User talk:Laura S

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMPORTANT: I am on what they call "wikibreak". Indefinitely. Not that I don't totally love Wikipedia, I just have entirely too many things going on in too many places right now. Generally, that's a good thing! So for all those requests for recordings: I really want to do them but can't guarantee they'll get done in any reasonable time frame (if ever). And for everyone else, please feel free to drop me a line here or use the "email this user" link if you have something important to tell me. I do check in occasionally. Here's hoping I get back to it soon!
Note: If you are replying to something I left on your talk page, please reply there. It will be on my watchlist. If you post something here, I will reply on this page. To see when I reply, add this page to your watchlist. This way, the conversations will be complete in one place, so others can follow them more easily.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Laura S, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for joining our community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. First thing: be bold! Editors are always happy to correct or revert mistakes and discuss changes with which they disagree. Here are some links you might find useful:

And for more detailed information:

  • Help pages - the instruction manual, contains everything you could possibly want to know
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia - our principles, or how to get on with other editors
  • Manual of Style - how to format articles, where to place pictures, and other stylistic matters.

You can also check out the community portal, which has lots of ideas on how you can help Wikipedia.

All of this information can be daunting, but if you have a question and can't find the answer, you can always ask me on my talk page or go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. One last thing: please sign your name when leaving messages for others on article and user talk pages using (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you enjoy editing! --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tawkerbot2

Yes, the bot normally would have caught the first edit too but due to some server problems I was having, it didn't see it hence the "bad" revert. Sorry about that and thanks for fixing it :) -- Tawker 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bradford Bypass

Hi there. I wanted to let you know that when you scan articles for copyright violations, you should ensure that the source article is not a Wikipedia mirror site. There are hundreds of sites that legitimately copy Wikipedia content under the GFDL licence. I've reverted the copyvio notice on this article.

By the way, a good way to eliminate this problem when doing a google search is to include "-wikipedia" in the search field, as in this example. I hope this helps, and a belated welcome to Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 14:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solar eclipse and Binary star

The Spoken Barnstar
I award Laura this Spoken Barnstar for recording her fourth Featured Article, including two advanced astronomical topics, right before they appeared on the Main Page. Nick Mks 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much Laura for the spoken version of the article. Nick Mks 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Laura. If you would like to provide another excellent spoken version of an astronomic article, Binary star is now featured and will appear on the Main Page on 6/24. Don't feel obligated in any way of course. Best regards, Nick Mks 09:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I've just gotten a new computer and my old microphone doesn't work with it. So if I can get that sorted out, I'd be glad to do the article. -- Laura S | talk to me 18:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
That's really amazingly fast. It's gonna be ready again for the Main Page appearance. Thank you so much! Nick Mks 09:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
One word: perfect! Nick Mks 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

You're in the process of breaking the three narrated article barrier! Many people seem to get to around this point and then go quiet. Keep it going and you'll find it gets easier and less time-consuming, and you'll enjoy it more. -- Macropode 02:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I took a short break but am ready to start again. Wanted to do an article that interested me, but most of them are still being heavily edited, so it doesn't really make sense to do those. It's already way faster than it was, and I like to think they're starting to sound better too :) Actually I think it's a really worthwhile project. So thanks again for the encouragement! --Laura S 02:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is merely my own opinion, I don't claim to be any sort of expert.

I've just listened to your recording of Binary star, and found it very easy to listen to. You kept a nice even level and pacing throughout, no significant background noise, and narrated it very accurately. You have a wonderfully clear speaking voice. Your concerns about pacing, expressed on your user page, I think are un-founded. The absolute speed that you're speaking at matters less than how clearly you're speaking and whether you sound "strained" at that speed. You sounded relaxed and comfortable throughout, and it was a pleasure to listen to. I also like the slightly more "emphasised" narration style you're using now.

What's your next one? -- Macropode 05:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, that means a lot! :) I'm glad to hear it's not too fast, sometimes I catch myself and worry that it's way too fast. The last one I did with a new computer and microphone, so it's also good to hear that it all worked out ok. I didn't realize I had a more emphasized (or emphasised for the non-US among us :) style... I'll have to go back and listen again. It's funny how we probably develop styles without even noticing. As far as a next one... well I have to admit I've been a little lax lately. Between switching from Windows to a Mac and some other stuff I committed to, I haven't had much time for Wikipedia. So sad! In fact I only did Binary Star cause Nick asked me to. But the next one... I haven't decided whether to do an upcoming main page featured article (those are more "worth" doing I think), or one that's just interesting to me (more fun!). I guess we will all have to stay tuned... -- Laura S | talk to me 23:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that your spelling was somewhat odd, Laura S... You haven't been hit in the forehead with a left-hander Rickenbacker bass, have you? :) -- Macropode 10:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, well although I am a lefty (sometimes), I play instruments right-handed, so any bass near me is probably not left-handed! I am always happy to see a musical reference though. Oh, and I *am* from New Jersey, which explains both the spelling and the funny accent I take on when slightly drunk or really tired :) -- Laura S | talk to me 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure nobody'll mind if you narrate your next article whilst slightly drunk. :) Re: the Rickenbacker thing, my habit of trying to make humorous cryptic references will get me into trouble one of these days, so I'll get back into my box now. See Ya! -- Macropode 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute that wasn't a FLCL reference was it??? I just got that! Guess it pays to be totally sleep deprived... -- Laura S | talk to me 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ha! If it paid, then I wouldn't mind being like it so much. :)
If you're still thinking about which article to do next, I'd suggest going for something you're interested in, maybe music or performance-art related. The ones I've done so far broadly reflect some of my interests, including the fact that I'm a bit of a nut-case, in case it wasn't already abundantly obvious from some of my posts. :) -- Macropode 01:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi. Just been listening to your spoken articles and I find them excellent. As Macropode said, you have a great voice and as a result you produce top quality spoken articles. Some articles that other people have recorded are sometimes hard to follow or understand but yours are a pleasure to listen to. Please keep up the good work. -Etienne 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Tone has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Hey thanks! That totally made my morning. :) --Laura S 12:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] colour

hi laura. im not sure i would be a good resource, being a colourblind physicist. i would be glad to help out if i am useful. my main knowledge is in the theory of light propagation and colour spectra. you could check out two articles i worked on: over-illumination that i created and atmospheric diffraction, which i developed most of the text. i am quite interested in the colour spectra of different lighting sources and people's perception of light and colour, as well as the health effects of light and different colour spectra. i also enjoy photography and have uploaded about 100 of my photos onto wikipedia. let me know your thoughts. by the way i do perceive colour, but in my own way :}, cheers, Anlace 04:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it sounds like you would be an excellent resource. My knowledge (and interest) of color is more from an artistic perspective, whereas much, if not most, of the past and current discussion and direction seems to be around the scientific aspects of color. I'm a little weak there, so it would be nice to have more input. The more perspectives the better! Right now I'm just trying to get a handle on where everything is at, and how to proceed. I'd love to see you there!

(Oh and as for color blindness being a possible hindrance, deafness didn't stop Beethoven!  :) -- Laura S | talk to me 14:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ok youve twisted my arm. im signed up. keep me posted on events. note ill be on vacation for most of july and early aug, so cant do much then. cheers, Anlace 20:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Fabulous! Right now it seems we've picked up right where the others left off; ie, arguing over the technical details of color representation. I'm hoping to get a little other work done on the side (such as bringing the color article to FA) so that we don't get hung up on the details. I've started a to-do list of sorts at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Color/Strategy, so feel free to take a look and make any changes you feel necessary. I'm trying to focus on the whole realm of color-related articles, not just lists of colors. It might be a little on the ambitious side but you won't go very far being overly cautious :) -- Laura S | talk to me 20:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh and one other thing, there's a lot of (I think good) discussion on the project's talk page, it would be great if you weigh in - we need all the viewpoints we can get on some of this stuff. -- Laura S | talk to me 02:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I decided to make a couple of additions to the list of colors article and they were removed almost instantly by Notinasnaid. Now I remember why I stopped editing. This place is so damn annoying. Count me out of the color project. Maybe I'll come back later when I actually feel like getting into edit wars. Good luck and thanks for trying.MiracleMat 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

MiracleMat, please don't be discouraged! There has been considerable discussion on the Color project talk page about which colors to include and how to include them. How about instead of having edit wars adding and removing colors, maybe you would lend us your thoughts at the discussion? Then you might get a little more understanding of where Notinasnaid is coming from. Although I do agree they should probably be discussing these reverts either at your talk page or (preferably) the article's talk page first; if we can get everyone talking in one place, then hopefully we can actually reach a consensus and move forward. Anyway I just wanted to let you know that I do understand it's probably awful to keep getting reverted, but please don't give up - we still need you! -- Laura S | talk to me 15:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spectral color

hi laura. after browsing on the project talk page, i have added some material to spectral color on the physics of spectral color and integration of the spectral colors in visible light. i have some further ideas on wavelength discussion, alternative light sources for visible light, etc, if a consensus indicates more such material would be desirable. i am open to editing or moving text i created just now to another article. im a newcomer to "color" editing so i am open to suggestion. Anlace 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! My personal opnion is to include as much as we can, assuming it meets standard wiki criteria (notable, verified, etc.). Also while there is a lot of debate right now about several color-related topics, spectral color doesn't seem to be in a lot of dispute, so it's probably a very solid article to be working on. -- Laura S | talk to me 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiLove!

Here's a pizza for you! Pizzas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! ~Linuxerist (talk ยท contribs)

[edit] Spelling

Thank-you for your contribution to the discussion on spelling. I am aware of wikipedia's policy on spelling but disagree with it and the unnecessary domination of this resource by American English. I stand by my statement that American English should be restricted to articles specifically relating to America. I also stand by my statement that it is ridiculous to call changing the spelling of the word to international English 'vandalism.' A careful reading of the wikipedia policy on vandalism shows this to be merely a ploy to maintain this article being kept in the American style. I quote "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." There is no way, even by the most generous interpretation of this policy that changing spelling could be considered vandalism in the real sense of the word. And an internal link I found on your page linked me to this... "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them." AntonioBu 09:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm don't know who called your spelling changes vandalism, but it wasn't me. Whether or not changing the spellings to different versions of English should be vandalism is really not my call and may (or may not) be open to some debate. My point was that color-related articles are not the place for that debate. This page provides more information around the issue. Basically, it's not a matter of favoring one spelling, it's a matter of keeping it how it was written in the first place, so as not to get bogged down in spelling wars, which actually hinders us from improving the encyclopedia.
You should be aware that many people have raised this issue in many places at many times in the past, and concensus has not changed. If you still feel a need to raise the debate again, I suggest you do so at the talk page for the Wikipedia Manual of Style, rather than at the pages of projects focused on content.
Finally, regarding Ignore All Rules, that is not meant to be a free ticket to do as you please. See the talk page of IAR, as well as its corrollaries, for more information on how to interpret that advice (which, by the way, is not Wikipedia policy). -- Laura S | talk to me 11:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, ignore all rules isn't an excuse to do whatever I please, I never suggested it was. If it were people could destroy articles and add whatever nonsense they desired. However ignoring a clear misinterpretation of the rules on vandalism would fall under the ambit of this. Merely because an issue has been raised before does not mean it should be raised again and the perfect place to do it and raise awareness of the issues is at the cutting edge, discussion of the content that is affected. Especially when the first thing one reads upon editing the page is a warning that attempts to change spelling will be regarded as vandalism. The issue of vandalism is not open to debate, changing spelling does not fit the definition provided by Wikipedia. And finally I didn't change anything on the article itself, I'm too afraid of being jumped on by the numerous people eagerly waiting to block users who go against the status quo. AntonioBu 13:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look through the archives of the Color talk page, you'll see that there is far more argument over spelling than actual discussion of color. This is a major problem for that article, as it keeps us from our goal of writing a fantastic article about color. As Notinasnaid said, if you feel we are not following the Manual of Style, please indicate that, and we will discuss it. If, as it seems, you take issue with the Manual itself, then the place to do that is absolutely at the Manual of Style. We would very much like your input and would not "jump" on you for any constructive changes to the content or formatting of the Color article. I think you'll find that if you have a real interest in improving the article following consensus of the community, you'll be warmly welcomed. However, if your only contributions will be spelling arguments, then you are probably better off at the Manual of Style. I'm not sure what else I can say on this matter. -- Laura S | talk to me 01:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stolen userpage

Hey Laura, I think that your user page is one of the simplest, most well laid out pages I've seen on wikipedia (even though you say you don't like it). I liked it so much that in a sudden fit of user page envy, I mercilessly copied your formatting to my own user page in order to figure out wiki-coding and make mine prettier. (Unfortunately, for now it will just looks like yours until I find more time.) Anyway, just wanted to say thank you!--Koeppen 01:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery :) -- Laura S | talk to me 14:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the saying "Parody is high praise.", partly because I'm not sure that it's always flattery. Brewhaha@edmc.net 10:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FLCL

As a userbox fan of FLCL, would you be willing to vote for its nomination at Wikipedia's Article Improvement Drive? If elected, it will be the subject of a week-long overhaul, in an attempt to pass in to Featured Article status! Thanks, Litefantastic 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to vote after being asked to. That being said, I went to the AID page and found a bunch of articles I would like to see brought to FA, so I voted for all of those. (And FLCL was one of them.) -- Laura S | talk to me 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify

Hi Laura. I know that you've been involved in wikifying articles in the past, so I thought I'd draw your attention to this new project. We currently have a backlog of over 6500 articles, so any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated, even if it's only one or two articles! Alternatively, if you know anyone else who might like to help out, please tell them about it. Thanks :) -Ladybirdintheuk 09:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of planet

Hi Laura,

It's been a while since you've heard from the astronomy buffs, but I might have something that interests you. As you may have noticed in the news, there is a full blown frenzy going on about the definition of the word planet. Now we already had a featured article on the matter, Definition of planet, so, if you should want to record it, I recommend that you wait until some calm has returned. I'll let you know when this is the case if you wish.

Regards, Nick Mks 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request, please read

Laura, hi.

If you have the time and are willing to, I'd appreciate a lot if you could create a spoken version of the Vorbis article. Some of us wikipedians are wrestling to get the article as a featured one, and a talented and beautiful voice such as yours would be a welcome contribution. Do you agree?--Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 12:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a recording

I would like to place a request for a recording of the Ohio Wesleyan University page. Who can I turn to? Thank you! WikiprojectOWU 03:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied on WikiprojectOWU's talk page. -- Laura S | talk to me 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:IAR

I got your ogg of WP:IAR. I'm not sure that you know how to use a noise profiler and filter. Jenerally, the profiler is applied to a bit of sorta-silence at the beginning or end of a recording, optionally, with the mic off (to filter only electronic noise). Then, the noise profile is used to take noise out of the rest of the recording.

If you apply a noise profiler to a whole recording, then filtering with the resulting profile will jenerally add as much noise as it takes out, by considering your voice to be noise.

My own IAR-proposal (audible on the discussion page of WP:IAR) is stereo, but currently omits repeating the point, a glaring omission. I would add that part in harmonic stereo if I expected the revision to stand. Tell me what you think of it via e-mail, please.

One other thing I omitted from the recording was the URL, and I encourage you to repeat the omission. Brewhaha@edmc.net 10:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow this. I am by no means a sound technician but my recordings seem pretty decent in terms of quality (could use a better mic but what are you going to do), and I've had no other complaints about them. As far as I can understand what you're talking about, I do apply the profiler only to a bit of (what should be) silence at the beggining of the recording. By the way, this is what is recommended in the Spoken Wikipedia recording guidelines.
As far as your proposal, I can't listen to it now as I'm at work and don't get much of a chance to check in with Wikipedia at home these days. From your description, I'd have to respond that the spoken Wikipedia articles should not be "heavily produced" and should absolutely not contain anything that isn't explicitly written (excepting front matter such as the article title etc.). They also should have the Wikipedia URL included as a matter of policy. If you propose to change things like this, I'd suggest taking it up on the recording guidelines discussion page. -- Laura S | talk to me 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was a good short spoken recording, myself. There probably aren't enough women doing spoken recordings here, although I haven't listened to that many. My all-time favourite spoken Wikipedia contributor, however, is User:WAZAAAA (listen to his spoken recording of the Reggae article; unfortunately some of his spoken recordings were deleted for being 'unencyclopedic', which I have to agree that they somewhat were, although I enjoyed them).-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)