User talk:Arj
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Redirecting vs Merging
For future reference, when redirecting already existing articles, please do not simply blank and redirect one of them to the other. You're supposed to "merge" them - IE, copy the content of one into the other and remove reduncancies. When you redirected Optical mouse to Computer mouse, you orphaned a picture I had added not 5 minutes before, while the computer mouse had no pictures of an optical mouse. I don't mean to sound accusatory, but please be more careful in the future. →Raul654 22:55, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out to me. The reason I didn't merge the articles, was that, after careful consideration, I found that computer mouse already contained all of the information in optical mouse, although worded differently. Do you believe it would have been sufficient to insert your optical mouse picture into computer mouse, and then blanking optical mouse, or should I have made a serious attempt to include as much as possible of the actual wording of optical mouse into the other article. arj 10:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Come join the AIW
You are currently listed as an honorary member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. We encourage you to become a full-fledged member, by listing yourself as such on the AIW page. Posiduck 04:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Lojban & spatial tense
Hi Arj, I understand you know Lojban a bit. Maybe you could take a look at Spatial tense and certainly Talk:Spatial tense. As I take it, Lojban Reference Grammar Chapter 10 states that Lojban makes use of a grammatical category called (somewhat confusing) 'spatial tense'. As you can read at the Talk of the 'Spatial tense', I think that the term is especially relevant in the context of Lojban, and less so in the context of natural language. For that reason I added the reference to spatial tense in the Lojban article. However, since I'm not into Lojban I can imagine I inserted the notice at the wrong place. I'd be interested to know what you think of the notion of spatial tense in the context of Lojban. ¶ Mark Dingemanse (talk) 17:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to expand CSD: (Unimproved vanity articles)
You commented - "Apart from that, I think this proposal gives too much risk of erroneous deletion. How many Wikipedians know that Category:Articles which may be unencyclopedic even exists?"
I think this argument is flawed. Many will learn, if it becomes part of the deletion process. Inclusionist will certainly carefully watch the category and remove anythinq not completely obvious.
Practically, revoking the proposal will have only the effect of pushing reasonable deletions of blatant vanitities further into "illegality" and increase propablity of errors.
--Wikimol 20:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. You may be right about inclusionists watching this page carefully. However, the risk of removing wortwhile material is too great. Certainly, the presence of the "This article has been proposed for deletion" tag or something similar should be enough to alert the unwary reader to be suspicious of the article. arj 21:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Theoreticaly it may seem so. Practically, the risk wouldn't be greater than now. As I wrote, really bad vanities are sometimes deleted out of the VfD process, in a manner similar to prop. III, without any safeguard. --Wikimol 23:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging project
Well, IMHO fair use is not something depending on the source, but on the quality and use of the image. Granted, this is a fine line to walk, and I would probably tag an image "fair use" on one day and "unverified" on another. Also granted, we should err on the side of caution. But in the cases I tagged fair use (which is by far the minority to "unverified"), I am fairly certain it falls under U.S. fair use. As certain as a non-lawyer, non-U.S. citizen can be... --Magnus Manske 17:15, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] VfD help
Please, help at VfD of Ivan Cherevko. -- Mykola Petrenko 10:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Terragen
Hi Arj, Saw your render on terragen, and I like it. how long have you been using terragen, and what computer do you use to render? Insert non-formatted text here
[edit] Copyright Problems
Hi Arj, I'm sorry to say that your photo [Image:Arj-Terragen-SunsetOverMountainLake.jpeg Image:Arj-Terragen-SunsetOverMountainLake.jpeg] is probably a copyright violation unless you rendered it using the registered version of Terragen.
However, I was succesfull in requesting permission from the planetside people to release my renders under the GFDL. I suggest you also ask them.
See this page to see he's reply to my request
Hope you are as successfull as I was--Fir0002 07:18, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for writing me about this. As other people on that page have already said, I didn't realise that it was a breach of the Terragen terms of use. The image has now been re-tagged to cc-by-nc. I won't object if it has to be deleted, as we obviously have enough other, good Terragen images. :-) arj 17:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ideal language
Hi there. I'm a member of the WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. We're filling in articles which exist in the Encyclopædia Britannica, Encarta, etc, but not yet in Wikipedia. One article that we are missing is ideal language - see Britannica's article. As a lojbanist, I thought you might be the ideal person to create at least a good stub, bringing in the conlang angle. Are you able to help at all? Please note, I have also asked User:IJzeren Jan. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how this is different from Engineered language. Maybe just a redirect would suffice? arj 20:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems near enough - thanks. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes
You stated over there, "Because it would create incentive for people who want to promote their own conlang (that are not includable by other criteria!) to go through the process of establishing a new Wikipedia, for the sole purpose of being eligible for an article on en:. This would be disruptive to Wikipedia." If a constructed language managed to get added to Wikipedia, when Wikimedia nowadays is routinely rejecting even natlangs with fewer than 10 million speakers, that would definately make it notable... Almafeta 15:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Whaaaat? You can't be serious. How delightedly evilly imperialistic! --Kaleissin 19:58:05, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
Wikipedia's wiki creation policy may not be constant forever. Besides, other criteria are much more liberal, so it is virtually unthinkable that a constructed language gets it own Wikipedia while failing all the other criteria — UNLESS wiki creation policy is relaxed considerably in the future. The way I see it, this criterion is not useful for separating actual conlangs from vanity, but has the potential problem that I outline. Hence, my vote stands. arj 16:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean on some of your votes by "does not establish verifiability". The criteria I proposed were meant to demonstrate notability, and I had implicitly assumed that they were themselves subject to the verification criteria i.e. I cannot simply assert that conlang X meets criterion Y, I have to have a source that demonstrates this. Pete Bleackley --132.185.132.12 11:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I phrased the comments that way because I am very strongly against notability as an inclusion criterion (see Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No, Wikipedia:Notability#Arguments_against_deleting_non-notable_articles, and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia). I think it is important to take a stand against attempts to impose a bar on notability of subjects, so I am deliberately flouting the use of the word "notability" in the policy discussion. arj 12:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- To a certain extent I agree with you- to a certain extent I feel that we're chasing our own tails a bit trying to establish criteria for noatability in a field as varied and flexible as conlanging. However, I do think that notability criteria are potentially a useful insurance policy against the kind of rampant deletionism that's been going round recently.
[edit] Image:Arj-Terragen-SunsetOverMountainLake.jpeg has been listed for deletion
| An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Arj-Terragen-SunsetOverMountainLake.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. |
[edit] Proposal on Notability
Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 04:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No references
I haven't put my sources or references because I'm Énnbe's creator :S What references should I put? :/ Thank you and bye. KekoDActyluS 22:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I know it
Yes, in catalan wikipedia they said me I wasn't able to write articles of artificial languages that haven't been published. Someone told me I could made the article in Frath wiki and Conlang. See you. KekoDActyluS 12:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Heterogenous
CmdrObot recently corrected "heterogenous" to "heterogeneous". I checked with WordNet, and both spellings are acceptable. arj 22:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed it from my spelling corrections list. CmdrObot 22:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kashrut
Kashrut is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Gross
Hello - I see that you tagged the Paul Gross article as a possible copyright violation. For future reference - standard procedure is to tag the article (as you did) and to blank the content of the article. I went ahead and took care of that for this article. If you have any questions please let me know. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
