User talk:SlimVirgin/archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Images
Hi, Slim, since you asked about the size of images, there was a bit of a discussion about it (with me alone on one side) on the FAC vote for National parks of England and Wales . The thumbnails in National parks of England and Wales where pathetic, I thought, especially considering what a pictorial subject it is, and how beautiful the second and third images are in themselves—lovely landscapes, uploaded at excellent size and quality, and really misused in being miniaturized like that. This was how the article looked before ALoan caved and enlarged them just a little. His argument that if they were bigger still they'd "cease to illustrate the text and start to dominate it" is just incomprehensible to me, but I guess I'm in a minority, as nobody said a word on my side of the argument. But you can see that somebody protested about having them enlarged even that much (in fact threatened to object!), which made me realize it looks different on different screens. (I have 1024X768 resolution on my iMac, and I should think your eMac's the same, unless you've changed the default. It's not a particularly high resolution, as things go these days.) And why were there so few pictures, anyway? That can hardly be different on different screens.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I run at 1600x1200, and I would like the pictures to be much larger too, but a user on a low-resolution public kiosk would find articles difficult to navigate if the pictures were too big.
- As a constructive suggestion, I would suggest that we develop style sheets for different sized monitors. There could be a variable that would be used by a new relative thumb size tag that would increase or decrease the thumb size relative to some baseline, using the display size as a multiplier. If there were a way to make this improvement without needing a new tag (one developer told me it was very difficult to rev the software, but I understand that editing the style sheets is less difficult), that would be even better.
- This could even help solve arguments where some editors think too many pictures make an article too "pretty" (some editors seem to think that it makes them appear smarter if they deride the need for pictures and claim that they only need to read the text). For editors who only read the text, we could even have a style sheet that would turn off pictures entirely.
- I am not an administrator, so I apparently don't have access to edit the source for the style sheets, but I would be happy to help out with such an effort if it were possible to do so.
- Cheers,
- — DV 09:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Marvelous Bernard Williams article
Hey, Slim, just wanted to congratulate you on your beautifully done article on Williams. I came across it just today. Williams was a brilliant (and what is much less common) and deeply human philosopher, and it's wonderful to see his life and work so thoroughly and elegantly discussed. Best regards, Hydriotaphia 06:43, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy commentsAndyL 13:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Rat Park
Slim, sorry I haven't given you any support at WP:FAC. Part of the reason is that I have some concern that it might look suspicious if I only comment on your articles. I do think that at least some of the objections are groundless.
On a tangent, from the little I've seen so far of WP:FAC, I think that sometimes the comments (in general) lead people in the wrong direction. In other words, I don't always agree with various suggested "improvements."
Wikipedia's strengths and faults are its openness. Maurreen 17:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Munich Massacre
Just wondering if you're going to reply.
[edit] Objectivist philosophy
I think I've addressed your last concern regarding my recent edit. I know it's not very Objectivist of me, but I would appreciate your sanction of my compromise solution ;) Philwelch 20:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for the advice about the pet skunk page. I added a section on history. Skunky Delight is a blend that the owner makes from a recipe. Skunk owners pretty much have to be do-it-yourselfers, because there's not an industry supporting them, as there is for other pets (i.e. you can't buy a sack of Purina skunk chow.)
The article is somewhat US-centric, because I had trouble finding any info on skunks in other countries. Nathanlarson32767 04:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Kwanzaa
Do you think the anon really doesn't know the stuff he's inserting is actually from Stormfront? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Oxford comma
Just to let you know, I'm not really directing my comment on Talk:Oxford comma at you. (After all, I can see you favour omitting it:) .) It's just there is one particular user who likes to follow me around whenever I make an edit on a grammar page and just criticise me whilst making few or no improvements to the article myself. Every other user I've come across here I've been able to reason with (at least in the end). Whilst I've tried to get this particular user of my back, I have not succeeded - but it does get me annoyed as I'd rather spend my time on Wikipedia constructively improving articles. Kind regards, jguk 23:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] User:Wiesenthaler is a sockpuppet of the sockpuppet User:Goldberg
Please review the contribs of User:Wiesenthaler. Jewbacca 04:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Serial comma
Hi, Slim, thanks. If you use the "move" button at the top of the page, if should move the page history also. I've done it a few times. At least the main reason I haven't done it with the comma page is my situation with User:jguk. Maurreen 15:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Unprotection update
Schiller Institute is now unprotected again, so you know. I'm not sure of the exact nature of your negotiations with Herschelkrustofsky over this matter, but if I understand correctly we're giving DanKeshet a shot at editing the article. --Michael Snow 21:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] User:Wiesenthaler
My suggestion is to stop reverting him, address his complaints (if that is in fact possible). If he becomes abusive or unreasonable then file an RFC, then if that doesn't work I would advise taking him to the arbitration committee. For the record: I don't believe that he is a sock puppet of Alberuni as some have stated (I initially thought this, but have changed my mind). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know it's frustrating. However, only arbcom can rule that a user is a verified sock-puppet. I wouldn't advise placing the sockpuppet image on user pages because Wiesenthaler is right on this one. With regards to the List of ethnic slurs, yeah, the slurs he added are disgusting. However, several of them that were added were reasonably neutral. The others probably weren't and should have been rephrased. That's a hard page to edit though. My problem with the page is that it's not referenced! It looks like original research. If I had the guts, I'd mark all the slurs with the {{subst:dubious}} tag until references to the slurs can be found! then these would need to be added to the ==References== section. This would make the page doubly as long... however, this is kind of necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Smiles
I wanted to thank you for the very kind words, I greatly appreciate your comment (and am comforted by the knowledge that someone is actually reading my high-on-the-inexplicability-scale diartribes! ). See my talk page for more sugary sentiments. :) Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C
[edit] Image:Bigley4.jpg
Please add license/copyright info to this image. ed g2s • talk 00:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Arbitration
Following the various tos-and-fros on WP:VIP, I have made a request for arbitration. You are one of a handful of users in the "Various" request. Sockatume 21:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Request withdrawn; turns out that the user accused of being a sockpuppet has been blocked, therefore resolving the issue. Sockatume 22:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- You were included in the request because a suspected sockpuppet was making a big fuss on WP:VIP about being labelled as such. You'd called out a preceding suspected sockpuppet of the same user, therefore your input would've been valuable. User Talk: Sockatume|Talk 22:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Image for deletion
Slim, could I get you to vote on WP:IFD to delete Image:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg? It's a picture of a child on a paedophile magazine. It needs to go. Now. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Please see my 'orignal work' using negative logic. on talk
Hi,
I have made some 'orignal work' and posted it on talk page. Can u include any of it in the conflict article.
Plus also see the references which i made in minorities issue.
Zain 20:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Turing photo
With regard to this image, I believe Wikipedia policy says you need to provide a fair use rationale for anything you tag as such. It seems like a particularly bad example of a copyvio, because the site linked to has a copyright notice [1] which goes into great detail about what rights they grant, and even has a brief history of copyright law to explain it all. Right next to the picture they have a link that says "use this image on your website" and a page [2] all about how to apply and how they will get back to you telling you how much you owe them. It seems that if anyone's going to enforce their copyright over the internet it's these people. Sorry to sound pedantic about this, but Wikipedia is full of copyvio images, thousands of them tagged as fair use on the implicit grounds that, "I really want to use it!" rather than anything with a basis in law. This ought to be deleted. If readers want to see what Turing looked like they can do a search on Google and come up with a picture in seconds. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Here's the link: [3]. The image on that page has "© NPG" down the side, and at the bottom it says, "All images and text are subject to copyright protection," with a link to their copyright info. Hope this helps. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Disappointed
I am disappointed that after our long discussions, which I hoped might have created a bit of respect for one another, you are showing yourself to be just one more POV-pushing autoreverter. You claim to be very keen on sources, and yet you are restoring material that is completely without a source and completely POV. It's practically impossible for editors to work on Israeli subject area articles in good faith; if you do not hold a pro-Israeli POV, you have to fight for every word against editors who do not hold themselves, or their friends, to anything like the same standards. Dr Zen 06:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Returned from Mirv
If you had read the rest of my conversation with MPerel you would have seen exactly why I didn't block in that case. Since you're an intelligent person, I'll assume you already did, and I won't bother to repeat it here. Your contention that Irishpunktom "also appeared to be a sockpuppet" appears to be quite mistaken; again, since you're an intelligent person, I'll assume you can tell the difference between a user who's been around for months and has made several hundred valid edits and a user whose only contributions were to the same side of several ongoing revert wars.
Since you're relatively new here, I'll assume that you ignored and omitted such obvious facts out of ineptitude rather than malice, and I'll assume you didn't intend your post to come off as thinly-veiled sarcasm. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Charles, I'm sorry if I didn't make my question clear, and I apologize if it seemed like sarcasm. My point about Irishpunktom was that, sockpuppet or not, s/he violated 3RR, yet you didn't block him/her and you called the 3RR violation report "tattling." Yet with ListenToThis, you did block him/her for suspected 3RR violation. I am therefore genuinely (not sarcastically) asking why you blocked one user for 3RR, but not the other. Slim 02:27, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
HI Charles, I'm getting a little confused because you keep deleting or moving text. My point, again, is this: You blocked ListenToThis because you believed s/he was a sockpuppet to get round 3RR. The main issue for you, as you made very clear, was the 3RR violation, not the sockpuppetry, because in and of itself, as you pointed out, sockpuppetry is not an offense. The issue, therefore, was 3RR violation. However, with Irishpunktom, who clearly did violate 3RR, not only would you not block him/her, you reacted to Mperel's request that you do so with the claim that Mperel was "tattling," and you seemed quite annoyed by the request. Therefore, my question is simply this: given that, for you, the main issue was 3RR violation, not sockpuppetry, why did you block ListenToThis for a perceived 3RR violation, but not Irishpunktom? Slim 03:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
