User talk:Mpolo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/archive 1 09:24, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Mona Lisa by Duchamp
Hi, I have just noticed your edit here You suggested that the original art work's copyright protection has expired. Is that the case? Are you talking about Da Vinci's work by any chance and not Duchamp's? Or are you indicating that Duchamp's modification of the Mona Lisa lacks minimum degree of creativity to warrant him any copyright? I just could not decide myself, but thought it would be good to get your attention. Tomos 12:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hi. Thank you for your answer at my talk page. I thought about it again. As I understand, the period of copyright protection in many jurisdictions (for example the members of the Berne Convention) is calculated as author's life + x years, x currently being 50 (minimum according to the Convention) or 70 years (becoming popular especially among European countries). When a work is created and published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S., while protected in some other countries because Marcel Duchamp lived until 1968. So perhaps {PD-art-US} is the best tag for that image? Tomos 17:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] ASCII
Your ASCII graphic contains the apostrophe character twice. The one that comes right before "a" should actually be a grave accent character. Is there any chance you could correct the image? - mjb 01:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Further, it says that there are ninety five printable ASCII characters, but both SPACE and DEL are nonprinting, would this not reduce the total to ninety four? — Hobart 21:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week
I would like to revive this project. I noticed that you've added yourself to the list of available Spanish-to-English translators. Are you interested in working on Spanish Translation of the Week? — J3ff 06:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alleged Biblical inconsistencies
An editor has added a comment to this page. It is in connection with the children of Adam and Eve. I wanted to edit it because although he is correct in what he says, I think it could be better worded. However, I don't really follow the argument. As the history shows you as being the one that wrote it, could you please clarify what the alleged inconsistency is (either as a reply here or in the article)? Philip J. Rayment 01:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the follow-up. However, what I was wanting as much as anything was for you to clarify the part that you originally wrote. You wrote "Further problems sometimes cited in regard to the creation account because the text only indicates the existence of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Seth after the third chapter. Nonetheless, both Seth and Cain have children, ... Lilith is sometimes cited here as a solution ...". But this doesn't really explain just what the problems are. I assume that it is meant to indicate a problem as to how there can be children without mothers (allegedly) existing, but this is not clear. Am I correct in that assumption? Philip J. Rayment 13:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't that about incest? ~~~~ 11:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Republics
Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".
With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible
There has been recent discussion at this WikiProject. You are indicated as a member, and so may wish to join it. ~~~~ 11:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Who said that Irenaeus wrote/edited the Gospel of John?
I noticed this here. Although you may not have been the first person to insert the statement about "some" believing that Irenaeus wrote the Fourth Gospel, I noticed that you had either inserted it or reinserted it. I was wondering whether you could shed some light on where the claim comes from. If it can't be sourced, I would like to move for its deletion. I must sound like a blowhard know-it-all in this sentence, but I've got some two dozen various extensive commentary books on John and none of them make note of such a view. Of course, if it can be sourced, that would be great. If you didn't insert it, maybe you can tell me who did so I can inquire with him or her? --Peter Kirby 08:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sesame Street on FAC
Hi there, you supported Sesame Street becoming a featured article by in 2004, I was wondering if you'd mind looking again at the article, and possibly supporting the current campaign? Thanks for your time! -- user:zanimum
[edit] ASCII image
Hello. What font did you use in Image:Ascii full.png? —Slicing (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pages up for deletion
There are two pages up for deletion Revolution within the form and Cretan/Spartan connection. Can I ask for a vote to Transwiki these. Thanks.WHEELER 23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiprojects Saints
[edit] St John Bosco
There has been some additions to the John Bosco page saying he was a closest homosexual or pederast. This is not NPOV.
Do you agree?evrik 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] USerbox
Something new ...
 |
This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject. |
[edit] Preventing an edit war on the saints
It was the established operation of the WikiProject Saints to have a section in the info box on a sample prayer. Some editors have been recently been attacking this in the individual articles.
It is my belief that prayers in a literary or historic context are NPOV. I can understand that some may consider the inclusion of a prayer to be hagiographic, but freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
There is a 3RR about to happen on a number of these articles. I am trying to be philosophical about this, but don’t want to yield the point when what is happening goes against the consensus and borders on vandalism.
It is my understanding that if an editing disagreement occurs that the status quo, in this case leaving the prayers in place, holds until it is resolved. I encourage you to comment on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints. I have posted my thoughts at the village pump.
--evrik 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints
It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
