User talk:Ropers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see my user page archive for past/resolved items from this page.

Contents

[edit] Quelle von Ödön von Horvath-Artikel

Den grössten Teil habe ich aus einem Referat von irgendeiner Referate-Homepage (habe vergessen welcher). Ist aber ohne Copyright, falls es das war, dass dich interessiert. Gruss, -Ph. W.

[edit] Well, can't find source again

Hm... Ich konnte die Quelle leider :-( nicht wieder finden. Dann werten wir den Artikel halt als copyright verstoß, oder? Aja: due diligence bedeutet gebührende Sorgfalt (hia:[1])

All right. Pity, but it's the only option I reckon. I've asked for the offending text to be purged from the English database. Ropers 15:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] reentry

Please see my comment on the Reentry discussion page. I suggest we discuss it there, if you are of a mind to.  :-) Paul Beardsell 02:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Righteo.
NB: I added something to Talk at Difference between sub-orbital and orbital spaceflights as well.
Ropers

[edit] "Experiments"

Proposed experiments are not part of Wikipedia; we describe secondary or tertiary knowledge, not personal experience or experimentation. It's fine if you want to recruit people to do it on the talk page, but it's not part of the article space. (And what you really need is a report of someone other than you doing it.... ) -- Nunh-huh

See [2]. Ropers 12:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another reentry

Is that your text I want to delete? See the talk page. Paul Beardsell 23:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed. I have replied here. Ropers 03:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Vindictive" is just inappropriate. Vindictive is what you call an unwarranted action in revenge for something. I had certainly not taken personal offence at your text. I notified you above I was going to delete it. Eight(!) days later you have still not bothered to provide a reference to support it but you have found time to criticise the text's deletion. NeuronExMachina says he cannot find a reference to support your speculation re "lift". Neither can I: That together with your claims re the craft's aerodynamic "stall" I also cannot find anywhere. Put up or shut up. You are wrong to personalise this. There is no need for ad hominem attack: Just support your text with an authoritative reference. Paul Beardsell 02:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You quoted that single word out of context. I wrote (in parentheses):
       (I also personally perceived the tone of Paul's comments as 
       rather harsh and impolite, if not bordering on the vindictive.)
Princeton's WordNet 2.0 returns two definitions for "vindictive". Their second definition is:
    2: showing malicious ill will and a desire to hurt; motivated
       by spite; "a despiteful fiend"; "a truly spiteful child";
       "a vindictive man will look for occasions for resentment"
       [syn: despiteful, spiteful]
I believe that I have a right to communicate my feelings in the way I have done. I do not believe that my sentence was an ad hominem attack. I also believe that telling me to "put up or shut up" in response to my concerns shows that my concerns may have been perfectly warranted.
Ropers 03:55, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Toki Pona vandalism

  1. see User_talk:Sonjaaa#Toki_Pona_vandalism Ropers 04:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Hey Ropers. Thanks for notifying me of the vandal on the tokipona Wikipedia. It's obviously not a copyright violation, since I was the one who asked Brion to launch the Toki Pona edition of Wikipedia. I don't know what kind of point the vandal is trying to make. His or her edits were done anonymously and without prior discussion, which only serve to make him or her look worse. I should have been available quicker to ban the ip, because (I think) I'm the only one with admin status. Since I am not always active on the Toki Pona Wikipedia, we'll definitely need to give admin admin-level status to more TP Wikipedians. I propose to give it to those Toki Pona Wikipedians who first reported the vandalism and wanted to fix it.--Sonjaaa 04:34, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] meta:Wikipedia meetup 2005 misedit

I am really sorry for that fault. Thank you for your time to correct my mistake. I have placed an attempt to apologize to meta:Talk:Wikimedia_meetup_2005#PSA. --Mormegil 19:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've responded on the above meta page :) Ropers 21:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] BeOS and Mac

No. Used Macs before BeOS, yes. However, I was much more of an OS/2 boy. Never used System 9, rarely use OSX. Not interested in buying an OSX compatible machine. I never really liked MacOS, it was so damn limiting. What the hell makes up the "System File", or whatever it was called... and so on....

I don't see BeOS as a "mac-alike". I see it as an OS that can stand up on its own without 20-30 years of legacy, work well and do what I want it to do and not what an OS vendor wants me to do.

As goes file extensions, I still use them on BeOS. Even add .pve to my Gobe Productive docs.

(posted by User:Kiand in response to this)
OS/2? No way! Which versions?
I personally ran OS/2 2.0 through 3.0 as my sole operating system. I had a fantastic word processing and DTP program called Describe32, that was SOO lightyears ahead of the rest. Sadly I managed to discard all that data -- I don't even have the OS/2 install disks (I think it was 20 or 40 or so ;-) anymore.
/me remininsces.
Ropers 23:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


3.0 and 4.0. Even played with eComStation for a while, but OS/2 has passed me by now.
I actually bought an IBM machine that shipped with Warp 4.0 on it - ThinkPad 600. Lovely machine, still BeOS'ing away now.
Wasn't sole OS for me, but it played a major part alongside IRIX for me. I rarely used Windows, in fact most of my Windows knowledge comes from fixing others machines and from thinking "How did IBM do it? MSFT probably do it similarly but worse"
Kiand 23:35, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dublin for meetup

Hi Ropers,

Just to apologise for not making the IRC this evening. The ports needed have been blocked at my student village (and have always been blocked in Uni itself), while my backup, using computer society account via SSH, has been temporarily disabled (a subscription issue). Gnarg!

zoney ♣ talk 18:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've a solution rigged up... (via someone elses a/c, but hey!) zoney ♣ talk 18:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] how

Hi :) I wonder how you found me :) Npc 11:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, given what you were doing it was only a matter of time. You had advertised your wikis often enough on the mailing list -- so considering that you were starting to insert the very same links into all sorts of articles, again, it was only a matter of time for some mailing list subscriber to run across them and make the connection. Ropers 14:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hey, it's not advertising. I never advertised anything. I just improve some articles (inclusion of external links that provide useful content is improvement) and I share my knowledge with you in the lists. NSK 23:12, 29 Oct 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 1000 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] Mediawiki OS X Trouble shooting

I posted a question at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Running_MediaWiki_on_Mac_OS_X - would you be willing to take a look and see if you could help me out? jgriffin@genetargeting.com - Jackdavinci 21:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006

Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 19:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Recent.changes.enh.RC.view.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Recent.changes.enh.RC.view.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sherool (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Color Graphics Adapter has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.