User talk:Ali@gwc.org.uk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks for your comments on Talk:BS 1363 - please feel free to amend or re-write the article. Secretlondon 15:21, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Image:UKDistributionBoard.JPG
how come you have not put any copyright tags or source information on this image?
- done!--Ali@gwc.org.uk 20:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
theres another one at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Fuses.jpg
[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line_access_multiplexer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line_access_multiplexer The stuff below in the Dslam section is nonsense and needs to be either deleted or edited. The CENTRAL OFFICE itself isn't a DSLAM , the article confuses this.
- The Central Office (CO) must now collect all the different digital signals from its modems and combine them into a single signal, via multiplexing. The Central Office (CO) must now collect all the different digital signals from its modems and combine them into a single signal, via multiplexing.
The aggregate signal then loads onto backbone switching equipment, traveling through an access network (AN) - also known as a Network Service Provider (NSP) - at speeds of up to 1 GBPS and emerging at a destination Central Office (CO). + The aggregate signal then loads onto backbone switching equipment, traveling through an access network (AN) - also known as a Network Service Provider (NSP) - at speeds of up to 1 Gbps and emerging at a destination Central Office (CO). At this point, the signal is then fragmented into its component parts and transmitted via telco modems to its final residential / commercial receivers. The device that performs these functions of signal combination and fragmentation is called the Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer, or DSLAM.
196.11.245.34 22:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CC-BY-NC
i notice that you have tagged images you placed on Fuse (electrical) and Industrial & multiphase power plugs & sockets as CC-BY-ND. Wikipedia considers this a non-free license and it is said on Image_copyright_tags#Tags_for_deprecated_images that they will eventually be deleted.
they are nice images and it would be a shame to lose them Plugwash 18:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- to be honest I'm not too bothered what licence I use for these, obviously I can't imagine making money out of selling these pics! But I'm a little concerned about the commercial sites which rip off the entire wikipedia content wholesale with little or no credit to wikipedia. As I say I'm not that bothered about and if it was a case of free licence only or they would have to be removed then I would be fine with applying a free licence. I'm open to suggestions! --Ali@gwc.org.uk 12:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are moves afoot to remove non free images (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images). Sites that use wikipedia content with no credit to wikipedia are definately violating the gfdl anyway. Most mirrors of wikipedia content do attribute it to wikipedia though i agree they try and make it as non-obvious as they think they can get away with. On the other hand once a user notices the link to the real thing i don't think they are very likely to go back. It is strongly reccomended (due to possible license compatibility issues depending on exactly how the licesnse is interpreted) to put images you create yourself for wikipedia under the gfdl.
As well as the fact that wikipedia is supposed to be free (as in the FSFs twisted definition of free) and noncommercial use licenses go against this they also create issues for any future dvd-rom or print editions of wikipedia. Plugwash 12:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree the commercialised mirror sites are a pain but putting images under a nondcommercial license doesn't really help with them (its pretty common to just link the images direct from wikipedia in which case they haven't copied them anyway). Plugwash 12:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As of May 19, 2005, Wikipedia does not permit the upload of content under Creative Commons Non-Commercial licenses. Many of the images that you uploaded under this license have not been changed. Please change the licenses of these useful images to a CC-BY-SA(-2.0) or GFDL. Unfortunately, if you do not so, these images will be deleted, per Wikipedia policies, so that (for example) DVD and print Wikipedias can be made. Using the GFDL or Creative Commons Attribution licenses would still require users to credit your work. Andrew pmk 01:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think I've done them all now, let me know if I've missed any.--Ali@gwc.org.uk 20:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Thanks for correcting my hasty English on Air Transat Flight 236.129.177.61.124 10:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] iMac
Thanks for the save on the iMac release date. Gosh. How embarassing! --Steven Fisher 00:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summary at Cicero
In your edit summary at Cicero you wrote "rv vandalism". Vandalism is a very harsh word, Jpbrenna's edit was not vandalism. Please be more careful in using that word in the future, as it can lead to needless conflict. Thanks. -JCarriker 09:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- oops sorry about that, I was reverting a bunch of vandalism by an anonymous user and must have not been paying proper attention to what I was doing. I certainly don't class Jpbrenna's edit as vandalism. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 12:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit of Greek Dark Ages
I notice in combination with the above plaint, that you are mislabeling contributions as rv vandalism that aren't anything of the sort. Please be careful. In this case I found, the change of BC to BCE for the article's dates was reverted back and labeled vandalism when in fact, it is more appropriate, particularly in a global and not-necessarily-christian context, to use BCE (Before our Common Era) rather than a religious-specific abbreviation like BC (Before Christ) in academic circles. The poor chap was doing you a favour! I'm changing it back, so please don't get angry with me. Thanks. --Glengordon01 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, nevermind. Now I see the problem. Ugh. The wikipedia itself needs to be revised. How awful. I'm forced into a pre-Industrial Before-Christ dating scheme. How drab. Hehe. Sigh. I guess I can't change a thing. --Glengordon01 13:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I suggest you look up DB-15 on the web
Because that's clearly what it is. There is no such thing as DA-15. Look in any Beige G3 manual... look anywhere on the web... JUST GOOGLE IT. For christ's sake, do an IMAGE search on Google for DA-15, then for DB-15. Tell me what you find. -Angelic Wraith-
[edit] Manual of Style
Thanks for being understanding, at least. It's just that it feels you invade every page I've been working on with this reformatting >_< I appreciate your grammatical and (usually) your rephrasing efforts, but I just don't see why it matters what the MoS is. I mean, realistically. What's the point of changing them anyway? And.. I don't really know how to take it up with the MoS board. Dan 01:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh right.. and why do you feel the need to do this to pages you don't even contribute to, which have been like this for years? ...And how are you finding all of them :P
- reply at User talk:Angelic Wraith#unit formatting--Ali@gwc.org.uk 21:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm much relieved that you aren't stalking me :) lol
Ali, PLEASE leave the Apple Macintosh page alone. OK? Just don't fuck with this one. This is the one page that I can't stand being messed with. Please just go away. Following the rules for their own sake doesn't necessarily make sense if they're nonsensical.
[edit] Revision using popups?
Hi, saw that you reverted a spammer's edits using what you called "Reversion to revision 36641720 using popups". Is this an easier way to revert? If so, how did you do it? I followed the popups link but didn't quite get the gist of it. Trixter 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User page deleted
I deleted your user page since it wasn't edited by you. Of course you can go create it and make it the way you want it. Hope you didn't mind me doing so. --Thorpe | talk 19:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signing talk pages
Please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. Mike (T C) 
18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overlinking
Please keep in mind that to wikilink years and days all over an article is meaningless. Example: "his orders are dated June 22". What is so special about a date of the order of his draft?
Just like we don't link the words ruler, army, man, southwest, etc., in each and every article, there is no sense to link 1943 or January 10 everywhere. A rule of thumb: would you like to see the corresponding entry in the "1943" or "January 10" article?
Please take a look into the "Overlinking" article. mikka (t) 04:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agree with you regarding years when they are on their own, but see [1] and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)#Date formatting] for why dates should be linked. IMO there should be a way of marking a date for processing by the date preference code without wikilinking it but at the moment there is not. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 04:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ElectricityMeterMechanism.jpg
[edit] Yet another date links proposal
You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 09:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dates
So you're saying if the year 2002 appears 232 (or even 2002 times in one article, each and every instance of 2002 should be linked? What could the possible reasoning be behind that be? Dan 05:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, years (and months) on their own should not be overlinked. But dates should be, to allow the date format preferencing mechanism to work. e.g. October 5 2005 looks weird and confusing to me and most non-americans, but written as [[October 5]] [[2005]] this will be formatted according to each user's preferences, 5 October 2005 in my case. As an another common example, if someone writes e.g. 9/11/2001 then many people will wonder what happened on the 9th of November. IMO it's a misfeature of the wiki software that the same wiki code is used for linking and indicating dates for preference-based formatting but that's the way it is at the moment. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 15:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BC to BCE
Hey Dude, screw you. I don't need you to tell me whether or not my assertions are correct.
[edit] Thank you for your DYK help
Thank you for your help in the Single-grain experiment article. It earned a DYK on October 12. I greatly appreciated it. Chris 00:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Ali—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 15:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
