User talk:Kprobst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] timestamp?

what's wrong with the timestamp? Also, you can sign your posts without a timestamp with ~~~.

dposse

dposse 17:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The timestamp is problematic. But I didn't know it could be removed, so thanks. |klaus

Welcome. But why is it a problem? I find the timestamp to be really cool looking. Makes what i do "official" somehow. dposse 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Link Spam?

Why is this link spam?

Under .NET Framework

---71.252.197.197

Because all the changes that originate from that IP are added to .NET articles and point to the same site. -- klaus
So, the fact that they are valid and relevant links doesn't mattter? They are added to .NET because the site is about .NET. I think you've got a mistaken notion of spam.
The links might very well relevant - that's not the point. There are thousands of programming sites out there. What makes yours more relevant than the next guy's? -- klaus

So, you are arguing that it's not the MOST relevant site now? That's a little subjective, don't you think? The fact is this is a pretty unique wiki site dedicated to C# and .NET with lots of resource pages and growing fast. Let's not be childish about this. Let's get a second opinion. 71.252.197.197

It's a pretty unique site in your opinion. If it is encyclopedic in nature then someone will add the link other than you. Adding links to your own sites is considered bad form. I'll revert your change (again) and place an item in the Talk:C Sharp page so you can get a second opinion. If someone other than you considers it relevant enough to be included and somehow better than the other 3,000 C# sites out there, then fine. -- klaus

[edit] Closed source

Hi,

I've added a new section to the Closed source article about the ambiguity inherent in the name. You may want to take a look. Fragglet 18:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a much better explanation, and clarifies the point I believe you wanted to make very well. Thanks. -- klaus

[edit] Wikipedia:No personal attacks

In response to your recent post on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 12 "Have at it then, obviously you feel threatened by this change for some reason." and " Really? Why don't you just explain your real motivation and stop this martinet charade?". These comments are not polite, and not called for. Please follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you, Nfitz 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not attacks, but I apologize if I offended you. Consider the latter a formal request to clarify your position then - I find it interesting that you seem to be so deadset on maintaining a "Micro$loth" redirect to Microsoft, among others. So what is your motivation? What value do you see in these? -- «klaus»
Micro$loth is borderline; hard to say how used it is. But the other ones I'm arguing - Microsloth and Windoze in particular, are very common nicknames - to remove them would violate Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Precedents#Should insulting nickname redirects be kept?. Why don't you consider that guidance important? Nfitz 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Because in this case (as with 'Dumbya') there is no guidance about infantile redirects, which is what these are. But hey, you win. I've wasted enough time on this as I can realistically justify. -- «klaus»
I thought there was cleary guidance on Dumbya ... and to tell the truth, I'm kind of surprised ... but I guess if you've got Slick Willy then it's hard not to ... however compared to those, Windoze and Microsloth seem pretty innocuous ... I'll admit Microshit is pushing the edge though. I've wasted enough time ... Tell me about it ... trust me, if I'd have known where this was going, I'd never have created the Microshit redirect! Nfitz 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If it helps

I'm tired of it as well... VERY tired :). Nfitz also accused me of making a "personal attack" as well, so don't feel too excluded :). RN 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to make the case that Nfitz is just a selfless champion for "the integrity of Wikipedia" in fighting these RFDs, because he seems to be in on all of them. With much vigor and zeal. But I doubt this would ever get too much traction anyway; I can't believe someone would actually rationalize having a "Microsloth" redirect. Infantile is the best description I can come up with for someone like that. Everybody has their agendas I guess. -- «klaus»
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Nfitz 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, it's too bad you feel insulted. I stand by my use of the term infantile though. Understand that your position is simply ridiculous. Your insistence that you want to preserve these redirects to 'protect Wikipedia' is, to put in mildly, bunk. Your use of the amount of Google hits and 'I heard this term in 1993' are no better. You trot out the rules about deleting redirects when they clearly do not apply - and how would you have reacted if I'd invoked this guideline in my real concern that these dumb POV statements (which is all they are) are hurting WP? But I have no desire to engage in a fight I can't win. WP is so permeated by this 'M$ is teh suxx' culture that it would be pointless. So rejoice, you won. If you still believe I'm insulting or attacking you, feel free to 'report' me or whatever the process is for that. Otherwise, I considered this whole issue to be over two days ago. -- «klaus»
If you want over, fine. But 1 day ago you were still making rude - you might even say infantile - comments. However I'm glad we've got that sorted! Nfitz 04:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Moenia.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Moenia.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)