User talk:Maroux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New comments at the bottom, please. Old comments go into the archive.

Maroux,

Thank you for your input on the Menachem Mendel Schneerson page. I have sent a request to an "Advocate" that was listed under the dispute resolution process for Wikipedia to investigate.

Regards, Fire Star 20:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I guess from your reverts of your own changes that you do understand the important difference between those two verbs. Thanks. --Humus sapiens 10:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FYI, from http://www.m-w.com murder: 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. kill: 1 a : to deprive of life. See the difference? Change it to whatever you want, but let's not imply that persecuting innocent people just because they belong to certain ethnicity/religion is lawful or morally acceptable. NPOV enough? Thanks. --Humus sapiens 03:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dicionary entries have little to do with emotional value, and dictionaries often don't list it. Note that when the Israeli army launches a strike against Palestinians, there were killed according to the Israeli media, and murdered according to the Palestinian media. Also, Baghdad newspapers refered to the Iraqi war casualties as being brutally murdered by the Americans, while every US paper thought they were merely killed. Maroux 08:16, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
OK, will do ({{msg:delete}})...thanks :) — Olathe 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Maroux, good vandalism control out there. However, Manimal was an easy rewrite, not a speedy delete. -- user:zanimum

Why do you keep reverting the Stalin article? Those changes corrected spelling and grammar errors and got rid of some POV changes (esp. the part asserting "Soviet control" over Eastern Europe"). 172 16:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your labeling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Belgicaromana.gif as an unverified source: The spelling used in the names on the little map is archaeic. 'Germaansche' has officially been spelled 'Germaanse' since 1934, as far as I can tell. If the image is at least 70 years old, wouldn't it be in the public domain? --Mzzl 07:47, 10 October 2005 (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)