User talk:Ishi Gustaedr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ishi Gustaedr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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!  --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Chocolate

Sorry for the late response time. I've been a little busy lately. Anyways, I don't think that the reference even needs to be included, considering I don't think it's controversial. If anyone doesn't believe that there's chocolate liquor, a quick Google test will confirm there is. At first glance, the reference doesn't look like it really establishes anything. However, if you think the reference needs to be included, just put it anywhere where it is suitable in the section. I just took it out because it looked really bad in the contents box, and in the header. If you think I was wrong, however, just add it back in, and if you think that's right, it's probably best. Anyways, thanks for contacting me about the issue, and if you have anymore questions, just contact me at my talkpage. Thanks! Cool Bluetalk to me 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: boot device terminology

Hello,

I have left a comment concerning your question/remark on the discussion page of Booting. Although you didn't sign your entry I have mentioned your name as original poster as well. Feel free to remove your name if this is inacceptable.

Best regards, Richard 13:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to forget to sign my posts a lot! --Ishi Gustaedr 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Gefanuc logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gefanuc logo.png. 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 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I received the above notice about orphaned content. However, the image in question is not orphaned. It is used on the page GE Fanuc Automation. It had not had a fair use review yet so I don't know if that had something to do with it. I have requested a fair use review but I'm still a little concerned that the above message thinks it is an orphaned image. Is there anything more I need to do? --Ishi Gustaedr 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite clearly it's not orphaned, so I just removed the tag. Maybe the bot was misbehaving, who knows? Anyhoo, any further problems you can post at my talk page. --DeLarge 16:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Ishi Gustaedr 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Electric

I've reverted this link several times but have reached a frustration point. This is obviously someone wanting attention and not a serious commentary on the company. Seems he/she is simply re-posting regardless of any valid argument against it. I see you have participated in the discussion in the past. Your thoughts would be helpful if you are so inclined. [1] ++Arx Fortis 03:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I've been thinking a bit about what to do. I'm hesitant to post too much there because of the potential semblance of conflict of interest, although it should be pretty clear to everyone that this link really doesn't belong. With the potential semblance of COI, I'm worried my posting could hurt more than help. Anyway I'll work something up that should be NPOV and non-COI, though, and post it. --Ishi Gustaedr 13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GE Fanuc Automation

I could go either way in both those issues. I thought <references> was deprecated, but you are right; chalk it up to folklore. As for postal addresses vs. jurisdictions, I think [[Category:Charlottesville, Virginia]] is limited to the city, and a metro Charlottesville category would make sense. I came across things like Albemarle High School put in category Charlottesville instead Albemarle, based on its postal address. You could use both cats, or create a category Metro Cville. Somehow I don't think category Charlottesville means postal address Charlottesville but I could be wrong. -Colfer2 (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I got Google Earth installed which does a good job of showing administrative boundaries and it shows the area of Charlottesville vs. Albemarle pretty well and GE Fanuc is definitely outside of the Charlottesville boundary. In addition I looked at the [[Category:Charlottesville, Virginia]] page again and see at the top is says "This category is for the independent city of Charlottesville, Virginia." which validates your assertion about the intent of that category. So, I'll just leave things as you edtited them. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Note maps are usually inaccurate in one area: the Cville/Albemarle border within UVa. The line actually goes through both U-Hall and JPJ, and between the Rotunda and Madison Hall. I wrote a long footnote it with links to the PDF map that will slow many computers to a crawl. Currently the footnote is Charlottesville,_Virginia#cite_note-7. Also, about having a Cville-area category, it "may" be that Wikipedia prefers that articles not belong to both a subcategory and a larger category. Oh well. Diagram here: Help:Category#Category considerations. I don't know what's done in practice. -Colfer2 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate egg merge

I'm sorry this bothered you, but Chocolate egg now has a really nice home here. I also left a note on the article's history if you would like to read it. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 19:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image: Pele HVO

I take it we are going to argue this back & forth. As you see from the painter's website it WAS A COMMISSIONED WORK BY THE VOLCANO NATIONAL PARK: "In 2003 the Volcanoes National Park, with the sponsorship of the Mountain Institute and a judging panel of highly respected kupuna (Hawaiian elders, teachers and leaders), held a competition to see which artist in Hawai’i could paint the best new version of the Goddess Pele. So now my painting of the ancestral deity hangs permanently at the visitors’ center in the park!" http://www.arthurjohnsen.com/about

Plus it is a permanent which now brings it under the ownership of VNP. I bet if you try to take it you'd get charged with the federal crime if theft of government property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 02:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


First I correct my last: I meant that the Government cannot claim copyright since it is pubic property thereby public domain. Second, copyright may even still exist but in most cases unlikely because the commissioned art work was in come cases a work for the Government or may have even be donated to the Government. Whatever the case the law is clear if the work was done by an employee: "§ 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." Source Title 17, of the United States Code. Copyright Law

No copyright claim is present at the site nor is it a lended picture on display. It is presently property of the US Government, which makes it public property or public domain.

In addition fair use can be claimed since the inclusion of the photo is for a teaching purpose; hence the facts that Wikipedia is an virtual educational encyclopedia and is non-commercial because it is free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 01:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Paradiver, please continue this at Image_talk:Pele_HVO.JPG. I'll copy this comment to there. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply: The image hangs in the Volcano National Park Visitor's Center and is public property. Copyright is eligible since it is government property.

Your Post: It appears you uploaded a photograph you took, Image:Pele_HVO.JPG, to illustrate the Pele (deity) article. It is a beautiful picture and makes the article look very nice. However, I am concerned about a possible copyright infringement. We need permission from the copyright holder of the painting you photographed. The page MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-ownwork says "The act of scanning or photocopying someone else's work is not considered to be "creative".--Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lovely illustration, I agree. WP:COPYREQ may be helpful, as well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

further discussion at Image_talk:Pele_HVO.JPG

[edit] Types of chocolate section

I have read your comments (which you forgot to sign by the way ;) and I kind of disagree with them. It's a pretty good section, and it'll probably my last major addition due to the article's length. It gathers the main facts together and it does it well. What's not to like? (Besides what you've said, which I've replied too). Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 02:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I actually used the main articles and Types of chocolate to get my info. I hope that's okay. Hey, we get two more reliable references added to the article, right? Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 02:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And again, the section gives info about chocolate types that aren't even mentioned much elsewhere in the article (mainly the "Sweet" chocolates). Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Good thing we have SineBot! ;-)
You asked what's not to like, aside from my earlier comments? Let's see:
  • I posted a comment on the article talk page and you responded on my talk page. How is anyone supposed to follow the discussion that way? In two months when someone looks at that section and says "hmm... this is redundant" and looks in the Chocolate talk page to see what the deal is, they'll see my comment with no follow-up discussion. Maybe they'll think no one rose to defend the section and feel free to delete it.
  • Why do you See also for "White Chocolate" and "Milk Chocolate" but not for "Dark Chocolate"?
Because Dark chocolate redirects to Types of chocolate. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I will remove them. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You really don't need each of those "White Chocolate", "Dark Chocolate", etc. to be full subsections. They'll each only one paragraph. I'd get rid of those subsection headings and just have it all as a few paragraphs in the one section.
  • What kind of order is that: "White Chocolate", "Dark Chocolate", "Sweet Chocolate"? Wouldn't it make more sense to put them in some sort of logical order, like most common to least common? At the very least, white chocolate should be last, considering it isn't always even considered chocolate. (Don't get me wrong -- I love white chocolate and think it should be given a place of honor, but that's not important.)
  • The section labeled "Sweet Chocolate" starts out by talking about "Unsweetened Chocolate". That's pretty confusing. Of course, when you get rid of the section headings, that problem will be solved.
  • Maybe the order of the paragraphs should be: Unsweetened Chocolate (I'd put it first because it is the purest and should give a good lead-in to the rest -- of course, that's what the Blending section already does.), next Sweetened Chocolate in general, and then one that describes some of the different sweetened chocolates.
However, I think the biggest problem is the fact that I seem to be emotionally invested in all this somehow and it might start coming out in my comments (if it hasn't already). And it can't be fun for you to have me micro-managing every edit you make. It doesn't matter how damaging I think some of your edits might be to the article, far more damaging to Wikipedia and the community would be me losing my cool and lashing out. I am certainly trying to assume good faith on your part -- I do believe that you want to make the article into something you think is better, even if I have questions about some background motives.
So I think it would be better for me to excuse myself from the article for a bit, gain some distance, cool down, etc. Please understand, this isn't me slamming the door and leaving in a huff. (At least, I don't think it is.) Hopefully, it is me being mature and realizing that I do need to step back for a while. Then, I'll come back to the article in a month or two and see how it looks.(I wrote this in the morning and let it sit before sending it. Now I've looked at the recent changes you made and I can't let them go by without cleanup.) --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Wow, dude I'm really sorry. I didn't think this was causing so much frustration to you. It's just REALLY hard sometimes. Like you said, racing to complete everyone's tasks, expanding the article, adding reliable references, it's just A LOT of work. In regards to the history section,, why do I have to summarize History of chocolate? I'll jsut add a {{seealso}} template instead. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try less racing. What's the rush? --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)