User talk:RogerK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
RogerK, I award you this barnstar for your tireless efforts, on the Dogpatch USA article, and your willingness to go above and beyond for the sake of free knowledge and correct grammer and punctiuation. On behalf of Wikipedia, I thank you. --The_stuart 18:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
RogerK, I award you this barnstar for your tireless efforts, on the Dogpatch USA article, and your willingness to go above and beyond for the sake of free knowledge and correct grammer and punctiuation. On behalf of Wikipedia, I thank you. --The_stuart 18:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, RogerK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 03:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for fixing my user page up to so I don't look so much like an illiterate dummy.--The_stuart 19:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dogpatch USA edits

Roger, I see that you are a relatively new editor, so let me add my welcome. Some time ago I did a fairly extensive copyedit to Dogpatch USA in order to help improve. Most of my copyediting was relatively minor -- punctuation, simplifying wording, etc. All in all, I think it is an excellenet article, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. As an aside, that is one of the joys of Wikipedia: being exposed to information that one is otherwise very unlikely ever to encounter.

But back to my copyediting. A day or two ago you reverted a bunch of changes that I and others had made, without paying much attention, it seemed to me, to whether or not those edits improved the article. For example, you put "Dogpatch USA" back in italics in several instances (but not all). I can see no reason why this would be italicized since it is not the title of a book, movie, etc. You also reverted the change from "negative income" to "loss". I restored this because I think that the business terminology would be unclear to many readers, and a simpler term is available.

Most importantly, you restored the use of "would" to express past events. This was an issue on which I tread more carefully because I know that it is acceptable and preferable in some circumstances to use this construction. I canvassed other editors by posting a question on the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk here. Most (although not all) of the editors who commented agreed, some very strongly, that the article would be improved by converting this paragraph to the simple past. Armed with the knowledge that other editors agreed with me, I made the changes. I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this grammatical construction to be incorrect, only that in this case, the article would be improved by describing the events in a simpler grammatical construction. I understand that it is accepted in journalistic and literary circles. We are working on an encyclopedia, however.

I believe that there is support for my view in the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles:

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. The people who read it have different backgrounds, education and worldview from you. Try to make your article accessible to as many of them as possible. The reader is probably reading the article to learn. It's quite possible the reader knows nothing at all about the subject: the article needs to explain it to them.

And here:

Reduce every sentence to its essentials. Wordiness has no place in Wikipedia. Conciseness, however, does not justify removing information from an article.

Using the simple past here is less confusing for readers, especially for those for whom English is a second language.

More generally, there was a lot of wordy and grandiolquent language in the article that other editors and I had removed and you have added back in, such as "unforeseen events transform the high hopes of investors into a financial roller coaster ride which eventually ended in the park's demise." This, to me, is no encyclopedic in tone. I left most of it in, however, because you clearly feel very strongly about it. I made the tense change, however, because I fell very strongly that it makes the article clearer to the reader, and there was no need for it here.

I hope that my explanation of my changes enables you to understand why I made them. Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Roger, please accept my apologies. have been rude in not responding to you. An election has been called in Canada, and I have been spending most of my time on issues related to that. Let me respond to a few of your comments:

  • "I did this by pasting and editing excerpts from my archived copies of the article.... My apologies for that :)),
Apology accepted. We all make mistakes, especially when just starting out in Wikipedia. I certainly made mistakes.
  • I restored "negative income" because I felt that "loss" was very ambiguous; loss of what? I would prefer "financial loss" or some such phrase if it must be changed to accomodate those less likely to understand business terminology.
Hmmm... I see you point about "loss" being ambiguous. The problem that I have with "negative income" is that it is an oxymoron, and sounds very much like business jargon. "Financial loss" would be a clearer term.
  • And finally, my use of grandiloquence in the introduction was not intended as such.
And I think "grandiloquence" was an unfair characterization on my part. There probably should be room for more creative language in Wikipedia, especially in an article about an amusement park.

Again, please forgive my tardiness in responding. Keep up the good work. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

Upload the image again, giving all the information you can about it. Wikipedia:Fair use says Under U.S. copyright law, almost all work published after 1922 may have an active copyright so, 1925, we are out of luck. Tag it with {{Fairusein}}, like this:

{{Fairusein|Adelle Davis}}

Then see Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale, which will explain what further information you should put on the image description page, to explain why the image is fair use. Lots of editors don't put this rationale, although strictly they should. If you put it, it will maximise the chances of your image not being deleted. :)

Have you considered looking through PD resources for images? See Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. You never know your luck!

cheers, pfctdayelise 03:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Roger, let me say, I totally understand where you are coming from. Being lost in gibberish seems to be an integral part of immersing oneself in WP. There are many, many issues where I have just gone around in circles, pleaded on Talk pages for explanations, mostly to no avail. What do I do? Usually, let it go, and get myself lost in a different corner of the 'pedia. There are so many facets to editing here. I have become pretty heavily involved in commons:. I find it is generally a lot clearer, probably because it hasn't had time to build up m:instruction creep (and also because it strives for multilinguality).
Some circles I have travelled in: Trying to find the right noticeboard to contact an admin (there are at least three); trying to find the right Help page to ask for help on (I guess I have settled on WP:HD, but I still think the explanations are not very clear and the process is misguided - how many users come back to see the answers to their questions? not too many, I think); trying to find out which bugs are features and which features are bugs...
I often think that the WP namespace should not be editable by just anyone. They should just form a committee, and have them be responsible, and just overhaul the whole fricking thing. Or the Help/tutorial pages at least. They're just dense and impenetrable.
OK, as for the "Presumed Free images" at WP:ICT, I would say that they intend to use that when an editor has uploaded an image without any copyright information at all, someone else has wandered across it, checked it for basic copyvios (like, it's not a logo, or obviously copyrighted), and they think that the editor took/created the image themselves, but didn't understand enough about the process to state that.
Man, don't even get me started on deletions. Like the image that you uploaded that got deleted. Had the admin contacted you, this could have been sorted a week ago. But because all these stupid processes are carried out manually - placing templates, contacting uploaders - a lot of these niceties, that would always be carried out if the workload wasn't so big, fall by the wayside. And goodfaith editors such as yourself are left totally perplexed. One thing that makes me angry is how much manual labour is carried out by editors when I just think, surely there must be some way to automate this. It's just a waste: instead of contributing to the encyclopedia, we're running around after one another with this notification or the other. That really frustrates me, so I just try my best to stay away from jobs like that. I like to help other editors become enthusiastic about WP though; that's why I answer Qs on the help desk - to try and short circuit that inevitable newbie frustration. Too many editors here have forgotten what it was like, I think.
I think I have a reasonable grasp on the image issues now, though. That's after several weeks of intensive reading, re-reading and re-re-reading the relevant pages.
So, to round out this essay ;) here are a couple of tips:
  • WP search is useless. Use google search restricted to WP by including this phrase: site:en.wikipedia.org (especially helpful when you can't locate that useful page you know you've seen, but forget the name of...)
  • When it gets too frustrating, drop it, leave it, go find another unrelated corner to poke around in .
If you ever have any other WP Qs, you are welcome of course to leave a note on my Talk page. There are lots of things I still have no clue about, but I will always try...
Yours in the WP spirit, pfctdayelise 14:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - it's a pleasure to meet you too. :) pfctdayelise 10:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adelle Davis images

Are you sure? I can see three images! And the page history shows that you are the only person to have edited the page since 28 December. Maybe the images didn't load the first time? pfctdayelise 06:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, good job on tagging the images. I added the "fair use rationale" for the two pictures of her (which is necessary whenever the {{fairusein}} tag is used; this is not very strictly followed, though). Strictly speaking, the {{bookcover}} tag means the image should only be used on an article on the book (rather than on the author). But this is also not followed strictly at all. At any rate, I will add a fairusein tag to the book cover image, and then they will all be perfect and should not have any excuse to be deleted. :)
(PS. Are you working towards a featured article?) pfctdayelise 06:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey now, take it easy ;).
An m:Article validation feature is going to be introduced sometime, I don't know when. You'll be able to give "ratings" to each version of an article. So it is likely that FAs would have a lot of high ratings. Then, if the article was later edited and became messier, it would get lower ratings. I guess it means people would be able to look in the history and pick out the highest rated version. There is also Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. There have been a few proposals for various ways to "freeze" articles once they reach featured status, but so far none of them have captured the collective imagination, it seems.
Anyway, have a good weekend, be sure to let me know if you ever put it up at WP:FAC! pfctdayelise 04:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Apologies?

Hi. It's my pleasure to talk to you again. It's a one-way street, though. Apologies? I doubt it. You certainly owe me one. But I don't expect to get it, 'cause I don't think you care about "little people" here on Wikipedia, the greengrocers like me, as you so aptly put it. At any rate, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your fellow Wikipedian, RogerK 05:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have no idea what this is about, nor what you want. You seem to be concerned with some long-ago reference to greengrocers' apostrophes, which you've taken personally. I'd let it go, really — it's healthier. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (passes buck)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the red, I've just cited one of your Dogpatch USA edits as the reason I originally thought there was a call for an in the red article. Feel free to join in. --Paul A 05:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Looks like you've got it sussed now. Images from commons don't need to be "imported" - you can treat them as if they were uploaded locally. That's the beauty of the commons! If you need any more specifci help let me know. pfctdayelise 04:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12 Angry Men

Hm, having not seen the film, I'm not sure how well I can comment. :) Before nominating for FAC, I would compare it to some articles on films that have already been featured, so you have an idea of the standard. Casablanca (film) might be a good one. It is significantly longer, that is one thing that will probably be brought up... pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loung Ung

I see you've added the information that Loung Ung "is contemplating a third [book]". How did you come across this information, may I ask? Syosset 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Roger. Thanks for the prompt response. I am a registered member. My user talk page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Syosset

Hi Roger. I see you spell Loung Ung's mother's name with "Chourng" as opposed to "Choung". It says "Choung" in the book, doesn't it? Oh, and I don't really care what the caption says, but I do think that it's, perhaps, a tad wordy at this point. Syosset 02:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This is sad. It is nice to meet you also... thanks for some of your user templates on ur user page... I have incorporated them into my 'template archive' on my user page. David P. A. Hunter 12:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Easter Monkey

Roger, hi, how are you. Nice to meet you. Please don't pull out the arbitration card right away. Arbitration is a last resort once all other options are exhausted. You do what you like, of course. But let's start out on a better footing. Look forward to hearing from you. --Easter Monkey 07:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly I have been unable to communicate my intentions to you. A hastily written post to a talk page should not cloud your judgement though, as a non-professional writer I find tone very hard to convey in writing. Believe it or not, I contribute in good faith as well. As I said though, ultimately, you do what you like, whatever that might encompass, goes with saying. --Easter Monkey 06:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dogpatch Quotes

That article is locked down to payed subsribers of the paper but, that is the link to the article and it does include the quotes I cited. --The_stuart 01:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adelle Davis

It seems quite good, but I am not at all familiar with FA or peer review, so I can't say what its chances might be. I would move the lead image to the right (looks more standard) and there's a couple of footnotes that appear in the text rather than as footnotes, so they need fixing. And this has nothing much to do with the article, but try and link some longer phrases to more specific articles rather than really generic links like health, author. I mean those links are fine but there are also articles on (for example) Food additives and food industry. Google can help you find such articles by including the search term "site:en.wikipedia.org". Regards, pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my sincere apologies, Roger. I never noticed your first invitation. To make a long story short, on that day I was having a "discussion" with another user who likes to use vulgar profanities in talk pages and when I logged on that day, I only noticed his return message and didn't realize that you had also left a message. Anyway, I'm honored that you asked. It's a little late tonight, but I will make it a priority tomorrow. I did take a quick glance and, content-wise, it looks like a very-well developed and formatted article. If I have anything else to add tomorrow, I will leave a message on the talk page there.--WilliamThweatt 05:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, Roger, I did respond, didn't you see it?

I posted my peer review five days ago, as soon as I saw your note. In fact it was: 01:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Click here and you'll see it.... :) Take care, --Easter Monkey 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Ace88a3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ace88a3.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:LOUNG21A.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LOUNG21A.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Generally you should not assume an image is under a free license or available for free use, unless you see an explicit notice from the copyright-holder stating as much. Copyrighted images can still be used under the fair use rationale. You'll have to read Wikipedia:Fair use for the full details, but change the license tags to {{fairusein|article name}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loung Ung

Thanks for your message. I had a look at the article, and made a few minor changes, but generally it looks fine to me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your MedCab case at Loung Ung

Hi RogerK! I saw your case at the Mediation Cabal and I'd be willing to mediate it, but first I'd like you to at least contact Mel and say (in a complete list) what you disagree with, to give a chance for him to give you a detailed explanation and (hopefully) solve the conflict before we get to the actual mediation. fetofs Hello! 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see the discussion at Talk:Loung Ung has progressed. I'll see how things go... fetofs Hello! 13:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration? You're taking things a little bit too hard... I have already cited the policy, it says to generally use thumbnail images. Of course, it also says that setting it is acceptable. Therefore, none of the positions are "wrong" or "unacceptable", as it is general practice here to use thumbnail images instead of setting the pixel size. Might I suggest you a little break from this issue until you're not stressed anymore? Also, is the only discussion going on at Talk:Loung Ung? Could you cite the reasons why you want to use fixed px images? I thought mediation was premature when you first requested it, and arbitration would be even more premature.
Also, admins here are not like admins on other sites. I mean, normally, on the other sites, admins are a few (three/two max) hand-picked users who take over the site. At WP, adminshp is just about having handy tools. Next time you see an admin, just ignore that fact. He can't abuse his authority, because he doesn't have none, except for being able to block you. If he does, WP:RfAr is your friend. fetofs Hello! 12:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Roger, see Image:Wikiscreenshot_ung.jpg (on 800x600 resolution). The left one is the thumb, the right one is the fixed size image. Can this get the biggest point on using thumb images through? fetofs Hello! 12:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's true that a lot of FAs use fixed pixel images. If you think setting it is the best way, I think the primary way to solving this would be to step back and let you fix it, as the policy is not defined, but we still should continue the discussion before unilaterally changing it. Leave a message at Talk:Loung Ung and try to restart the discussion.
P.S: No, I don't want to say my name :P fetofs Hello! 13:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to disappoint you, but I agree with Mel at The Lady of Shalott. The images do seem to me not to be aesthetically pleasing, and they're much larger than the recommended max of 250px. However, you have to solve this issue with Mel, not with me. fetofs Hello! 19:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I meant that it is you that has to post a message in User talk:Mel Etitis so we can continue. fetofs Hello! 16:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, we can wait for his reply. My suggestion for a break is still valid, for instance. fetofs Hello! 11:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JW and Franz

Hi Roger! Vap0rtranz here, from Raymond Franz's page. We were editing on top of each other yesterday, aye? ;) I had a few concerns about reverting my edits and decided your Talk page would be a good place to discuss them.

My first concern is nomenclature. I want the article to be readable by non-JW's so, generally, I thought it best to write "religion" for anything not specific to JW's and "organization" for anything specific to Watchtower things. An anonymous user applied my general rule when they edited "was born and raised into the Jehovah's Witness religion". Obviously, that's awkward wordin ; I prefer your reversion "was born in 1922 and raised as a third-generation Jehovah's Witness". So it seems my general rule is flawed and wonder what should be our guide.

I similary am concerned about your revision of the Intro replacing my use of the word "religion" with "religious group". I find this latter term awkward because it sounds like a politically correct way to say "sect". I am not certain whether JW's are listed by the U.S. or other governments as a sect or cult, so why not call simply call Franz a member of a religion? The Dominican case would be a good citation, if anyone could find whether the Watchtower corporations were banned or any person professing to be a JW were banned, or, as I feel (but have no evidence) the Catholic Church convinced the Dominican government to ban JW's, both members and incorporations, as a competing religion.

Later, your revisions removed "publisher", "pioneer", and "branch overseer" and, although I see your point on terminology, I only included them so readers could watch Franz's progression through the hierachial organization. Also, I included a brief description of what these terms meant or how Franz personified them. So, I believe these terms fit the JW Project guide as instances of the line: "Avoid phrases that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses that haven't been defined within the article". It is clear to me that as long as "pioneer", for example, is briefly defined in the Franz article by his full-time evangelizing, it fits this guideline. Incase a reader found even these brief descriptions insufficient, I included links to the organizational structure article where they are defined. But to broadly avoid any JW-specific terms, we could not include the term "Governing Body" but would always have to refer to some "cardinal-like council of men similar to Roman Catholicism", where I prefer to keep the former because it is verbosely explained in another Wiki, whereas the later would require a reader to cite "cardinal", "council", "Roman Catholics" etc. So, if we editors abstract JW articles to a kind of meta-religious nomenclature, then our readers could, I believe, be confused about what is specific to JW's versus any other religion.

Secondly, I am concerned about edits to cited statements, specifically edits that are more than grammatical. For example, I originally wrote that Franz "submitted a great number of biblical topics to the encyclopedia" and you revised this as "submitted a great number of biblical topics to Knorr for approval". I looked over Crisis of Conscience again but cannot find Franz attributing the collection or compilation to anyone, although he does say, in footnote 22 of Ch. 2 "The five of us recieved our assignments of subjects through Karl Adams, then the head of the Writing Department." So both our versions are incorrect: my version attempted to be vague about who compiled these articles by passively saying they went to the book; your version places the collection of articles on Knorr. So to be a cited statement, I think we should replace the terminology "collected" with "assigned" and only mention the 'head of the Writing Department' as giving the assignments. Otherwise it's our opinion, especially in regards the structure of the organzation (which the Nathan Knorr article already discusses).

So on these two points, namely, editing cited statements and nomenclature, I hope to reach some agreement. Kindest regard, Justin 01:04, 29 and 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I took a small vacation :) In response to your suggestions from 29 June 2006 (UTC), "religion" sounds preferable to "religious group", and I will just drop JW specific terms from now on (although I disagree). Missionary, luckily, is generic enough for the Franz article. And, the blurb in your response, citing Christian Freedom, sounds great! I feel it should be pasted into the article. (Hint, hint) Finally, about the 'editors who want it done their way': I am more of a writer than an editor, so I am not too disturbed by some Wikipedians preferring Raymond over Ray or other disputes of form. To get in fights of form and style would be the wrong battle, for me at least.
I had to return my copy of Crisis but I am checking it out again to continue the article. Thanks for responding ... faster than me Justin 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ace88a3.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ace88a3.jpg, 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. Selket Talk 07:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/g/User_talk%7ERogerK_308b.html"