User talk:Verloren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice work on Minnesota, Paul. --trimalchio

Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in labarum - hope this is clearer! --MichaelTinkler

You flatter me... I love you...I love you all! -- Verloren

Hey Verloren -- I thought (because my Londoner husband has pounded into my head) that Cockneys really are only in a specific part of the East End, i.e., within hearing distance of the Bells of Bow(e) (sp?) User:JHK

JHK - you're right (though I believe the common term is Bow bells). I don't know if that's an 'official' definition because Cockney isn't necessarily an 'official' designation.

I strongly disagree with removing links (e.g., apple in Cockney rhyming slang on the grounds that it doesn't add to the understanding of the article. I think all internal links are a good thing. I facilitates cross-topic browsing. --User:Dmerrill

I, on the other hand, agree with removing links of low (if not 'no') relevancy to the current article, like the 'homo sapiens' for 'men' in heresy. Links like that are distracting. A few months ago someone (magnus?) suggested that in some wonderful future incarnation of the software linking will be irrelevant and every word will be clickable. Until then, I think that if you have a sudden curiosity about what 'apple' is, that's what the search box is for. --MichaelTinkler
I hadn't analyzed it in depth, but for me there are two reasons to link a piece of text:
1. The term is unfamiliar to the general reader
2. The linked article is useful in understanding the current article, but something of a detour (which is why the explanation is not in the main article)
Links done for other reasons are confusing:
1. They look untidy/unattractive (especially when used to refer to plurals such as apples.
2. It falsely suggests that the reader would gain a better understanding of this article by hopping over to the linked one. Linking to faith in the Aquinas quote is a suprisingly good example - although I know what faith is, that article contrasts faith with belief in an enlightening way. Against this the 'men' link told me almost nothing about men in relation to heresy, instead explaining tool making etc. Very interesting, but not relevant.
So apple is a concept I feel I'm pretty much on top of, and while the linked article is very good, it doesn't add anything to my understanding of Cockney Rhyming Slang. As for cross-topic browsing, I think limiting people to relevant but tangential articles lets them coverage a broad spectrum of interest, without incurring the problems mentioned above. Thanks for the comments both ways! User:Verloren

Hi Verloren, Please at least respond to me, I've moved this comment to the bottom of the page as that seems to be to usual practice. Perry. User: Perry Bebbington here, can we discuss you my insertion and your removal of the link to Encarta in the article about Nottingham please?

I did think twice about putting it in. Encarta is another encycopedia, of a different kind. It is Microsoft, which has a very different ethic to the one behind Wikipedia. I decided that it was worth putting the link in because it does link to useful, accurate information about Nottingham. Surely this is what Wikipedia is about - accurate information for all to share? If Encarta has relevant information are we so proud that we are not going to refer to it?

What do you think? User: Perry Bebbington

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - I'm not as active as I used to be, so don't check this page too often. I removed the link not because we shouldn't endorse Encarta (a good resource), but a) If it's useful information I'd rather see it included in Wikipedia directly, and more importantly b) because the link doesn't serve a useful purpose. If you have a link to a history of heraldry in Nottingham, or a thesis on the influence of the river Trent on the lace trade or best of all a site with lots of pictures of Nottingham, then by all means link it. But linking to Encarta, or any other encyclopedia (or dictionary) is superfluous. Of course Encarta has an interesting article about Nottingham, it's an encyclopedia! Why not just reduce Wikipedia to a list of stubs pointing to Encarta, Britannia, Merriam-Webster etc? Thanks for the comment - let me know what you think!

Hi Verloren, now I understand why you removed the link I am happy. I agree with you, I just had not thought of it like that. Thanks for answering my query. I've not been on here much lately. I did write various articles on subjects I know about, but it is getting harder to find gaps I can fill. I don't want to get into doing research on subjects I don't know anything about, as some people like to do. All the best, Perry. User: Perry Bebbington

Concerning the stats page: Wow, I had no idea this had been changed. Looks like the definition of what is considered to be an article is now more conservative. Before very short articles were counted as articles as were blank pages (if I remember correctly). But this doesn't appear to be the case anymore. I know a few sysops have deleted (myself included) hundreds of blank, "Describe the new page here" pages along with other garbage pages. For any more info on this please ask wikiware guru user:Brion VIBBER. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi Verloren,

Please specify within the entry of why this Sinclair Research ZX81 computer is special to video games that it should be included in the video game timeline.

Thanks,

Tonius 18:03|2003.08.15

Good point, if it is one of the first 'personal' computers to play video games then it's good to stay. I'll probably mention the names of the 1958 analog computer and the 1961 mainframe computers since they're the first to ever play "video" games.

Last night I figured out that there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of versions of the earliest home computers that can play video games. That's why I've been trying to weed the all of them out of the list until I got more information about them (suspended until further notice).

Thus, I or we will try to include only the ones that are special to the video game history, just like only the major home consoles (because there are even hundreds/thousands of console clone versions all over the world and if I were to include all of these pc/console clones together then this would become a super long list and then it'll start to become an almost any VG computer timeline.)

It's possible in the future that I'll single out the outstanding PC manufacturers for video games as well.

If you could, just write on the side of your entries a sidenote about being one of the first to play video games for a (home) PC.

Thanks for your help and thanks for the praise,

User talk:Tonius 18:55|2003.08.15

Hi Verloren:

Allow me to present my apologies for what happened by letting you be the first to know of the 4 newest webpages linked to the Timeline of video games.

E3 2003 (Electronic Entertainment Expo)
· The 9th annual expo is held at the Los Angeles Convention Center
· The 6th annual Game Critics Awards For The Best Of E3
Gama Network (a division of CMP Media LLC, owned by United Business Media)
· hosts the 5th annual Independent Games Festival (IGF)
GDC (Game Developers Conference)
· hosts the 3rd annual Game Developers Choice Awards
AIAS Hall Of Fame

Sorry & Enjoy,

User:Tonius 03:09|2003.08.16

[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] Minneapolis meetup

Hello Verloren. I'm contacting you since you are listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Minnesota. I'm going to be at a conference in Minneapolis and am planning a Wikipedia meetup for October 8. If you are near Minneapolis at that time, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Minneapolis. Angela. 20:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota

You may want to know the article you helped create, Minnesota is on its way towards becoming a featured article. As part of that I am checking the info and finding references. I don't suppose you can think back 4 years and remember where you picked up the geography tidbits, can you? [1]. Thanks -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and there is also a 2006 meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/Minneapolis - Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/r/User_talk%7EVerloren_8a07.html"