User talk:Solipsist/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other pages: main - talk - images - contrib - notes

Talk archive: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10

[edit] WikiLink game

Gave it a try, with N = 5: Random page => Frood => Ford Prefect (character) => Arthur Dent => Kurt Vonnegut => Satire => Curse => God => Judaism => Christianity => Messiah => King David => Books of Samuel => Books of Kings => Kingdom of Israel => Solomon => Grace => Amazing Grace => William Cowper => Poet => Georgian poets => 1912....

an interesting walk! thank you!

Just got a 28er with N = 5: -- Solipsist 11:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sanchi - Stupa - Buddha - Karma - Upanishad - Philosophy - Syllogism - Categorical syllogism - Proposition - Predicate - Bertrand Russell - Mathematician - Quantum mechanics - Classical mechanics - Statics - Center of mass - Unit - Engineering - Experience - Empirical knowledge - Intuition - Common sense - Judgment - Liability - Property - Product (business) - Service - Customer

N =4. Flag of Rhode Island, United States Constitution, 17 September, Jew, non-exclusive ethnic group, United States, Pacific Ocean, 1 E14 m², 1 E13 m², 1 E12 m², and unfortunately they weren't all written consistently or that would have racked up the links, but no, onto Orders of magnitude (area) (and ignore side table), 1 E-8 m², Millimetre, length, Alpha Centauri, Brightness, Luminance, Chrominance and thus endeth the game at only 18 articles (interesting though). A very amusing little diversion. Oh, and there is at least one person who is sorely tempted by the computer algorithm project! :o) zoney ███ talk 00:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

yeh, nice game...my first go (N=8): Australia, Latin, Lingua franca, English, United States, U.S. State, Associated Press, United Press International, William Randolph Hearst, George Hearst, Sullivan, Missouri, 2000, 2000 al-Qaida Summit, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Gulf of Oman ...(not enough links).

Is there any records page for the game? AlbinoMonkey 12:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not yet, but now the WikiLink game is over in WikiFun, it sounds like a good idea - go for it. One problem I can see is that as pages change over time, you might not get the same results at a later date. Glad you had fun. -- Solipsist 12:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Organetto

Thank you for your revision about the photo. Ciao, --M7it 21:09, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Slaughterhouse

I liked all the work you did on the slaughterhouse article. Major improvement! ike9898 16:00, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, its nice to be appreciated. I landed there on a whim, and I'm a little surprised I got so carried away with editing. -- Solipsist 16:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll echo that sentiment - fantastic work, its almost ready to be a featured article now! Ppe42 02:59, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

Yeah, kind of a weird combination of business and advocacy, but I've seen this kind of thing from time to time. I tend to be 50/50 about deleting it from talk pages, since advocacy is part of the norm for talk pages anyway. :-) Sometimes random notes like that can be cookies useful in later investigations (who is the person? what is the network?). Your call, although I expect others will notice and excise even if you leave it. Stan 19:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] wrongtitle

You know, you are probably right on Brancusi, who made his career mainly in the West and is therefore usually known by this simplified spelling of his name. I was going through and doing this on a bunch of Romanian names, for most of which these simplified spellings are not customarily used. Similarly Nicolae Ceauşescu is so well-known that similar issues apply, and Nadia Comaneci (for whom I didn't add one of these) actually changed her name from "Comăneci". Feel free to reverse my decision on Brancusi; on the rest of these, though (e.g. Ion Creangă, Ştefan cel Mare) I think my decision was correct. Do you think not?

For whatever it is worth, I was following the pattern of Panini (scholar), recently discussed on the Village Pump -- Jmabel | Talk 20:57, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Red-link recovery

Howdy and many thanks for your work on that list of mis-punctuated links. The list's pretty much completed now - I'll be generating a new version of it in due course, taking all the lessons learned from the last one into account. In the meantime, if you enjoyed working through the list (or at least found it a worthwhile distraction), you may want to have a look at the similar list of plural discrepancies which highlights red-links that might be red because they (or the article they are aiming for) are improperly pluralised. Again, thanks for your efforts - award yourself a wikimedal for janitorial services if you haven't already got one! - TB 11:28, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Feather-white-falling-blue-to-purple-graduated-background-1-AJHD.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Feather-white-falling-blue-to-purple-graduated-background-1-AJHD.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 15:17, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

That ones from my early days - now tagged. -- Solipsist 15:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image description page

On the Upload Form, it reads: "By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." Paul may wish to duel-license it under a Creative Commons licenses, but it is also automatically licensed under the GFDL. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 05:28, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wobbly Bridge

Good find; I've amended the picture caption, just in case, and put a link to the paper on the external links and the discussion page. However the text of our article talks about "52 tuned mass dampers (inertial) to control vertical movement", and I suspect my image is one one (or more) of these. Given that accuracy is the most important thing, withdrawing the word "retrospective" probably sorts out the problem, but please hack away at the bridge page as you see fit. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Tallest building in London

Hi Ed,

If it isn't too much trouble, could you update your Image:Tallest buildings.png in London to include 30 St Mary Axe at the number 6 spot. -- Solipsist 22:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. ed g2s • talk 19:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Music manuscript

In light of the identification, do you think you might rename and reupload Image:ManuscriptBeethoven9thSymphony.jpg under a more apropriate title and link it to the Ruddigore article? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Gill

Thanks for including the link to Eric Gill's headstone. I noticed that you got the inscription just slightly wrong - 'Stone Carver' not 'cutter'. Do you think he carved it himself prior to his death? - although the bottom part he could not have done, of course.... Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Timeline of Gill's life. I didn't know he died at Harefield Hospital - my wife did her nursing training there -- Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 15:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Bentham

you were correct in me wondering the later. thats pretty interesting. i definatly see the desire to do experimentation with bodies but the glass case desplaying bones wearing clothing seems a little odd and of little scientific value. i have no problems with bodies and all, but the skeliton without the clothing (perhaps with reconstructed joints and tendons and such) would seem to be worth so much more to the inquireing minds than a scarecrow made of human parts. pretty ecentric. Cavebear42 22:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] response to message

Please make any comments and questions you have at the arbcom page. Take note of my recent addition on the evidence page. Thank you Arminius 04:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Insect Eggs.

Hi Solipsist, thanks for your comment, but I don't know whether I'll be able to help you out on that one. I know I must be getting a bit of a macro reputation, but truth be told, its mainly luck. I wouldn't be able to gaurentee finding any insect eggs in the next 6 months but on the other hand I might see one be accident and be able to take a photo of it. Most of my macro shots are like that For instance Cricket was taken on my water tank. Just happened to be their one day. I do have a pretty average shot of ant eggs, but I don't think that's what you're after is it? Also my camera cant take photos of any object smaller than a 5c coin (Australian) very well. But I'll try my best. --Fir0002 01:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy

Actually, this is pretty much how Wright’s painting looks like when it comes to illumination [1]. I’d use this if it wasn’t for the annoying compression artifacts that are even worse here. I do indent of adding a whole bunch of other illustrations and artwork, there's no shortage of that. GeneralPatton 19:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I’ve taken a look on google, and sadly there isn’t one good reproduction of this great painting on the net. I did find some others that were nice. GeneralPatton 23:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] art and visual art

I put this on your archive2 page, not sure if I should've posted there or here...

Solipsist, has there been a decision made to move Category:Art into Category:Visual art or vice versa? I'm not sure what the outcome was on Category talk:Art. I have been working on cleaning up lots of these areas. There hasn't been a consensus to delete Category:Arts right? See User talk:Clubmarx for some problems I'm running into. Also, note, that Hyacinth is quoting himself above. help! Clubmarx 18:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Schroedinger's Cat

Shouldn't it be "Wanted, dead and alive : Schroedinger's cat." ? :) Brian Sayrs 02:29, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Heya Solip!

I've nominated you for adminship on WP:RFA. You can accept and answer the questions there. Good luck! JOHN COLLISON [ L u d r a m an] 16:32, 7 Dec 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:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

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:

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:

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] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] UK city links

Heya, I see you've removed the spam link from Oxford. Could you use your shiny admin powers to do the same for all the other cities the link's been added to? It was on my todo list, but since you've shown an interest and have to click less to do it I was hoping to get you to do it for me... Incidentally, congrats on the adminship! --fvw * 16:59, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Hi Fvw, sorry I didn't catch your note earlier. In fact, if I had reverted Oxford, I must have already been half way through reverting the anon users contributions of commercial external links. In fact I did it the non-admin way since (for some reason that escapes me now), I wanted to be gentle on the new user and provide a reason for the reverts. Anyhow, should all be tidy now. -- 22:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Great, thanks! And not biting the newbie was a very kind, even if the necessity was debatable. --fvw * 16:49, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

[edit] The image I put on the ANZAC Bridge article came from the same source.

The image I inserted into the Anzac Bridge article came from same source as the Millau Viaduct photos.

If such photos are not acceptable, then they should be deleted and replaced at the time when wikipedia decides to go commercial (first thing I've heard of that possibility). In the mean time, while wikipedia is still true to non-commercialism, why ruin a good article by substituting an inferior picture? If that's the way it has to be, I'll just stop wasting my time uploading images and just put a link. Sigh.

– Dennis _{(talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)}[[]] 20:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

PS: I was planning to insert this image into the article for the Flight of the Phoenix http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/photos/040315-F-9999G-021.jpg and maybe build a stub for the C-82 Packet with the image inserted. I thought this copyright template might be the correct one to use.

{{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}

Would that be wiki-acceptible?

– Dennis _{(talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)}[[]] 21:07, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

.. I added Image:C82_Packet.jpg and placed a link to document it's public domain status under the image.

– Dennis _{(talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)}[[]] 14:46, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bolds

Hi Solipsist - my feeling is make them bold if there's just one or two major alternative names, but when there's several similar ones as in this case (and all derivatives of the main name), then making them all bold clutters things up a bit too much. - MPF 21:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Turpentine

I've never heard of turpentine gum before, but research on google seems to suggest that turpintine gum, is rosin. In normal converstaion aussies call turpentine oil 'turps'. Also turpentine is the name of a native tree (not a pine - hard wood semi-rainforest) which i doubt trups oil can be got from, so i dont know why it has the same name (and its not a gum tree either, so turpentine gum cant refer to it). The bellman 11:01, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PhilosophersStone.png

Greetings, Solipsist. You uploaded Image:PhilosophersStone.png, and it says "Drawn by Andrew Dunn - 1995" Are you Andrew Dunn? If not, do you know if he would be willing to release the image under the GFDL? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 18:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lozenge character

Hello. I noticed the "lozenge" character on Template:In the news and later I saw you add it to Template:Did you know. Have I missed a discussion somewhere about this? When I first saw them my first reaction was that it was either a rendering error or an inadvertent slipup, not that it was something meaningful. - Mark 13:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well several times, I've thought it difficult to match the thumbnail picture to the relevant news item or did you know item. Sometimes people have reordered to try and place the item with the picture at the top, but not always, and this doesn't work on Aniversaries. So I figured a mark or indicator to flag the pictured item would be a good idea. The lozenge isn't ideal, but it is simple and is said to render on most browsers. It shouldn't need explanation, people will soon pick it up. Obviously it wasn't univerally liked, as User:Schneelocke reverted them without comment. -- Solipsist 15:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Photographer's Barnstar

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! I feel honored and moved the star on my main page! -- Chris 73 Talk 12:18, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bus articles

Thanks! I appreciate the compliment. Vaoverland 21:37, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] X-rays.

Say, you did such a good job unwatermarking Image:Polydactyly 01 Lhand AP.jpg---could you lend your hand to Image:Polydactyly 01 Rhand AP.jpg, Image:Polydactyly 01 Lfoot AP.jpg and Image:Polydactyly 01 Rfoot AP.jpg as well? grendel|khan 19:45, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about whether it is such a good idea to modify these images, since potentially it could impact on their authenticity and the tags provide useful identification of which appendage/orientation is being shown. On the other hand I have to agree with User:Raul654 that such high contrast tags are a little distracting, and it is just meta data that can be equally well contained in the associated image description. In any case the tags are eaiser to hide on other three images, so as requested I've gone ahead and done them too. Hope they are good enough. -- Solipsist 23:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! grendel|khan 01:02, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

[edit] Goya (ship)

You wrote "Italics are OK, but ship names are usually preceded by the definite article". Often, yes, but not usually. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#"The" before the ship's name for discussion.

The frequency of "the" depends on the ship. For example, on Google I get about 2:1 for "Bismarck" : "the Bismarck" and about 14:1 for "Hood" : "the Hood" (when searching with suitable extra terms to rule out false positives). But on the other hand the ratio is about 2.5:1 for "the Titanic" : "Titanic" and 12:1 for "the Mary Rose" : "Mary Rose". It seems that the more famous a ship is, the more likely it is to acquire the definite article.

In the particular case of Goya, I get about 2:1 for "Goya" : "the Goya" so I'm not sure your change was justified. Gdr 02:22, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

[edit] The ship shaped grammar

(Pun intended). It seems to me that the proper way to address the problem is simply, as discussed, include 'the' when you do not have the ship's full name, i.e. USN Lexington. For some famous ships, it might not be necessarily included. I recommend to include it for readibility and to make it clear that you are speaking of a noun which is mostly likely an object, rather than a person. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1970

No, I didn't know that :( /me sad. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marco of Alexandria

Don't you think that when you put a page on VFD it automatically makes people want to vote to delete, even when it's worthy! I have given examples of many pages that are much less encyclopedic than the page you slandered by putting on VFD!! ... It's not fair to put the Marco of Alexandria page through this ... If you are watching this talk page, please go to the Marco of Alexandria page and vote to Keep Reem 62.135.55.116 18:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Its an interesting side of Wikipedia, but not one that I like that much. For the most part an article only get listed on WP:VFD with good reason (occaisionally people list articles with malicious intent or to support some hidden aggenda). Then there is a constant tension between the people who normally watch the deletion votes; some are Inclusionists who believe that every article that can be independently verified should be included, others are Deletionists who hold a higher standard. The watershed between the two is frequently fought over the inclusion of articles on high schools - a young new editor will often write about their own high school and the result often gets placed on WP:VFD. Inclusionists always vote to keep because there really is a high school of that name and it costs next to nothing to keep the information of Wikipedia, deletionists usually vote to delete because the majority of high schools are of very little interest to anyone else in the world. There are sometimes other useful outcomes, such as moving a page to a new name, moving it to Wikipedia:Cleanup, or merging the information with another page.

If you check User:JRM's page, you'll see that he describes himself as an Inclusionist, but initially voted to delete on the Marco article. Personally I'm probably a borderline deletionist, but for the most part I find Votes of Deletion too adversarial and prefer to spend my time on creating more useful articles or improving the quality of images of Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 20:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This sounds very good, you sound like a sane man. So I bet an internationally recognized artist is more notable than a high school in Littleville, Arizona. Regarding the artist's listed for comparison, I was just trying to see who knows who, and yes, you picked up the only 2 Well-Known names in the list. I am not claiming that Marco is as accomplished as Christo or Louise. Certainly he is not of their Age or means. But as many have said, he is a notable Artist, and that is all that matters. I mean he could be a little city in the vast United States of America, he doesn't have to be New York or Chicago to be notable and to still exist in a Paperless Wikipedia that promotes the freeflow of free information for all. I am wondering if it is possible to change your vote to keep Marco's page because after all you have said, it only makes sense that he gets included in this project; the page could be edited relentlessly later on. But deletion? I think it would be unfair. 62.135.55.227 03:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of his VfD

Thanks for your encouragement. If i had grasped how much effort it would take, it's a nettle i might not have grasped. But IMO i did need doing, even tho most of these keep-voters will be gone with the morning dew. (Hey, two nature metaphors in two successive sentences!)

You'll see i tweaked your solution to the doubled vote, believing that we're not yet at "the point of diminishing returns" (why isn't there an *accurate* catchphrase for that concept?) on the transparency-as-function-of-explicitness curve.

Hey, i love your 3 user-page -- uh -- aphorisms?

--Jerzy (t) 16:57, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

[edit] your vote

Thanks for your vote on my RfA! Following your vote on IfD I was afraid for a moment that you'd vote Delete, but I see I got off lucky just being called a duck. *giggles* --fvw * 11:11, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Isaac Newton article

Thanks for educating me on this subject. I am fine with your revert to Stirling Newberry's most recent edit, but I disagree with your decision to keep the inconsistent date formats on Isaac Newton. Please consider using the dates I used in the article. SpencerWilson 01:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FTC captions

I place those edits to the captions on the FPC's that are promoted or retained as FP's so that a quick scan of the archives' images will tell which ones are the FPs. It is especially nice when there are several images associated with a nomination. - Bevo 16:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)