User talk:Lefty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lefty is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

< User:Lefty


Hello "Lefty" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

Lefty: Thanks for all the good work you are doing on the Foundation series. Until a couple days ago (when you and Ausir arrived), the vast majority of all the articles was written by me. It's good to have other people on board. Thanks for the help, and keep up the good work. →Raul654 21:37, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Oh, and, One More Thing...

I liked your phrasing about Columbo. Very well put. -- Decumanus 00:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On Communists in the Winter War

There is a considerable difference between barring political extremists, and not expecting them to participate in armies build on the idea that absolutely all men who are able to has to take part in the country's defense. I guess you have good sourses?
--Ruhrjung 16:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I thought this was an "expect"/"accept" confusion, which is pretty common in English. Maybe a better was to phrase it would be "not accepted into fighting units because of their political background".

[edit] NPOV dispute header on Class warfare

I note that you added the NPOV dispute header to the class warfare article two months ago, but I can't figure out what the dispute is about from the talk: or the edit comments. There doesn't actually seem to be one, as far as I can tell. I've proposed removing the header in talk:, if you think it should stay please add an explanation over there for future reference. Bryan 00:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SIG P226

Nice job with the re-edit of the pictures for the SIG P226. --James Schultz 06:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[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] Gif, or no gif?

I understand that someone removed the rating gif from the Harvey Birdman page. Can you explain to me why you feel you have to do so? It was agreed we'd use them here. Please respond on my talk page, or I'll restore them in 12 hours. Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25)

[edit] To subst, or not to subst

I can't promise this is either complete, knowledagable, or particularly persuasive, but it's the best I've got, and since you asked about why userboxes would be better included directly on pages, rather than transcluded, here's my attempt at an answer.

Content written directly on the user page (i.e. User:Example user) is generally viewed, in nearly all circumstances, as content that is -

  • written by the user, and most of the time, only by the user,
  • the responsibility of the user, and only the user,
  • an expression of the opinion of the user.

AFAIK, there is a strong consensus on Wikipedia that if people want to write strong opinions, nuttyness, or what-have-you, that's the proper place to put it. It's also generally felt that such content should not be altered unless

  • the user requests it, or
  • the user has been banned from the 'pedia, in which case, in effect, the page is no longer "theirs".

Content written on user subpages is mostly, although not exactly, the same as content written directly on the user page. The main difference is that content on subpages has a unique, seperate URL, which means such content can be mixed with the rest of the 'pedia to a sligtly greater degree, and so the rules against messing with it are slightly weaker.

Content written anywhere else (with the minor exception of protected pages, and RfAr, etc.) is generally viewed as content that is

  • written by anyone(in the sense of "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"),
  • the responsability of the community (that is, the subgroup of anyone which has decided to be regularly involved with Wikipedia, i.e. the Wikipedians),
  • an expression of fact or opinion that any member of the community would accept (in the sense of "present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents" from WP:NPOV), even if they do not agree with it, and
  • most importantly, either part of the encyclopedic content we are writing, or discussions, or plans to improve it. While there certainly is (and probably will always be) much content not in userspace that does not live up to these standards, there is a very wide consensus that all such material should meet these standards, eventually.

One consequence of this is that co-operative work between users is generally done outside userspace(as within userspace, the assumption is that only the user whose space it is edits it), and therefore such co-operative work is strongly encouraged to consist only of writing encyclopedic content, or discussing or planning to improve it.

The reason for these principles is that they help keep us focused on creating and improving the encyclopedic content, which is our purpose and goal above all other concerns.

IMO, what makes many userboxes so disturbing and diversive is that they violate these customs. The problem is that many userboxes are:

  • personal expressions of opinion, neither encylopedic content or discussions or plans to improve such, and
  • intended to go on user pages.

Such content would be accepted if it was directly written on a user's page, however, the troubling userboxes are:

  • stored and organized in community spaces and
  • the co-operative work of multiple users.

This disturbs people, because they see it as a violation of the principle that our purpose and goal is to create and improve the encyclopedic content, not to co-operativly create or work on any other project, no matter what it is.

Requiring that userboxes either -

  • be a form of planning or discussion on improving the encyclopedic content (i.e. the way that the babel boxes provide a list of people who can be asked to translate encylopedic pages) and follow all the other points I mentioned above, or
  • Be directly written on user pages (like User:Example user) (or written on user subpages unless they are being used by users other than the one who's page they are on)

will preserve the principles and customs I mentioned above, and help to keep us focused on writing and improving the encyclopedia.

Hope this helps explain things, and feel free to respond below. (I'll watch this page.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color articles

I notice you are doing some work on the color articles. Have you found a place where active discussion is taking place on these? I have some major proposals for many of the color articles, but nowhere to initiate this discussion. Thanks, Notinasnaid 09:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of what I did was redact the infoboxes. You can see the discussion on Template talk:Infobox Color. Lefty 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
you can also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Color.Lefty 15:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Pleasence

Re: The Man With the Power. Good grief! I've been spelling his name wrong my entire life!! Slowmover 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Thermostat_icon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thermostat_icon.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:Image legality questions. 13:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theater/Theatre Spelling...

Ahoy there Lefty! Simply pointing something out to someone I haven't been granted the privelege of being introduce to: I generally use the alternative or more archaic spellings of words. So, thusly, I spell analog: analogue, stories:storeys, complete: compleat, &c. DrWho42 23:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I noticed that edit you made on my userpage. I don't mind that you "vandalized" it but the picture is a little too much (I'm only 13.) Do you mind if I remove it? Sorry for any inconveniences and other things like that. --Evan Robidoux 01:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I mistook you for a different user. Sorry! --Evan Robidoux 02:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Color

Hi Lefty, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Color. It seems to have been dormant for a while, even though there was a lot of great work and discussion already done. I'm looking to start it back up again. Care to join me? --Laura S 00:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unqualified use of color coordinates

As any formally trained color scientist would confirm, it is inappropriate to use unqualified color coordinates to specify a color appearance. In the Prussian Blue article, as I would guess all the other color-related articles, there is a box on the upper-right of the page that states the Hex, RGB, CMYK and HSV coordinates of the color. This is wholly incorrect. RGB values in themselves cannot depict color appearance. In order to do so, the RGB triplet has to be connected to physical reality through, at the minimum, the definition of the RGB color space used, the white point of the illuminant, and in certain cases, the gamma function. The ICC specifications can help one understand what these requirements are. If Prussian Blue has such and such color coordinates, they have to be qualified as, for example, in AdobeRGB color space. Better still, linear XYZ color coordinates should be used. Furthermore the conversion of RGB to CMYK is wholly dependent on the particular transfer functions used for a specific set of inks and paper combination - the idea of posting the CMYK color coordinates for a physical color appearance is naïve at best and mostly preposterous.

As such the article runs contrary to the most basic precepts of color science, and is wholly misleading to uninformed readers. Trying to digitally reproduce the appearance of Prussian Blue using the information contained herein will not work at all.

[edit] Image:Gray Icon.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gray Icon.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 00:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Assault rifle, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[edit] LatinEnglish-1

So what is your problem with Latin? What, do you prefer Anglo-Saxon? -23PatPeter*∞ 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of BDC

A tag has been placed on BDC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stephenb (Talk) 14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Birdman No Case

A tag has been placed on Template:Birdman No Case requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)