherent at times.

Okay... let's see here.

First off, I believe you're saying that I should have discussed the naming and creation of the Sesame Street categories. Dear fellow, do you see that happening anywhere else? I believe Wikipedia's tech mailing list quoted a few thousand categories. If even 5% of them had any serious discussion, I'd be stunned.

Yes, I had major concerns over the space that these category links were going to take; if not for others beating me to the tech mailing list by about an hour, I was planning to be the whistle-blower.

If you're having doubt on the validity of any of these Sesame Street characters, check out muppetcentral.com's forums; the Sesame Street thread is viewed by anywhere from 29-56 readers at any given moment. Also, I write for Suite101.com, a family entertainment column to be exact, and so I have full access to the Sesame Workshop and PBS press websites.

Unlike Middle Earth, Wikipedia's Sesame Street articles are pretty much written by me and anonymous users. Rarely does anyone else ever input their two cents. That's the reason the development hasn't been as fast as you'd have hoped. Therefore, you're completely haisty in saying that my actions are "possibly downright unfounded."

  • Sesame Street

** People associated with Sesame Street ** Sesame Street places ** Sesame Street books ** Sesame Street specials and videos ** Notable Sesame Street segments ** Characters from Sesame Street ** Characters from Sesame Park ** Characters from Sesamstraat ** Characters from Sesamstrasse ** Characters from Alam Sim-Sim ** Characters from Plazo Sésamo

Yes, there are puppets, and "actors in fluffy costumes", as well as human actors, as well as traditional and computer animated characters. It's a show set on a fundemental pillar of diversity, so a community of furry happy monsters,

While I may be in "enhanced senior level english" at high school, I honestly don't care for Dickens on talk pages, keep that in mind.

I find it odd that someone who thinks they're the heir to Charles Dicken's throne would concern themselves with a kids show they've never seen. Yes, the show was banned by the beeb despite high demand, and didn't start airing until the mid-80s, but seriously here.

Cordially,

User:zanimum

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/a/n/User_talk%7EZanimum_Archive_2_8937.html"