User talk:RupertMillard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello there Rupert!!!, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

HTH HAND Phil | Talk 13:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image:Bham crest new.png

When I uploaded this PNG file, I used the same copyright notice that was on the JPEG file it superseded. I'm not sure if that copyright applies any more as the shield has been around since the university was founded in 1900. What do you think? RupertMillard 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the copyright almost certainly still applies. The crest of the University of Oxford has been around since God-knows-when and is still as copyrighted now as it ever has been. Unless explicitly stated by the University, crests are considered logos, and are therefore intellectual property of the university. Thus, they are fair use and require the "logo" tag. It is annoying, I know, but they're the rules!
Cheers, DJR (Talk) 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well thanks very much for your help. It's a bit of a pity - it looks so plain. Anyway, thanks again. RupertMillard 23:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
No probs - I know the feeling - I created all the Oxford Uni ones that used to look awesome, and now look crap! DJR (Talk) 23:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wire Gauges

Thanks for proposing the merge of Stubs Iron Wire Gauge and Birmingham wire gauge; excellent work. I was not aware that the latter existed, much less that the two were synonymous. If you can find another solid source for that claim of synonymity, then I think the claim becomes verifiable and we should do the merge. Perhaps I'm biased coming from the medical angle, but I think that since the Stubs is still widely used, it should be the main article, and Birmingham should redirect to it. Let's continue any merge-related discussions here. Thanks again. - Draeco 04:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverting ZS

Hi, just to let you know, the user in question is banned from Wikipedia. He is a persistent vandal and troll, and assume good faith does not apply to his sockpuppets. I'm not going to comb through his edits and decide which ones are good and which are vandalism. When new sockpuppets are identified, I will continue to revert all his edits without looking at them. Of course, if you see one that you want to keep (as in the Bring radical case), you can make the edit yourself. I have no problem with that. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So he's never given an opportunity to reform? I don't know what the mechanism was, but I heard of a vandal reforming before, and I think that should be encouraged. RupertMillard 11:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rupert, I'm the token Zephram supporter in this joint. As you'll have noticed, Zephram has a good deal of imagination, wit, persistence, time and resourcefulness, and that is displayed simply in evading his ban and winding up one or two users (such as JW1805) who would seek to suppress him. Yes, in the past he has said one or two things you and I might not have, but in the scheme of things it seems to me - and I have tried, on dozens of occasions, to make the case to "the authorities" - that Zephram is more use in the tent piddling out of it, as it were - but all to no avail. Admins and officious users take delight in snuffing out the Starkmeister wherever they can. ElectricRay 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
He's a troll, plain and simple. He had his chance to "reform", the Arbitration case against him was after months of disruptive behavior. ElectricRay is the only person who thinks he was a useful member of the Wikipedia community!--JW1805 (Talk) 21:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I defer to precedent and the voice of experience, etc. Hope he's not too much of a pain. RupertMillard 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Pain? He's hysterical! It's an enormous shame that JW keeps reverting his stuff - some of it is priceless. ElectricRay 22:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triple continental divide

Answer on my talk - Leonard G. 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC) - and further updated - Leonard G. 23:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I reordered the rivers and their destinations clockwise for clarity. The final copy:
The Columbia River, Athabasca River, and the North Saskatchewan River, originate in the Columbia Icefield. As the icefield is atop a triple continental divide these waters flow ultimately west to the Pacific Ocean, north to the Arctic Ocean, and east to Hudson's Bay (and thence to the North Atlantic) respectively. Hudson's bay is in some major watershead divisions considered to be in the Arctic watershead, in which case this is arguably not a triple divide point. - Leonard G. 05:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Thanks for the info on redirects, it will definitely help in my ongoing efforts to clean up the Futurama articles.Stardust8212 00:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] None: Beefart replies

Thanks for you comments. Few take the time to discuss grammar on Wikipedia and it shows in many articles. I disagree with you about 'none'. The word comes from the Old Norse ne an, which means, literally "no one". In my view, to get the sense of any usage of 'none' we must expand it in our minds to "no one". It is impossible to say "no one are dinosaurs". It has to be "no one is a dinosaur". Here are two examples from the OED: (E.J. Howard): Except for her eyes, none of her features was remarkable. (P. Rose): People sought her... but none was a companion. HOWEVER, the plot thickens, because the OED also gives this example from Graham Greene, who is highly regarded as a writer: None of our wives are invited. This flies in the face of the first two examples and suggests that the OED has given up the fight. Maybe I ought to as well :) :). There are of course some situations where expanding "none" to "no one" does not make any sense as either a singular or a plural. (e.g. None of the increase is due to...). Here the best we can hope for is to propose that "none" is a synonym for "nothing". I personally try to avoid expressions such as "None of the increase" and would be inclined to write "No part of the increase"...Captainbeefart 11:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Beefart adds: This exercise has made me lean towards your view. Hoi polloi rules and one has to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. Some structures in English that were originally dictated by logic are overrun in the end by common usage. The fact that pedants such as myself want to keep the original means nothing. How many writers today respect the differences between "owing to" and "due to", "intense vs. intensive", or "disinterested vs. "uninterested"? Here are a couple of examples of "lost causes" from old lang syne: (1) In lamenting the loss of his son, Ben Jonson (c. 1600) wrote "Rest in sweet peace and asked, say "Here doth lie Ben Jonson his best piece of poetry". Apart from the archaic 'doth lie', the first thing to note is that 'lie' used to rhyme with 'poetry'. The second is that the possessive 's is new fangled invention. "Jonson's" used to be "Jonson his". So now everyone happily writes "This is Susan's pen". i.e., this is Susan, his pen :) :) The form of course ought to be Susan'r.... (2) Wittengenstein saw through all of the pedantic mist when he asked "What exactly do we mean when we say 'The submarine set sail'"?.... You have an enquiring and informed mind. This makes a change. Many at Wikipedia fondly imagine they have advanced skills but they are sorely deluded. Every day I am witness to prehistoric alterations hacked out by ill-informed fools who are so far up themselves they have almost disappeared... (Example: I am struggling with one clown who thinks that "a suspect sign" is no different from a "suspicious sign"). There is an old English expression that goes: "In the land of the blind, one eye is King". The truth of Wikipedia is that "In the land of the blind, one eye is overlooked". If you ever feel inclined to debate usage of our peerless Mother Tongue, I'd love to hear from you.... Captainbeefart 12:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warwick School image

I am seriously unbothered about what the correct tag on the wretched photo of the front of the school is, and if Wikipedia really wants me to remove a photo that the school uses for publicity purposes - I can think of not much that is less in the public domain - then I will do so. I can then stand in exactly the same place, and take exactly the same photograph, and upload it. Now, which is a better use of my time, to leave things as they are, or to replace the photograph?G N Frykman 19:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you know me, I may sound belligerent, but I didn't put that wretched photo in in the first place. I may have written most of the rest of the article, but not that bit, which is all that remains of a scurrilous effort, largely concerning an incorrect version of my middle name. I am very grateful that you have put the "correct" tag on the photo, but I actually believed that I had done so myself, following, as I did, the tortuous instructions supplied... I had no feedback from the Wiki-police, so I assumed that I had got it right! Best wishes to you and B'ham, G N Frykman 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kreuz Kaiserberg

Because the article only contained an external link. Such articles are deletable under WP:CSD: Articles #4, as they don't contain any useful information that couldn't just be found via a search engine. Please feel free to recreate the article with more content, though!

As for not leaving you a message, you're right, and I'm sorry. I'll do that next time. Cheers, Snoutwood (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I guess I reverted wrongly. Thanks for help though. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 10:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warwick School

Thanks for spotting the silly comment, and reverting.--G N Frykman 19:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! RupertMillard (Talk) 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, dear Rupert, for your help with the photo of my second cousin once removed's figurine which she is looking after to stop the grasping niece of her late next-door-neighbour grabbing before probate is granted...--G N Frykman 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done on being on UC. I suppose the series has already been filmed, and you know the results, but you're not allowed to divulge them??--G N Frykman 18:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the attempts of a current U6 boy (Oxbridge applicant and all) to put himself amongst the alumni. I check once per day, but you got there first! --G N Frykman 08:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kangaroo unicycle

Hey there! I've proposed that Kangaroo unicycle be merged back with unicycle, as it's quite short and doesn't really seem to leave much room for expansion. If you're planning to expand it, though, I'll lay off. Let me know! --Grahamtalk/mail/e 18:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/p/User_talk%7ERupertMillard_2d6d.html"