User talk:MichaelNetzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Our Talk Page | Archives

Contents 1 Neal Adams at EE 2 Obsolete, Fringe and Superceded 2.1 50-50 chance of being credible 3 Obsolete Cat 4 Looks like 5 Re: Comic Book Cover Fair Use 6 Licence 7 Our? 8 Thank You...

[edit] Neal Adams at EE

Sorry, but I think this stuff, while interesting, is dragging the page down. If you want to include it, make a separate page and link it to EE. In case you haven't caught on, this is an encyclopaedia. Comparable to britannica not a comic. I am a big fan of Neal Adams and comics, but there are better references available. Highly regarded professors of geology, for example Carey. Your comparison to DaVinci was specious, at best. Try substituting Rob Liefeld for Neal and see if you don't agree! I am removing it, sorry. - Fred 09:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response Michael. I do not reflexively make that comment, I mean it with the upmost sincerity. You are obviously a highly intelligent person and you show great integrity of character in such a moderate response to my deletion of your edit. Please allow me a little time to consider my reply.

But, firstly I want to point out that I completely agree with most of your statements, especially regarding the artists ability to penetrate reality in a way that specialists (and most scientists) seemingly cannot. Dear Carey had much to say on the nature of paradigms and the belligerence of supporters of current ones. EE would be the primary reason I started here on en, but I have cautiously approached the subject by exploring the nature of our beast, the wikipedia community. But I do not hope to change what Sam Carey could not, despite his high level of credibility and, ironically, helping to resurrrect Wegeners 'continental drift' theory, demolishing a paradigm of a static earth and contributing to the new one. I also appreciate you having introduced me to Neals theory and have given it much consideration as a possible mechanism. The solution must necessarily be cosmic in scale and scope. Bear in mind that I substantially contributed to Samuel Warren Carey's article here, but found myself 'defending' the article against comparisons to Shaver's Hollow earth. We need good citations and to "write for the enemy". Well met, brother. Best regards - Fred 13:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Purchased!" You had better send me the bill. This will also recompense for the tone in my earlier comments. As for my removal, it might clutter up the talk page if we put it there. Do you know how to make a subpage? You could put your work here and link the EET talk page to it. It might look like this:

• [[User talk:MichaelNetzer/Neal Adams|Neal Adam's theory of an expanding earth mechanism]]

or in your 'sandbox' is common also

• [[User:MichaelNetzer/Sandbox/Neal Adams|Right of the 'pipe'(|)appears as name]]

(I think I have that right!?). This appears as a red link and you click on it and 'create' the page. Also, don't forget to sign your name on talk pages. Cheers Michael - Fred 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I have never been more optimistic for its future as an article. I reckon we might even get it a Feature Article one day. I must send you a book by another Australian on this subject; for your hard work and good manners. Best regards - Fred 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete, Fringe and Superceded

As per your suggestion, I have removed that category. If someone notices and objects they can easily 'undo' it from the history tab or revert it using 'popups'. Everthing remains in the history. Nothing is lost from this dynamic document, wikipedia. When I originally categorised the theory, obsolete was the best fit. The only reference I found on google were enigmatic ones by alleged mineral exploration companies who claimed to have the inside dope on discovering mineral wealth or new oil fields. I thought it best to skirt that whole issue until the article was expanded.

• Fringe science has shifted to opprobrium in that time also. No doubt it will change again. I removed that also.
• In feigning neutrality I included EET at superceded theories also. I hoped to attract some attention to the page, but of course this is not always desirable.
• Have you got a suggestion for a better adjective, I wrestled with it for a couple of days and settled on these. But as I said they have all changed now and no longer apply. No doubt this is because of the increase of editors in our community and them all putting there '2 cents' worth in.
• You will find great advantage in getting involved in some editing that is not so close to your heart, at least a while. I hope you don't see this as patronising; This is how I learned what I have about our novel community on wiki en. and am now in a better position to improve areas that may be seen as contentious.

I will be back tonight (Western Australian time) with useful internal links. Best regards - Fred 00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 50-50 chance of being credible

LOL (laugh out loud), clever and true mate. You cat name suggestion was right on the money, but like the others it could contain almost any theory - crackpot or otherwise. There may also a problem with those in our community who suppose the en strives to show a consensus view and those that think the 'truth' should win the day. I will take your suggestion to some wise editors (who also happen to be 'admins') and see if there is not a similar situation somewhere else. Categories should start with about 25 members lest the 'deletionists get hold of them. They do important work but some get carried away with hunting for new cats to string up. I am still editing here and not getting on with the day. Be wary yourself of the addiction factor here. It will all be here tomorrow, I am telling myself this more than directing it at you. - Fred 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well put. I will take that line when I do. I'm still here as you can see! Issues on en, some of which have crossed over to the 'meatworld', are drawing me in. I must set myself strict time limits. A real pleasure to converse with you. Back again later. I will look at your website before I do though. Your work is probably in my comic collection somewhere. I think I saw a second hand copy of the book I want to send you in my port city (Fremantle) and will buy it today - if I ever get away! Let me know (recommend you use a discrete email address) if that is welcome and advise me of a mail drop. C/- your local Post office may be best. - Regards Fred 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Too late, already picked it up. You may enjoy it and it was not expensive. Regarding the rapid revert of my category deletion, would you mind waiting a moment while I have a bit of a nosy around? Some people get upset by challenges on their own talk page. Let me see if I can determine why he did and we can discuss what to do from there. I will inform you of the rationale when I return from the dark recesses of wikipedia. Best regards - Fred 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete Cat

Ok, I initially was going to tell you my suggestion for you to tackle this revert or undo (that is POV) and the next step to take. I will a bit later, but firstly I will explain that the history tab shows:

12:47, 6 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Expanding earth theory (add category: Obsolete scientific theories) (emphasis added)

and this by Tim Shuba. From his POV I reverted this and did so without explanation. This is not good form on part, I assumed that I added the cat in a previous edit. Do you mind if I convey my apologies and try to elicit a reason? I will then return here and take some of the mystery out of the procedure I just undertook. Best wishes - Fred 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Did this and this

Well said and yes, definitely room for improvement there. - Fred 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While we are waiting have a look at this. - Fred

[edit] Looks like

Expanding earth might be on its way, sigh SatuSuro 11:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Comic Book Cover Fair Use

Hi, Yeah actualy I already did tag the two comic covers as such. However the reason I removed them from the article was that as far as I could tell there was no spesific commentary on those two covers, nor any fair use rationale for theyr use in that article. The Wikipedia rules are fairly strict when it comes to using non-free licensed images (See the full Wikipedia:Fair use criteria for details). If a rationale is added and some "critical commentary" on the covers are present in the aricle it will probably be ok to add them back though. The Image:Lifestory1.jpg should be ok, just add some source info, something simmilar to what you did on Image:Mnetzer.jpg should be sufficient. --Sherool (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks pretty straight forward. I think the key point in the AfD is discussion around the definition of theory.Here is some more fun. Looking forward to more from you. Regards, - Fred 10:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Licence

"Licence" is the noun, "license" is the verb. This is true for UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (and India). In the USA, they use "license" for both (and the Philippines). But thank you for catching the misspellings of gratuitous and contradictory. Gronky 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our?

I like that approach. Or is this something to do with Fridays. I hope the quick introduction to the deeper parts of wikipedia have been as enlightening to you as they have been to me. I think you have weathered the gales exceptionally well and I will try to emulate your composure. Best regards, - Fred 11:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC) My curiosity is piqued, what is your new article? Fred

I was overawed by Name of another name and could not bring myself to even speak to him. His truth quest was intriguing. It doesn't stand a chance of escape. "Decisive" comments, yet some naive editor thought to comment on the discussion page after the the discussion was CLOSED! I unceremoniously revertd him. Happy editing. - Fred 14:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No doubt some bot jockey would have come along. I prefer the personal touch. If only for my own amusement. - Best wishes - Fred 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You...

Try using the 2.0 version of the Mozilla Firefox web browser, which has the spell-checker built in.

If the bad spelling on the Wikipedia is an indication of article quality, then the Wikipedia is much worse than even its most strident critics say it is. ;-) Kireji ^¿? 17:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)