User talk:ALoan/Archive4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
edit User talk:ALoan Archives |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
|
|
• Archive to 11 February |
• Archive to 28 February |
• Archive to 28 February |
[edit] Partition of India
You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.
[edit] A Brain
Hi ALoan,
I don't think a legal opinion from a 'civilised democratic' country would come amiss at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Rachelle_Waterman. Regards Giano 22:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] National Health Service
You voted for National Health Service, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)
[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 1000 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:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
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] RFC pages on VfD
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Collaboration of the week
CAST YOUR VOTE for next week's article
Congratulations, the candidate you voted for, Underground Railroad, is this week's Collaboration of the Week. Please help edit the article to bring it up to feature standard.
[edit] Contradance
Quick question. You marked the contradanse (c) article as needing to be merged with contradanse (s). However since UtherSRG moved the s to c the other day, I don't know of a way to get to s to merge it in. Could someone (I'm assuming it would have to be an admin) move the content into the discussion so it could be worked on? --Ahc 19:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Execution
You're getting very witty in old age ALoan! Happy Christmas Giano 19:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- Sorry I thought the (legal) was a private joke, now realise it was part of the link; but I'm sure you are very witty anyway; I'm digging a hole here for myself and I just can't stop digging. Merry christmas ALoan, sincerely Giano 19:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah. I wondered that too - probably; but in future I am avoiding anything to do with "Wikipedia and the law of any country", I had a tangle with Rachelle Waterman today, it stirs my human rights conscience and I am sitting on my hands - too risky. Shame but I'm sure Palladio or some-one else will satisfy me........eventually Giano 19:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I agree entirely, but not a lot one can do; as my Granny used to say:"their ways our not our ways". Giano 22:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry I thought the (legal) was a private joke, now realise it was part of the link; but I'm sure you are very witty anyway; I'm digging a hole here for myself and I just can't stop digging. Merry christmas ALoan, sincerely Giano 19:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
Hi ALoan, what am I doing wrong, I keep trying to save a comment on Commonwealth of Poland, it saves it and won't show it, I don't normally have a problem. in that department anyway, what am I doing wrong? Giano 19:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Source comment delimiter styles
Hello, first of all thanks for the work on Blücher. But regarding your edits, how come you modified my practical <!-->comment<!--> delimiter style back to "normal"? My rationale for developing the delim style is two-fold: 1) more easy to delete/add lines at the beginning and/or end of a multi-line comment, and 2) IMHO, it's visually much more aestetic. The only reason I can think of for reverting it is a possible incompatibility with some browsers (might it perhaps not be Kosher HTML?). Please enlighten me. No very big deal, admittedly. --Wernher 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've not virulently opposed to your comment style, but it is not the standard style: if you think it is clearly better then please reinstate (as I see you have already done). I've principally been concentrating on copyediting (judged on the content, I think most of the contributors have English as a second langauge - which is not to denigrate their excellent command of English - I certainly would not even try to write in another language!). -- ALoan (Talk) 01:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- Thank you very much for the copyediting -- I actually learn a lot by watching my English being tuned and massaged by other contributors! :) And thanks for not making a big deal of the src comment style delims I use(d). As for the majority of the Blücher editors being second-language English writers, I think you're probably correct; I would guess many if not most of us are Norwegians and Germans, as the subject matter -ehem- relates to us in a more, shall we say, direct, way. :) --Wernher 02:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Votes for Undeletion
I think your action in removing discussions was probably a mistake.
Snowspinner has introduced a procedure for VfU which I think is excellent, in which articles up for VfU discussion are undeleted, replaced with a suitable notice, and protected. This allows VfU discussants to view the article history without allowing the page to appear as a normal article, or to allow people to take advantage of its undeleted status for purposes other than the stated one of viewing the history.
The result is that article on VfU do not appear as redlinks while they are under discussion.
What do you think was the outcome of the discussion on Ummo?
If the discussion is over and there was no decision to restore, then the article should have be deleted. If there was a decision to restore—which I don't think is the case—then it should have be unprotected and reverted to the previous version. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Dwarf Galaxy retitlings
Just so you know, there are plenty more entries with (dwarf galaxy) that will need to be renamed if some new standard is emerging. Neurophyre 16:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- See Milky Way, subheading The galactic neighborhood, for at least a partial list. Some of these haven't been created yet, some have, but they're linked to by more than one page. I went through a while back and standardized the names that way because there was already a slight precedent in the existing dwarf galaxy pages, and it seemed to fit the standard with regards to disambiguation from the constellations of the same names that normally exist. Also, please note that a lot of the hits on Google for "Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy" do not capitalize "dwarf galaxy". Neurophyre 17:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Ballroom Blitz
'Why not?'
Two reasons:
Ballroom blitz is never called "Blitz". People will search for the song by its name or by The Damned or some other way. Disambiguation is not for every possible article that uses a word in its title. If that were the case you would put this book [1] on the Mercury page. See [2]
And, besides, there isn't an article for the song yet. So it's listing on the disambi page is doubly-unnecessary.
- Trick 15:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Finno-Ugric critic page
Why did you redirect that page? I never saw any contribution from you there.Antifinnugor 19:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answer. The title was written first not good, thanks for the grammar hints. I was a bit confused due to the redirection, now I understand. The problem is with criticism on the same page is, that two other wikipedians delete everything, I enter, therefore I had to create an independent page. I agree with you, normally, if you can speak and agree with the others, the information should be on the same page. Would be better for the wikipedia quality.Antifinnugor 20:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Queen's Christmas Message
You voted for Queen's Christmas Message, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 04:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Collaboration of the Week
League of Nations is the new Collaboration of the Week. Please join in helping make it a feature article.
[edit] Chemical warfare
Hello, ALoan. Thanks for the constructive criticism on chemical warfare: it's helping me to refine some of its weak points.
Your statement on FAC had a few questions and comments I would like to address:
- Should it be at chemical weapon / chemical weapons? – At the moment the article treats "chemical warfare" and "chemical weapons" as a single subject. At some point (perhaps soon) it will be broken up into multiple articles – but not yet.
- Is the use Zyklon B really "chemical warfare" – This falls into a grey area, and there has been heated debate on both sides. Rather than confront this question head-on, I've decided to keep the sentance, and note its debatability as an act of chemical warfare.
- (Or even the use of a chemical weapon) – This is a definitele yes (which I why I decided to keep the sentence). Zyclon B contains hydrogen cyanide, which is a potent blood agent.
- Terrorists using chemical weapons are not really undertaking chemical warfare – Regardless of whether or not terrorists using chemical weapons fits the dictionary definition of "chemical warfare", I feel this article is an appropriate place for this information (at least until the article is broken up at some time in the furture). In my opinion, to exclude this important subtopic from this article would be doing our readers a substantial disservice.
I hope that these changes improve the "FAC approvability" of the article in your mind.
