User talk:Mlouns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Phroziac (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scribonia

[edit] Mother Teresa Page

Thank you for your constructive critizim. I really appriciate it. I am new to Wikipedia. I live near Seattle too.Goblyglook (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very right, please accept my apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurigerhard (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tacoma Narrows Bridge photo

That's hilarious, you went and took the picture the day after I went pretty far out of my way for the same reason. This could have been avoided had you read and responded to the talk page about this. Also, I'm curious why you decided to copyright with unconditional release rather than the GFDL or public domain ? I guess I will still upload my (full sized) images to the Commons. Cacophony 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, total coincidence! I never knew anyone had asked for a picture, and I never even saw that talk page until you pointed it out just now -- it was just a whim. I almost got the shot the day before when you did, but I was running short on time. I'll be curious if you got a better one -- I was disappointed with the poor opportunities for a good shot. The Official Viewing Area didn't offer all that great a view, I thought.

As for copyrights, I just didn't care. No way anyone is going to profit from the picture I took, so I wasn't worried, and I didn't try to figure out the different nuances. Mlouns 00:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I just changed licensing to GNU-style. Mlouns 09:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human sacrifice additions to Ancient Rome

Dunno if you're still tracking that article (and its Talk page), but your instincts were good ones. I usually don't get hooked in by these stupidities, but did this time.... And despite my website, I'm the last person to defend the Romans — horrible cruel people — which I think is what underlies our semi-anonymous friend's tone. Best, Bill 15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was alerted by a couple odd things: (1) He edited anonymously (2) He added a few big paragraphs all at once (3) His English in the comments was not nearly at the level of the added text. The charges of bias make it look even weirder. I think the way this is resolving looks reasonable. BTW, I really like your LacusCurtius site. Mlouns 03:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:WestminsterAbbeyFarm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WestminsterAbbeyFarm.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rory096 07:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:WestminsterAbbeyFrescoDetail.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WestminsterAbbeyFrescoDetail.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

[edit] License tagging for Image:P6180204.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:P6180204.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FraserRiver.jpg

Hello and thanks for this picture. I have copied it to Wiki Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:FraserRiver.jpg I would like to suggest that in the future you upload imaages directly to Wiki Commons rather than to English Wikipedia, as this will allow them immediately to be visible and usable in all Wiki projects. Vmenkov 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I will certainly do that next time. Mlouns 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuff and Tufa

I have virtually no knowledge of geology, but it seems to me that there are several things wrong with the tuff and tufa articles.

I am studying a historical course with the Open University, and it seems that tuff used to be called tufa, may still perhaps be called tufa in other countries (e.g. Italy), and prominent archaeologists/classicists still use the old terminology. This despite the fact that amongst geologists the distiction was clear in 1954 (Penguin's "A Dictionary of Geology") - though the Concise Oxford Dictionary was still using tufa as a catch-all term in 1964 (reprinted 1974).

I am wondering how this information can be used to modify the articles on tuff and tufa. It seems plain that (1) the existing contents of the tufa article refers to both tuff (in regard to Rome) and tufa, and (2) the dogmatic statements in both articles on the distinctions need to be clarified - the fact that current geology distinguishes is not sufficient if other current and/or foreign academic materials may not!

If you allow me to email you I can quote you the above copyright items - the piece in my course study guide from the Open University is particularly illuminating

--PeterR 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying makes sense. I certainly learned about tufa in the archeological context, in a course in Rome from Americans. We used an Italian book, which called it tufa also. But I have enough geological knowledge that I think I understand the difference as well. Let me know how to give you my email address -- I don't want to put it on a general wikipedia page. Mlouns 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fra Angelico

Thanks for keeping an eye on the vandals! --Amandajm 09:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Convent. I wish people would check before they make changes like that. It's all there on wiki...--Amandajm 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. "rv incorrect correction" is a frequent comment in my wiki editing. And as you say, so much of it could be avoided by just clicking a link. Mlouns 16:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A "minor" note :-)

Just a comment that your recent edit to Talk:Catechism of the Catholic Church was marked as minor. Not a big deal, but that indication is meant for edits which are spelling/grammar fixes, formatting changes, etc., but which leave the content essentially the same. Your edit did anything but—it was actually a very lucid and accurate analysis.

I point this out since some users (not me though) flag their watchlists to ignore edits marked as minor. In a case like this, they would not know you replied. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and you are right. I tend to reflexively hit "minor" due to so much vandalism repair, but I ought not to have there. Mlouns 18:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael...

Why did you undo my changes? Is there anything historically wrong about them? Are they clear vandalism or wrong facts? Please note that undoing other's changes, especially those of longtime contributors (I'm a sysop at the Spanish wikipedia and an expertise on Alexander the Great), without giving any explications in the edit summary is not well considered. That line was historically correct and one of the most important characteristics of Alexander's behavior towards his lovers, so why deleting it? Greetings --Bucephala 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like a non-notable opinion. One could say the same for a significant percentage of persons throughout history, but it is not worth mentioning for them either. If this is a notable theme in Alexander legends (maybe there are later medieval stories where this is a centerpiece? I don't know...), then it would be good to refer to them. But as it stands, I really don't see it as worth mentioning just as it is without further facts behind it. I am usually not interested in revert wars, so you won't see me undo it a second time. Mlouns 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colosseum

I've semi'd it for 1 month, since it is that heavy but sufficient to re-issue semi-protection. And also It is very rare for me lock a page indefinitely, since if it is the case, the page can be locked for too long, although exceptions are made for very prominent targets (i.e articles such as Georges W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Gay, Fuck, Penis, etc, etc.) Thanks for the alert!--JForget 01:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi! It should help. I think there are a ton of pages like this that are not obvious targets (such as politicians or obscenities), but which pretty much every high school kid in the English-speaking world ends up looking at at one time or another for school reports. I think that is where the high attention comes from. Mlouns 01:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Waterloo

It looks like you are getting into a edit war over a link. Would you mind explaining what this is about? Tirronan 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it actually is not an edit war. I added the internal link while the other editor was in the midst of a series of edits. He overwrote my edit, presumably unintentionally, while adding his in. If I see it get undone again, I'd think something more significant was up, but for now, I think there is no intended conflict. Make sense? Mlouns 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Chiriaev

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia but I'm a fan of Ivan's and I don't understand how my edit constituted vandalism. If you could explain this, please do. 24.214.228.165 (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, isn't that the correct quote? 24.214.228.165 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pompeii and Pompeii: The Last Day

I am 58.104.170.23, the IP Address you accused of vandalising [Pompeii] and [Pompeii: The Last Day]. Neither of these were examples of vandalism. As illustrated here: [1], the figure is sucking his thumb. Likewise, a cursory reading of Letters Bk VI 20 shows that while Pliny the Elder was sailing toward the volcano, Pliny the Younger was studying, "then a bath, dinner and a short and restless sleep". He "remained sluggishly intent on [his] book".

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to sign --Khuxan (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Regarding the above: You're welcome! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Independence in the Mothball Fleet?

Good evening,

I was curious to know if the Independence is still at the "Mothball" Fleet at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington. I saw that you had taken a picture of her a year or so ago and was curious to know if you are able to take some better pictures of her, as I served on board her in 1995. Please contact me via email. Thank you.

Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rounlin (talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I updated the comment you had left for me man, I wasnt able to email you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rounlin (talk • contribs) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oedipus

You accused me of vandalism a while ago, I only recently received your message. I;m unsure as to what the vandalism is: I didn't add any untrue comments. Therefore, I have replaced them on the site, because there is nothing wrong with them. Please respond, and communicate just what this vandalism was.

Guillaume G. (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for what happen with the editing issue. My little brother somehow hacked into my account and wrote that. I'm very sorry this happen.--Horuchimaro (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuffffffa

Ciao! Thanks for help... I'm trying to replace the wrong attribution especially in Italian articles in which I'm sure it's not tufa; maybe you can help with other countries... Thanks and good work. --Attilios (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] please watch what you label as vandalism

Please remember to WP:AGF, neither of the following edits [2] or [3] can be assumed to be vandalism. By labelling them as such, you fail to AGF. Now subsequent edits by said user probably validate your position... but it irks me when I see somebody byte newbies by labelling questionable posts as vandalism. Both of the above comments were on talk pages. Perhaps the user was named after Mother Teresa, and didn't realize that making that statement isn't what Wikipedia is about. Perhaps said user thought the talk page was like any other number of blogs/forums for discussion of the subject. An innocent edit, labeled as vandalism. Likewise the edit on AGuernica--questionable edit? Yes, Vandalism? No.Balloonman (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess, looking at the edits, I have a problem with twinkle... it was the edit summaries that I didn't like.Balloonman (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add, btw, that I really appreciate your efforts to revert vandalism on Antiquity related articles Mlouns. Keep up the good work! --Steerpike (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! We aims to please. Mlouns (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decebalus name

Hi, you have undone on Decebalus, some things I wrote. You may correct the grammar mistakes you said I have made, but do not delete the entire message, decebalus is not translated as "the brave one". I did gave referemces this time. I am a Romanian so I should know some things better that others. The whole points of my text is so that the people that are reading the article about Decebal, understand the significance of his name. I sow that you know latin, so if indeed you do you probably know that is quite difficult to translate from latin into "modern" languages, as latin suffered lots and lots of changes.So yes you can correct my spelling, though... anyway DO NOT remove my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumaru (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dumaru, I really don't have any strong bias about what the name means, and your explanation would be fine if stated briefly and with proper style. But what you wrote is rambling and unsourced, and does not really come close to wikipedia style. I would suggest a very short mention of your alternative definition (one sentence or clause), together with a reference to supporting explanation without going into it in so much detail. Mlouns (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

k, I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumaru (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Vandalism Software

Hi,

Currently I am using Huggle this has not officially been released and is still in development. I would also recommend trying out Twinkle which is what I used to use, and that is very good as it is automated as well.

I hope this helps!

-- The Helpful One ^(Talk) ^{(Contribs) (Review)} 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been a heavy Twinkle user for a couple months, but I do get occasional questions from people about which edit triggered a warning on their talk page. It sounds as if Huggle takes care of that. I will look for it once it is official. Mlouns (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rothes entry

I see that you reverted some odd edits on Rothes, and then un-reverted them back. I think those edits you first reverted look at best unencyclopedic and at worst are possibly bogus. Before I re-revert, I was wondering what caused you to reconsider and un-revert? The editors (at least one other is Special:Contributions/88.207.223.9) have other similar edits elsewhere. Thanks, Mlouns (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I actually used the rollback, which, of course, is used for only vandalism. And it didn't look like vandalism at a second glance so I reverted. But I've restored the version now as, on closer inspection, it looks to be copyvio from somewhere. Thanks for pointing that out to me! Take care, Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That clears that up. Mlouns (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:CapoMiseno.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CapoMiseno.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC). 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? Kelly ^hi! 03:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)