User talk:Cgs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived talk

I'm fascinated to know which article your tea bag pics will illustrate!
Adrian Pingstone 17:22 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Tea bag of course :) -- sannse 17:24 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Silly me, I never thought to check!
Adrian Pingstone 20:40 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Chris!,
Nice that you've used my version of Winchester Cathedral. I really did believe yours were just a little dark. The funny thing is, mine now look a little light!!! You can't win! Thanks.
Adrian Pingstone 18:25 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have no idea, just added another word that had o and aa. Yeah I agree the article is a bit idiosyncratic.. :) -- Rotem Dan 13:57 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Awesome job on Old Wives Tale. You can retrieve your wikimoney....i'd do it for you, but i cannot find the page today. Kingturtle 19:25 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in the opinion poll going on now at Talk:Clitoris. MB 18:04 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes it's a nice idea, but there's one hitch: I don't know how. I had never used MySQL (or any other serious SQL database) before I got involved with Wikipedia development, and I'm still learning. In fact, I'm even a relative newbie at Linux. So maybe I'll give it a go later, when I have a few hours spare. Just cross your fingers that I don't break anything. -- Tim Starling 00:02 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sadly, no, I don't have a more specific citation/date for the T.E.Lawrence -> Eric Kennington letter which is supposed to be the source of "The Sword Also Means Clean-ness + Death". It may be from a letter that remains uncollected/unpublished, or the Lawrence Facts file may just have bogus info, but I suspect it's just unpublished. -- Someone else 06:55 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the move to Red Dwarf (television) was required -- natural disambiguation did the job: "red dwarf" vs "Red Dwarf". -- Tarquin 20:07 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think disambiguation through case is enough. Wikipedia is superfically case-insensitive, so this could be confusing. The former is actually "Red dwarf", for example. Also, both pages already had a disambig at the top, so someone else agrees.

I asked that the article be protected FROM JTDIRL, not by Jtdirl Pizza Puzzle

You said: "This link is here as the result of a democratic vote. Maveric had no right in removing it.)"

And you had no right to edit a protected page - that is an abuse of sysop power. See my talk page for a response to your outburst. --mav

No, deletions of redirects w/ page histories for page moves do not need to go on VFD. Please fulfill non-sysop requests (like Marshman's) as soon as you see them. --Jiang 22:31, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Inregards to your well-intended protection of the ethics article, please talk to Jimbo Wales. You have been manipulated by EntmootsOfTrolls, who has been found guilty of harssment and vandalism, and is under threat of immediate ban from Wikipedia. This is no joke. Please do not protect any Wikipedia pages at his request. It is important that you get the facts from Jim immediately. EntmootsOfTrools is an emotionally unstable harasser, and its not a good idea to engage him in any discussions. RK 21:22, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The facts are, this poor fellow here has been adding strange text to ethics, some of which is profoundly POV, and which you can see in a few of his recent edits. When he didn't get away with that, he began trying to redefine the scope of the article. This was met by polite rewrites of the introduction to meet his concerns, and the creation of a new article on moral philosophy (formerly a redirect) to contain the scope that he preferred. Despite all these attempts to accomodate him, he continued to ignore point after point made at Talk:ethics and then began to deny that he actually made the edits in question, spin their intent in various irrelevant ways. You may review that too in the talk file. I requested the temporary protection to give him time to simply collect his thoughts and answer to the various concerns there raised. Thank you for providing it. But now, instead of dealing with the issue, he has engaged in his propaganda techniques (claims of special persecution, harassment, slander, etc. which are nowhere in evidence in the article or talk except in his own comments). Sadly, this is common behaviour for this poor fellow, as you can verify by looking at his frequent calls for others to be banned on the mailing list (myself, Jtdirl, Anthere, Martin, Netesq, 172 and more than a few others have come in for this treatment in recent weeks). So I politely request that if his techniques succeed in getting the page unprotected, that you or someone else simply protect it again, and that this be done for all the pages on the Wikipedia:list of central issues. This individual, RK, does not seem to be capable of engaging in the patient diplomatic discourse and tough debate that is required to reach consensus on those very important issues. I may not either, but, at least I can coherently state what the issues are. EofT 21:59, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can't trust either of you, looking at your histories and asking around. I'm leaving ethics protected. How about you both go seperate ways and leave ethics to someone else? CGS 23:00, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Fine with me. Agreed. I have actually asked for such input in several places. Notably regarding ethics in religion. EofT
And, if you have any issues with any edit of mine by all means let me know, and I will do my best to deal with it. EofT

Contents

[edit] User:RK vs EofT

Sorry to dump this on your talk page but Martin wants it off the village pump and as it was your question, I thought you might want to decide where to put it, if anywhere. Angela 13:24, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Both accuse each other of being trolls and manipulating me (I protected ethics at the request of EofT, which seemed to be a genuine request). Which one is the troll? Both? Neither? CGS 22:26, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC).

I don't think it's a good idea to accuse anyone of being a troll, but some relevant information for you might be that some have proposed that RK be banned whilst EofT has been been banned in the past and is threatened with another one. You're very brave for getting involved! :) Angela
Both have made genuine contributions. Both bring a rather unique perspective to the project. Neither is as pure as the driven snow, but then, few are. RK has more sympathy with the meta:Cabal. You will have to review the history to decide for yourself, and it's a jumbled mess. The matter seems to have escalated from some edits that EofT made in good faith, but which RK found unhelpful. In many ways the whole affair is a proxy for larger issues. There have been various confused attempts to contain the disagreement between them to a page or two. I see the matter as an example of a need for a stronger conflict resolution ethic and process for the project. I take no sides because it is not my fight, and have taken criticism for refusing to take a stand. My shoulders are broad. Are yours? Good luck. Kat 03:13, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Damnd if do, damnd if dont. While both Kat and Angela are right, the central issues are actually rather simple -- does anyone have a right to make /ban pages? The consensus now is no, because its problematic. Can people make accusations? Well, there is some doubt about whether those in charge are actually willing to enforce policy. If the judge or jury is likely just to acquit, why make any effort at all, until a solid case is built. Beyond that, its a case of the community taking care of itself, putting an end to irresponsible behaviour by -- traditionally the way has been to be ignorant (also called "tolerant" - as in "I tolerate you"). But how does one bring the issue to a head, when people want it to just "go away." How does one raise the issue, without themselves being accused of the crime of "raising the issue" -- to me the issue is equal treatment, and while EofT has acted like a moron, this does not mean RK gets to slide - or does it? Its really a governance issue after that, and the ability (or inability) of the Government to actually discern the crap from the custard and the shit from the shingle. -戴&#30505sv 18:29, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)
User:Jimbo Wales/Ceasefire
Someone get this junk off the village pump..... Ahh, that's better! :)
Martin

Cgs, check out the new proposal at Talk:Ethics; this looks like it should fix things. Your thoughts? RK 22:16, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

Hi Chris, are you sure moving American Civil War to American civil war was the right thing to do? All the best, --KF 12:49, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes. It's not the title of anything. It was an event. See Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words. CGS 14:24, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Chris, if you're intent on renaming articles (i.e. German missiles of WW2) I've just created, I would appreciate it if you had the courtesy to start a discussion on the talk page rather than just unilaterally changing stuff -- Cabalamat 23:07, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not "intent" on it - you make me sound like a psychopath. I was just being bold. They're not your articles, as you suggest, and nobody discusses every edit before comitting it. Wikipedia is by nature unilateral and if you don't want people editing your work, I suggest you don't write it here. CGS 23:51, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC).
(I didn't say it was my article, only that I had created it.) I'm aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative system, where everyone can alter any page, and I think that's a good thing. And I also think it is useful to differentiate between edits that add information (few people that object to these), and edits that change what someone else has done (which tend to be more controversial). Personally, I find that when I'm thinking of doing the latter, I usually discuss it on the Talk: page instead. BTW, I don't think you're a psychopath :-). -- Cabalamat 00:52, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I notice that you have unilaterally changed it back. CGS 23:57, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC).
Indeed so. If you want a discussion of what the page should be called, I'm open to suggestions -- Cabalamat 00:52, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)


reply to your comment on m:Skins -- Tarquin 15:53, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, almost every word. A little searching could probably fill in the rest. It's a great starting point for a browse, isn't it.
  • You talk about a crusade of keeping HTML away from Wikipedia. How have u been crusading ?
    I'm currently in a HTML-mess with List of Wimbledon champions. The contents were appropriate to be put in table format, but Wikipedia has no table tags.
    Jay 22:50, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I would like there to be table structure in the wiki markup, but as there is none at the moment we do have to use HTML. I also don't like HTML being used inapropiately, such as tables for nontabular data or font tags. CGS 10:08, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Cgs, just wanted to let you know that I doubt we have a troll on the Village Pump. The testosterone question was from 65.216.194.2, and the Jordanian question was from 205.188.209.11 -- simply unhappy coincidence, I imagine. :) Wise of you to be suspicious, though. Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 22:13, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ok, check out the article and discussion now. Thanks for the comments, I think the fragile base class article is way better now. User:Maury Markowitz

I changed it because public school in the UK means the exact opposite to public school in America so it could be confusing. Angela 12:53, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

I'm (snoyes) moving your question on the reference desk here in case you want to keep a copy of it:

[edit] Semi-Automatic Rifles in the First World War

Why weren't there any semi-automatic rifles in the First World War? They had semi-automatic pistols, but why no rifles? CGS 22:27, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC).

My school notes from a History lesson in (gulp) 1958 say it was because rifles were needed in huge numbers, whereas only officers carried pistols. (The 1911 Colt?)
Semi-automatics at that time were still hand-built to some degree. The technology of the time could not mass-produce semi-automatic rifles in the required numbers.
Interesting to note that cavalry-charges and swords were still (somewhat ineffectively) used at the start of WW1. Anjouli 06:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. CGS 17:40, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC).

Hi, there have been some suggestions that we need to start cleaning out the old requests posted to Wikipedia:Peer review. You are receiving this because you have posted one or more requests that have been there a long time. When you have a moment, please check it out and remove the request(s), along with any related material, if you have received adequate feedback. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 23:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Steadicam

Yup, much better link; enough better that i have no problem waiting to see what others think. --Jerzy(t) 23:42, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicode

Hi! I noticed you've contributed to computer science articles. I've started a project on WikiProject Computing to propose a standard pseudocode for use throughout the Wikipedia that I call wikicode. Please join the WikiProject (no commitment required) and please participate in the discussion about wikicode. Thanks!

Derrick Coetzee 16:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] image copyright

Hi, can you confirm that Image:Bryce canyon big.jpeg is under the GFDL. anthony (see warning)

[edit] License

Hi, I'm from french wp and would like to know what is the license of Image:Mirror.jpeg . Is it GFDL ? Thanks in advance. fr:Utilisateur:Tipiac

Yeah, GDFL. I've modified the image's page to reflect this. CGS 22:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC).
We also have fr:Image:Naziswastika.png, we've assumed it is GFDL but could you confirm ? Thanks in advance Tipiac
Yeah, it is. I've modified fr:Image:Naziswastika.png to reflect this. CGS 14:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC).

[edit] Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:27, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Twilight wilderness.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Twilight wilderness.jpeg. 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, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:00, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

[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 03:25, 10 Dec 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] No longer around

I've left Wikipedia, so there's no point in posting here.

[edit] Image copyright problem RE: Image:Pips.mp3

Thanks for uploading Image:Pips.mp3. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

  • The copyright holder, and
  • The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

  • The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.
  • Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.) However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.
  • Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --Pak21 11:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The same applies to Image:Pips.ogg. Cheers --Pak21 11:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture delisting

Hi, I've nominated a featured picture you uploaded, Image:Twilight wilderness big.jpeg for delisting, as IMHO it no longer meets current FP criteria. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Twilight wilderness big.jpeg delist if you are interested. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 03:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/g/s/User_talk%7ECgs_14c2.html"