User talk:Black Widow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol Susan Mason

That was a fairly impressive display of sarcasm; the gravestone was a nice touch. --Uncle Ed

Some comments on your excellent Concorde pic:
First point: The pic description (seen by clicking on the pic) is blank. As the supplier of the BA pic, I would be interested to know the source.
Second point: Just as a personal opinion, I think pics look a lot better embedded in the text, preferably on the right hand side so as not to disrupt the text flow against the left margin. Are you willing to move your pic? I can do it for you if you wish.
Third point: I don't much like the heavy caption text, I think it stands out too much. Paper encyclopedias don't have this heavy emphasis. However, I have changed my caption to match.
I only mention all this stuff because I'm interested in graphic design. Best Wishes -- Arpingstone 23:02 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me alter the layout of your Concorde pic in the Concorde article, I really appreciate it. I thought the page would look more varied if I put the pic on the left. -- Arpingstone 09:20 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hi there. just a few points:

  • no point in moving a page to "Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Yveslines" -- there's only one Saint-Germain-en-Laye, and, ironically, the name itself is already naturally disambiguated by the "en Laye" part
  • if you do move pages, use the "move page" command, not a copy & paste
  • and don't create mis-spelt page names please

and finally, has something really happened to user DW? -- Tarquin 09:24 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions to the French cities articles. This being said, I do not want to start an edit war with you, but I believe that your systematic disambiguation of French cities' articles is not appropriate. Why disambiguate when the name is only held by one place? olivier 16:20 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

While starting the article Communes of the Val-d'Oise département of France, you added this comment: "(pasted two hours of work for a list of all communes Val-d'Oise. Hope this is okay). So FYI, this article already exists in the French Wiki. Copying it from there and adapting it to the format of the English language Wikipedia would probably have taken much less time. This being said, I still disagree with your systematic disambiguation. olivier 17:32 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hi - the reason that US place names are given in the form "Place, State" is, as I understand it, because that is how they are most often referred to in print and speech. This is largely because there are many US placenames duplicated across several states. This isn't the case with British, German, French, etc places, where normally only the name and not the county, département etc, is given. For that reason we have Springfield, Illinois but simply Doncaster not "Doncaster, South Yorkshire". --Camembert

I've run the list of communes through a search&replace to change the links. A place ssuch as Magny-en-Vexin is already disambiguated: the "en Vexin" part distinguishes it from another Magny somewhere else in France. -- Tarquin 18:21 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Don't write on my talk page. I won't be responding to you. -- Zoe


Black Widow, please re-read what Camembert writes above. there is no need to include the name of the department in the article name for a french commune, UNLESS something else shares the name & there is an ambiguity. I'll fix the other pages when I get round to it; but it really isn't that much work: all it takes is a search&replace in a text editor. As for your "hours of work" -- lists of french communes sorted by department are available in many places online. I do hope you're not typing these out from paper; if that is the case then you really are wasting your time. I hope this matter is now closed. I find your "DW - murdered by the wikipedia mafia" image particularly disturbing, and I would rather keep contact with you to a minumum. -- Tarquin 20:30 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Reply to Tarquin:

Regretfully, I do not accept treating one country different than others, and an encyclopedia in fact exists only to teach. Why would you be against me doing that, when I am the one who did 90% of the work on all lists of French Communes and you screwed up a few? You haven't given a legitimate reason and to some it might seem that you base your statements solely on a desire to do things "your way". Give Wikipedia users substantive reasons for discriminating against France, England or other countriues outside the USA? (Note, I did the Entire list of all Canadian communities.) And, if you can "fix" things so easy, why did you just delete one or two and leave a mess? That kind of participation in Wikipedia is certainly not helpful, it is only destructive. Some might call that hypocrisy. Too, another very important reason is to avoid what already is a major problem on Wikipedia -- linking to wrong articles. (Quite honestly, I find it incredible that I have to explain this.) Once you create an article, it pops up in 1 to 100+ other places. I note that very very few at Wikipedia (and I came across it again today several times) both to do a search and correct links. I do every time an any article I post. Note the job done to distort my claim on Neufchateau. Once you have the article, it creates a massive amount of work to fix ALL the links. But, list the place with its name and county/departement etc, you reduce false links by 99%. False links DRIVE away newcomers to Wikipedia who dismiss the site as worthless. )Particulary when it is so slow.) And, the Mafia are people who force their will on others for their own personal gain. 97% of the late DW's articles were never logged in as he didn't need anything other than the satisfaction of helping make Wikipedia a valid, just, non-discriminatory encyclopedia. I shall change things back so that Wikipedia treats ALL people equally unless you can tell everyone why it should not. Thank you, and God Bless. User:Black Widow


Hi! from Adrian. As with the Concorde caption, I very much dislike the bolded caption style you've used on "my" map of the route of the River Seine. So I hope you don't feel too hurt if I revert it back to a gentler look. -- Arpingstone 23:01 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Imagine all the fun after GW starts WWIII!Susan Mason

I agree that it should be Toulon Departement Susan Mason 11:04 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Black Widow, I think you must be referring to the comment that I removed from the Rachel Corrie article, I wasn't removing it because it was an anonymous comment but because it was a comment. I think that the period around now is probably going to be the time when the most people are searching for the name 'Rachel Corrie' and I think that if they end up at the Wikipedia article then it should look like an encyclopaedia article and not a discussion. I personally don't think that text in capitals and in braces belongs in an article so I moved it to the talk page. If the person who had added it had been a signed in user I still would have moved it but probably have titled the change Removing comment by User:XYZ to talk page instead. Also, I felt that the comment wasn't NPOV, SHE WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE TO THE DRIVER can't be shown to be true unless the driver wants to join the discussion, for all we know he was looking over his shoulder. That last sentence sounds a bit childish and pedantic written down but I can't think of a better way to write it I'm afraid. Anyway, happy editing -- Ams80 16:37 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi!! Can we agree on a common stance on picture captions. I would suggest that one or two-line captions are centred (looks smart), for example Chopin's grave at Pere Lachaise, but captions of three lines or more are kept left-justified, for example Severn Bridge. I think centring of multi-line captions looks strange. After all, a caption is a mini-article about the picture so why should a longer caption be centred? What say you? -- Arpingstone 17:53 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Black Widow misunderstanding

I am afraid that there could be misunderstandings in the near future regarding what I have said to User:Black Widow. Before forming an opinion, please read User talk:Olivier, User talk:Black Widow, User:Tarquin and User talk:Tarquin. olivier 17:11 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl persecutes us, but remember what Jesus said! For every time they persecute you now, you will be blessed a thousand-fold later! Susan Mason

Whew, that's some heavy sarcasm on your page. I know almost nothing of your disputes, but read about your resentment of Maveric editing a few articles, so I took a look at the Hank Snow article as a representative example, both before DW, with DW edits, and after DW. I don't get it. What was done was just some minor stuff, normal Wikipedia revisions. What was wrong with it? jaknouse 00:23 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

The problem was that DW, AKA Black Widow, AKA several unlogged in addresses, wanted to create articles in his own style, regardless of the standard Wikipedia style. He didn't believe in putting dates of birth and death in the first sentence, he didn't believe in making the first sentence a complete sentence, and he was vociferously against advising us as to the nationalities of people at any point in the article. -- Zoe

What I said wasn't quite clear, I'm afraid. I meant that I didn't understand why DW/Black Widow resented Maveric's edits. jaknouse 04:41 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

No, I understood you perfectly. The reason DW resented Maveric's edits was because they were made by someone other than DW. -- Zoe

FYI: As the "ONLY authority", Mr. Wales hereby declares that Black Widow is banned from wikipedia for blatant disregard of policy and rude behavior. "She" can take it up with me if she chooses to do so. mailing list post

User:Joe Canuck as Black Widow/DW/etc. You the jury decide. Martin

[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] Unverified image

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}}:

GFDL Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers.

if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}}

Copyrighted

This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips. However, it is believed that the use of this work:

  • To illustrate the object in question
  • Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
  • On the English-language Wikipedia ([1]), hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation ([2]),

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Copyrights.

To the uploader: Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

This tag should not be used. Instead, use either one of the more specific tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use or {{Non-free fair use in|article name}}.

if you claim fair use, and so on.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image from at my talk page and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni☯ 04:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.


ALSO:

  • Image:Charibert I.jpg

[edit] Image tagging for Image:DanteRossettixx.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:DanteRossettixx.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. 07:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Charibert I.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Charibert I.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)