User talk:Hu/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archives
1: 2005-11-10;
2: 2006-02-08;
3: 2006-11-15;
4: 2006-12-23;
5: User talk:Hu.

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer! Wikipedia Tutorial, test area, Manual of Style, Policies and Guidelines, neutral point of view, help, Help Desk, be bold in editing pages.

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page -- ClockworkTroll 02:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

Please be sure to use the template provided in the wp:vip page when making new entries. It makes it a lot easier for others to trace what the vandal has been doing --jpgordon{gab} 20:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Ooops, sorry. Typo. Anyway, you'll see the template here. -- oh, p.s., please "talk" on another user's "talk" page, not their "user" page. --jpgordon{gab} 20:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about accidentally deleting some important material on the vandalism in progress page for Nov. 14. I honestly do not know how I caused it. I will be more careful next time.BadSanta

It's ok. I thought it had something to do with your choice of user name. -- Hu.

[edit] Sail

There is a Black Sail Pass and a Sail Fell in the Lake District, but even so I don't think they need mentioning on Sail Paul Tracy

Thanks. They were too unimportant for my huge British atlas to mention, so it seemed a safe bet that they were inappropriate. Hu 15:56, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I'm not surprised - you would need a large scale map and a pair of stout boots to find them! They'll probably eventually find a home in the Lake District article. Paul Tracy

[edit] Section Headers

Probably not worth redoing your === sorts of headers. Most people add new topics with the "+" tab, which will put them at == level -- so you'd have to re-edit your talk page every time someone makes a comment. -- jpgordon{gab} 16:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem. I'll do it every so often when I feel like it as a low priority. Some help page or other said not to remove stuff, leaves a bad impression that it is not being read. Besides, new stuff will stand out. -- Hu.

[edit] Felix the Cat Image Removal

The image that was on Felix the Cat's entry was, in fact, an image that did not belong. It was vandalism and I removed it. If you know about Goatse, then you would know the picture I removed. DrachenFyre DrachenFyre

[edit] deletions

I have removed the delete tags from Nuclearator and Franklin Income Fund, as I do not see how they meet the criteria for speedy deletion, at a quick glance. It is possible that the Nuclearator article qualifies as fancruft, but even that would go through the normal vfd process. I don't see a problem with the Franklin Income Fund outright, and it does not appear to be copyvio. In order to help admins in the future, you might consider using the deletebecause template, and include a reason, be sure to point out which of the criteria for speedy deletion the article meets. You are free to nominate either article for VFD if you wish. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Felix Potvin

Actually his nickname is indeed "Felix the Cat," which was named for his "cat-like" reflexes.

As may be. If you linked a reference on the Felix page, it would lessen the chances it would be deleted.

[edit] User talk:Gabriel Webber

Hi,you just posted a message on my talkpage telling me not to move the sandbox. The thread you added to was aboutme complaining to User:Adolph Wales that he moved the sandbox. He has also just created a sockpuppet User:Charles Bush and done it again, aswell. I repeat, I did not move the sandbox. Thankyou,--[[User:Gabriel Webber|Gabriel Webber (babble were rig)]] 17:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Understood. I was responding to Wales response, as my indentation indicates. I did get confused in the second note I posted, so I removed that. -- Hu.

[edit] Signature

An easy way to sign posts on talk or discussion pages is to use three tildas: ~~~. This will print your username. The preferred method, however, especially when you're on a discussion thread, is to use four tildas or ~~~~. This will print your username and also time-stamp your signature. Thanks for contributing. Ellsworth 22:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] MDCore user page

thanks for that. It's good to know that people are watching recent changes :) But... that was me! my cookies cleared for some reason so I wasn't logged in when I changed the page. Thanks, though. I don't mind in the least :) MDCore 10:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oops! Ships crossing in the night or something like that. Glad it worked out. Hu.


[edit] Wikipedia and IVC : Is depth desirable ?

Hello Hu,

Thank You for Your encouragement and selecting the Indus Valley Civilization article as a featured article. I must admit I made my initial contributions without fully realizing the reach and imapct of this Encyclopedia and did not do justice to the topic. I have also made a posting on the talk page of Indus Script with an apology and clarification, as well as a commitment statement, which I fully intend to fulfill.

As You seem to be the Admin (or one of Admins) of this site, I turn to You for guidance on a matter of key importance. There exisit practically hundreds of websites on Indus Valley Civilization, but none do full justice to the topic in terms of depth and breadth of the content. Hence I had often contemplated the idea of making a comprehencive IVC portal, which would present absolutely all research about IVC, as well as various and often opposing viewpoints of archealogists, lingustis, theologists etc. In other words, the ultimate source of information and reference on IVC. The weakness of this approach would be that this website would nevertheless end up being just another website, and we would need countless other strategies and measures to promote that website and bring people to it.

Encyclopedias so far have been present in two forms, paper-bound and online commercial. They both suffer from underlying weaknesses. Paper-bound have limited space to dedicate to any topic, and online commercial, though not limited by space, attempt to sell the content to the reader and hence not suitable for general dissemination of knowledge.

It occurs to me that Wikipedia, by it's very nature, does not suffer from any of the above limitations, and hence, could in-fact be that very ideal platform I've been looking for.

The underlying concept of this Encyclopedia deserves much appreciation. There is no doubt in my mind that in days to come, Wikipedia would by far exceed the depth and breadth of content encompassed by traditional paper-bound works such as Encyclopedia Britanica or other online but commercial ventures as Encarta etc. I can today see Wikipedia becoming the ultimate database of knowledge and reference for mankind through an open collective effort.

A possibility is, that together with help of my colleagues and dedicating our available resources, we try transforming the IVC article on Wikipedia to an all encompassing authentic source of reference and information on IVC, in other words, the ultimate source of knowledge on IVC, and then we use all other resources in our reach to promoting it. IF the experience of past few days is any indication, I stand assured that further contributions and additions from fellow Wikipedians from around the world would improve the quality and depth of knowledge presented initially.

The downside is: Encyclopedias usually prefer the breadth of content (the number of topics they adress) to the depth of content (the depth of detail presented), usually providing links for further in-depth study. It would become too detailed and scientific for laymen and casual reader.

The upside is: though it would be deviation from convention, Wikipedia could well become not just a source of cursory information, but a source of in-depth study and knowledge. In fact, if any website could ever achieve the envisaged depth and breadth, I suspect only a collective effort like Wikipedia can.

Hence it becomes important to know what is preferable to the founders ? How the founders see Wikipedia and wether increasing the "depth" of a particular article a hundred-fold is by any means in line with their vision. After all, it's their brain-child and their preferences should prevail.

Once again, Congratulations and keep up the good work !

--Atla 15:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have produced two successful web sites, but I am not an Admin here, though I am a Librarian at another Wiki. I am sorry if I gave you that impression. I had nothing to do with selecting the article, I just made some copy edits on it and was impressed by it. I did have the thought that it would be a good one to feature, but I don't particularly believe in telepathy!

Your analysis of the effectiveness and scope of Wikipedia is good, but I would encourage you to make your IVC web site. I don't think that Wikipedia will ever have the depth of specialist web sites because Wikipedia is a distillation of the kind of knowledge contained in those sites. Wikipedia will achieve greater depth, but I expect that if any one area starts getting too deep in relation to the nearby breadth, that the depth will be trimmed back by editors as they flesh out the local breadth. A web site of your own gives you the freedom to manage the direction in ways you never will on Wikipedia.

If you make your web site and build it with the devotion to the subject and the scholarship you have exhibited, you will succeed. The two web sites I spoke of are in the top three on Google in their respective categories because of the superior content they contain. Additionally, promoting the site is not difficult. The best way is to build a reasonable amount of well-presented coherent material and then email other web sites and invite them to link to yours. Many will, and then you will be on the way. You will always be able to contribute distillations to Wikipedia, but on your own site you will be able to go as deeply as you wish on any topic. You might like to consider an interactive forum or micro-Wiki for your site, but they would be more work! Ask scholars for permission to host copies of their papers and articles on your site. Many will be glad for the venue. You can ask others to write articles specially for your site too.

Good luck an best wishes writing! -- Hu.


[edit] Regarding copyvios

Hey Hu. I noticed your comment on Talk:Coventration, and I think you should just check that talk page again. I've explained the process for what to do with copyvios. Well spotted, by the way. - Vague | Rant 07:09, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


I wouldn't worry about Dee Dee's Rants on copyright issues, there is no Dee Dee Warren, get her to tell you her real name and then it might matter. http://hometown.aol.com/prakk/

Hugh McBryde

[edit] Regarding Preterism page

I am not sure why you reverted my changed. Before user Dee Dee Warren came here, there were no edit wars, and no "vandalism" in regards to "preterism" - she brought in historical and theological bias to this forum, and to label my changes as "vandalism" is simply unfair. Please look at historical entries BEFORE this user came on board and you will see how happy everyone was. -- (note: this comment was made by the anonymous User talk:208.4.153.208 at 19:00, 2004 Nov 24)

As I have written on you user talk page, anonymous 208.4.153.208, which see:

A small step, but a first step to getting some respect for your viewpoint is to register a user name and use it. A second step, a bigger and even more useful one, is to work collaboratively with editors here. Insulting them and starting reversion wars on a page and not discussing issues reasonably in the Talk pages is a good way to be seen as a crank. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, not a soapbox.

You have exhibited a belligerent attitude from the very beginning. You refuse to discuss the issues on the Preterism talk page, but instead you choose to grouse about reversions. Take the steps above, and discuss Preterism issues, and you will get some respect. Hu 19:13, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

[edit] From Dee Dee Warren

The revert change you did with regards to the vandalism done by 208.4.153.208 on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism is back. He simply re-edited. Can you please address? He obviously has ignored your reversion. I am currently collaborating on this page with a person of his same viewpoint who contacted me privately to arrange at a resolution. This anom user should at least wait to see what is collaborated. His piece is completely ahistorical and slanted. If there is something historically inaccurate in my piece (which was cowritten with an opposing view and that person says that we are VERY close in having a fair piece) then this anom user should revise and not trash it outright.

I am holding back on re-editing to let you revert if that is what you choose. Thank you.

[edit] Asking for trouble

Hu - you are asking for legal trouble by continuing to allow the labeling of a large group of people as "heretics" - PRETERISM is a registered U.S. trademark and you continue to allow the mark to be denigrated and allow Dee Dee Warren to create business losses for our organization. Either put a stop to this negative attack on PRETERISM, or remove the definition completely from your website. I am tired of trying to negotiate with you guys and getting nowhere with you. -- 208.4.153.208 (note: this attribution had to be derived from the history because the comment was unsigned.)

[edit] Sorry for not signing

I will be sure to sign my edits and discussions, so sorry about that

Sincerely, Dee Dee Warren

PS: and now I see I am to use tildas - sorry I am still learning

Dee Dee WarrenDee Dee Warren :)

[edit] With regards to trademark

Hu, one cannot "protect" a theological term in that manner. This would be like someone saying that a theology teacher could not say the Church of Latter Days Saints was a cult (as many believe - this is just an example, not intended to inflame) because the LDS Church has trademarked the name. These types of legal threats are completely inappropriate. I am a legal professional (no not a lawyer) but I have researched this issue and consulted with legal professionals and this is just ridiculous. It is a historical fact that some branches of Christianity consider Anom's position to be historically heretical. This is simply a historical fact. There are people out there who consider some of my positions heretical - I can deny or dispute the validity of their belief, but I cannot dispute the historicity of their belief, and that is what Anom is not understanding. I noted in my piece that this claim is disputed by the group and what their basis for dispute is.

I thank you for your assistance. I am collaborating with someone else who holds this view who says we are very close to authoring a fair piece. Sincerely, Dee Dee Warren

  • It was not me who claimed the Preterism page was protected by trademark, but it was 208.4.153.208. Here is what I wrote on the Talk:Preterism page: Any topic is open for reasonable NPoV articles on the Wikipedia. Microsoft is a registered trademark, and yet there is no problem discussing the negative aspects of their business practices in the Microsoft article. Stop issuing threats and start collaborating, if you want to have any hope of getting your point of view heard. Hu 19:41, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC) -- Hu.

[edit] Science of Value article turned in Philosophy Judgment Day!

Hu: You were stressing for me the importance of NPoV in the article on the topic Science of Value. Why, I ask, don't you get after Gene Smith, who has hijacked my site, and has anything but a neutral point of view: he has lengthened what this morning was a fairly decent description of the founder of this new discipline, who worked out the rudiments of it back in in 1955-1962, and now he has added a non-concise, a lengthy section entitled An Evaluation of The Work of Hartman. This is hostile, and distorted, and downright mean. His bias shows like Mt. Rushmore!! --- a gross violation of NPoV. He emailed one lady he knows that teaches philosophy somewhere, and she told him that people she knows don't teach Dr. Hartman in their classes. From this he is generalizing to philosophers round the world, implying, falsely, that Hartman is not held in respect by major philosophers. But when the United Nations wanted the leading authority in the field of axiology to write a summary of the state of axiology the world over, in 1950, UNESCO selected Dr. Hartman. His booklet was entitled "Value Theory at Mid-Century." I don't see how Gene's critique of Hartman's philosophical efforts, and of a weak spot in Hartman's magnum opus, has much of anything to do with the topic in the headline: Value Science. It's been over 40 years since Hartman wrote that book, and the analysis of values by scientific methods has made lots and lots of progress since then. I don't, however, want any hype to appear in the article, but I also don't want this pioneer founder smeared like this! He is dead and can't defend himself; otherwise he would sue this guy for slander and defamation. You call this neutral?!! I would like to present counter-arguments, but I gather from the Style Manual that a Wikipedia entry is not the place for a scholarly dialog. So this vandalism goes unchecked. So I plead with you: HELP. Simplebrain 06:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Sigh, you still don't get it. It is not your site. Buy your own site. And don't drop rants in the middle of other people's commentary on my talk page. I may take a look at the SoV page later. Hu 06:26, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
  • The state of the page at 06:34, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC) (Gene Ward's last edit about 90 minutes ago) seems to be a great improvement over what came before. If Simplebrain would like to add a section which is a more positive evaluation, he is free to do so, and have it subjected to review by the whole Wikipedia community, as is everything else. But I hope that what appears on the page as of this writing will be the basic foundation of the page. Hu 06:34, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with vandalism

Users can deal with isolated vandalism without requesting administrator action. Please see Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism for details. Gazpacho 08:33, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this comment is on a similar topic, but I want to encourage you to put {{{{: test}}}}, {{{{: test2}}}}... on user pages when they vandalise. Its the only real way to keep track of who's hurting the project, and is just as important as the actual reverting. Frankly, some users often get more discouraged by talk page notes that revertions. Thanks! -- user:zanimum

[edit] Finding public domain images

What is a good way to hunt for public domain images for my wiki articles? Nathanlarson32767 22:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

search on Google Images and on Google Web search and ask the owners. Don't say you want to use it, say Wikipedia wants to use it. Now, mind you, sometimes a web site doesn't own the images they use, so you have to be careful even when they say its ok. Only ask if you think it is theirs. Also, Google "public domain images". Hu
Hey that is a good idea. Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, I already sent a bunch of emails out saying "I am writing a Wikipedia article on x; can I use your image of ..." Well, we'll see what happens. Nathanlarson32767 23:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use descriptions

Are these acceptable fair use descriptions:

[edit] POV

Hello! I'm really puzzled why you are suggesting I'm responsible for the POV banner? For whatever it's worth I'm not and I'm not sure what I would have to gain by it. Please look at the contributions I have made to math and physics.

Thanks! CSTAR 14:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is the note I posted that you refer to about users Critical and CStar:

For the record, the user Critical ( talk, contributions), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on some pages, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the Logical fallacy talk page), Physical law. These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one). I don't think the PoV claim has merit. We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.
For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately. We may note that CStar ( talk, contributions) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in. Further, user CStar left a note on Charles Matthew's talk page, Chalst's talk page, and Angela's talk page pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the Logical argument page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed. Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. Hu 05:19, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

I was mystified by the targeted nature of the edits, the timing of the edits, the apparent irony, and the misdirection in the response. If you disclaim responsibility, then that is fine with me, pending further information or developments. Hu 19:22, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

O.K. The fact remains, however, that there are a number of talk pages which still contain the above text. I don't propose to delete anything; however, would it be acceptable to you if I added on those talk pages the following:
I have responded to this on the logical fallacy talk page, as well as on the pages of the above mentioned users. It does appear that these pages were as Hu suggests the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll. But I wasn't the perpetrator. This suggestion appears to have been an honest mistake, I consider the matter closed, and it appears that Hu does as well.
Thanks! CSTAR 01:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Hu 01:27, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

[edit] Technical help

Hi, do you know anyone who likes to help new wiki users with coding? Nathanlarson32767 03:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can recommend looking at the links in the Welcome to Wikipedia section at the top of this page. Explore each one a couple of links deep as you see fit. But for coding, specifically, look at the Editing Help link when you edit (right beside the "Show Preview" button). Read it in detail and experiment. Look at pages that are exemplars (featured articles for example) and open them up for editing; you don't have to actually edit, but you will be able to read the code. That's how I learned. Use the sandbox. If you are stumped, then frame as specific a question as you can, pointing to an edit somewhere and ask someone knowledgeable. Be bold and edit pages thoughtfully using the Editing help as a reference and you will do fine. You can revert your own edits, and you can always ask an admin for help if you get something snarled up. Hu 09:24, 2004 Dec 9 (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] Brainstorming

No problem. It happens. By the way, it seems that you have chosen to mark all your edits minor by default. Brain-storming was a major one :) utcursch 10:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary: "other improvements to the English usage"

With all due respect of all your edits to "John King" only one was a genuine grammatical correction, the rest were stylistic. While we're on the subject I think what you should have written was "improvements to the use of English"!

[edit] Reply to H1532072

When adding comments to Talk and Discussion pages, the usual convention much admired here at Wikipedia is to sign one's username by appending three or four tildes, ~~~~, to one's messages. Four are preferred because that includes the date and time. This is especially true if one wants to avoid the appearance of committing hit-and-run on a User's Talk page.

On the John King page, the phrase "his leadership of British Airways from ... to ..." was changed to "leading British Airways from ... to ..." is more than merely stylistic because the first phrase confounds the concept of leadership with transition, while the second puts the focus on the transition, which is clearly the intent. In the second change, the introduction of the second "which" removes the cognitive dissonance that occurs momentarily when it appears that the continents were sold. That change was perhaps the most "stylistic", if you will. The change from "amount" to "number" is clearly grammatical, since "amount" is for quantities that can take on an infinity of different values, such as quantities of water. This is much like mathematics' Real numbers. Things that can be counted discretely, like people or the upgrades they may receive, are quantified grammatically with "number". The change from "Sir Richard" to "Branson" is more encyclopedic and thus, yes, it is stylistic, but it is desirable for an encyclopedia where not all readers would make the connection that the previously referenced Branson has been knighted, or at least it would slow them down as they figure it out, as it did me. The change in the last line is grammatical because one needs to refer to the companies as companies because it is not possible to have a directorship of a person who is an engineer, but it is possible to have a directorship of an engineering company.

If you object to these changes, you are free to raise such objections on the page's discussion page. I apologise if you were offended that I might have mischaracterised my edits somewhat in the limited space one usually applies to summarizing them.

Hu 09:25, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for not signing my comment, I will save you the time of trawling my past contributions and assure you that this is the first time and simply an oversight. Further had I wished to commit a "hit and run" attack I would have logged out and edited the page as an anonymous user.
While I admit that some of your edits have more substance than I first suggested, I would suggest that you are engaging in semantics. However it is reassuring to find an editor who is as rigorous and knowledgable as you obviously are. Regards, Mark 14:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I am still learning about many things, including grammar. Rigor often trips me up and is not a pure positive! Hu 21:50, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages

The Manual of Style guidelines involve (among other things) no secondary Wikilinking. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense, but you leave me with no idea what page you might be referring to. Hu

Sorry, I should have said: Foundation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Next

Archive2 2006-02-08.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/2F/User_talk%7EHu_Archive1_a041.html"