User talk:TaranRampersad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

[edit] Nice quote!

Nice quote in that AP article: 'Wikis' Offer Knowledge - Sharing Online.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sando Hill

Glad you started the page - there is nothing as inspiring as a blank page to get started (a broken link just doesn't do it for me). You picked a topic very close to my heart - as a 4th generation San Fernandian (now stuck in the wilds of middle America). Guettarda 20:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pictures of the Hill would be nice. On the way up the Hill, after you pass the guard booth, the road turns sharply to the right with a cliff-fcae on your left. In 1991 that cliff was almost bare, just a few scattered young stunted trees. Now the whole area is densely vegetated - I'm really impressed with that spot, especially since, unlike many of the other areas, the recovery was entirely natural. A shot from the top would also give a good sense of the town of Sando Guettarda

[edit] Otaheite

It appears that you were wrong about the name "Otaheite". Yes, it is a name of an island, but Tahiti is a modern name of the same island. The archipelago it is located in is called Society Islands. (You could have found out by looking at the Wikipedia articles, or at outside sources like MSN Encarta.) -- Mike Rosoft 20:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Taran 21:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And I say... (1) that's pretty rude, and (2) Otaheite is a cultural and historical reference that deserves at least a redirect. I dropped a note on your page[1]. Now we can do this the hard way or the easy way. The easy way would be at least a redirect - but I offer that a native of Tahiti who is concerned about their history may wish to write something about Otaheite.

I'd also advise you to be nicer to fellow contributors.

• I apologize if I was impolite. I agree that Otaheite deserves a redirect - in fact, I already created it.
• P.S.: Sorry once again. -- Mike Rosoft 07:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • Another comment: I have thougt about it, and I am afraid I don't believe that Otaheite is a valid subject for a separate article (just like Praha wouldn't have been a valid article separate from Prague). Instead, I would suggest including the relevant information in the main article (Tahiti), or - possibly - in a new article about etymology of the names.

Regards, Mike Rosoft 13:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've 'won' this because I got bored with it. Eventually, it will have to end up the right way. Whether that's what you think it is or what I think it is has yet to be determined, and is exponentially more relative than thinking about something that is intuitively sensible.--TaranRampersad 18:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linux Gazette POV

Some questions. I'm a LinuxGazette.net volunteer/author, but I'm also a Wikipedian -- please treat this as you would a message from any other Wikipedian.

"It has since become more functional than Linux Journal's site, and has become an online community of note."

'of note'? I'm not questioning that, but can you provide any references? Can you provide some examples of how it is more functional than "Linux Journal's" site? If not, these are opinions and should be quoted as such.

"However, SSC has held a trademark in the State of Washington prior to this."

Is there any proof of this? Otherwise it would be more correct to say "However, SSC claim to have held a trademark in the State of Washington prior to this."

This last paragraph poses a real problem for me:

"SSC has tried communicating with LinuxGazette.net volunteers repeatedly, requesting that the LinuxGazette.net volunteers simply change the name to avoid problems. LinuxGazette.net volunteers do not feel that they need to change the name, and as such it is apparent legal action may be necessary."

I'll take the end of that first: "as such it is apparent legal action may be necessary." Apparent to whom? "SSC feel it is apparent", perhaps? (And, IMO, you mean "it is apparent legal action shall be necessary")

The thing I really have to question here is 'repeatedly'. Ben Okopnik, the current editor of LinuxGazette.net, says he has received one email from SSC since the split: from you. Try "SSC claim to have tried..." -- Jim Regan 00:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Answers: -> Yes. There is more functionality made available to users. From blogs to other things, there are constant evolutions in the LinuxGazette.com site that are above and beyond Linux Journal.

Yes, SSC has held a trademark in Washington. It's a fact. Proof comes in the way of hard copy, and unfortunately there will be only one way in which that will be delivered. It will always be questioned until it comes in hard copy.

Okopnik was not the only person contacted, either, Jim. Email me if you want the correspondence dating back from the origins of this mess. I'm cnd_AT_knowprose.com. --TaranRampersad 04:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Functionality: what you wrote here is pretty much what I was looking for. Add it.

Trademark: Surely there's a reference you can point to? Not necessarily a link, but a registration number, perhaps?

Correspondance: Sure, I'd be interested. I'm willing to accept that I don't know the whole story.

"Bring facts, Jim": I did. I pointed out one specific example (Talk:Linux Gazette) of content that was removed after publication, which includes an assertion that Linux Gazette was to no longer be edited, two of the Answer Gang's main reasons for moving. -- Jim Regan 12:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was emailed back and forth a bit, for the record. There was also no progress other than the opinions of people who are not lawyers (including myself), and no resolution was found. Maybe a solution will be found without lawyers, which is what I sincerely wish would happen. But it's out of my hands now. --TaranRampersad 01:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RepRap

I've left a message for you at Talk:RepRap and removed the speedy tag. Good luck editing that one! :) Sarg 18:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good job! Sarg 10:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarg. It was pretty straightforward, though a browser crash had me do it twice. Argh. :-) --TaranRampersad 14:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caribbean Wikpedians

I am trying to set up a Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board as a place to build community and try to bring an overall focus to Caribbean topics. It you're interested I'd love to have your input on how to develop the project. The page has links to the other national/regional noticeboards, so you can have at what others do. Guettarda 1 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

[edit] Biopiracy NPOV tag

Do not remove the NPOV tag on Biopiracy. The article is in terrible shape. I've taken a stab at fixing it, but even I can tell it's nowhere near NPOV. You can tell by simply looking at the sources that are cited at the bottom. Mmmbeer 22:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you think that I have somehow injected my own POV into the Biopiracy article, but I'm not sure how that can possibly be. I've removed the rants. Biopiracy, by definition, is a pejorative term for allegedly exploitive use of intellectual property rights. I'm sorry if you think this is a political issue upon which to rant about commercialization or the patent system, but clearly this is not the correct forum. It's also not a good place for debates about genetically modified foods.
• That said, feel free to add laws, political policies, or jurisprudence which contribute to "biopiracy." Mmmbeer 01:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Do whatever you want, boyo. We'll fix it when you're done, and until WE fix it it will remain NPOV. I won't fight you. We'll just make sure that, despite your unilateral NPOV, we fix the article - even if it means rolling it back. US IP law is a small segment in the world. Grow outside of your education.

--TaranRampersad 05:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • I'm not sure which Biopiracy page you're looking at exactly, but the NPOV tag has been removed. After several edits, it's much, much closer to NPOV now than it was before I started. Besides, looking at the history of the page, I'm not the only one to have put up the NPOV first--a notable other law wiki person (non-US) had it and you removed it. The rants were blatant and obvious. Mmmbeer 10:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • That would be YOUR perspective on Biopiracy. Not impressed.

[edit] User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Trinidad and Tobago page as living in or being associated with Trinidad and Tobago. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Trinidad and Tobago for instructions.--Rmky87 03:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing your own article

Just a short note about the article Taran Rampersad: if you find inaccuracies, then my suggestion is to note this on the talk page. If you find a spelling mistake, why not edit it anyway? :P Ta bu shi da yu 00:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, well, there is that. But I want to completely avoid my name showing up in any revisions of the document...

• What Ta bu shi da yu says is not entirely correct. As Wikipedia:Autobiography specifies: "However, in clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism, and not just a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on", so therefore if you find any factual inaccuracies please feel free to correct them, even using your logged in username. jaco♫plane 18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for this tip, it's very useful. I didn't even know that a guideline existed for autobiographies.--TaranRampersad 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's true, just be careful. Even Jimbo Wales edited his own entry on Wikipedia, and he has said it lead to a "loss of dignity". That's why I advised you in the way I did. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am still going to try to avoid editing the entry at all. The original premise I started with remains the same... and it's reflected in the guidelines which I had not read (which is really a good thing). I leave notes on the Talk page, I leave it at that. I'll admit, the entry is a curiosity for me. As it is, I can give people information on myself, but I can't put it in the article. The fact that I belong to organizations which do not have a strong web presence is somewhat amusing, because they are unverifiable. :-) --TaranRampersad 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:WhiteLinedTanagerTopMaleBottomFemale.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:WhiteLinedTanagerTopMaleBottomFemale.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 15:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Thanks for the offer. Great to see you back. Any images are much appreciated, of course. I have looked through your flickr site before and I got the impression that they were cc by nc, and so unavailable for WP. Still is great to see pix from home...and I asked a friend to ID a bird you had a question about a few months back (did you ever hear from her?) Guettarda 16:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I used your Last Train picture of a stub about the Trinidad Government Railway. If you ever are on South Quay and can get a pic of the facade of the old building, that might be a nice addition, as might any old rail bridges, that kind of thing (though, as far as I can tell from Michael Anthony's book, the lines that ran east from San Fernando to Williamsville and Princes Town were part of the Cipero Tramway, so those bridges, while still worth taking before they all disappear, would probably not be useful in the TGR article. (BTW, I had seen the your article before. Kinda cool). Guettarda 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. With images I pointed at, just let me know if you want to use... I can change the license as necessary; I only have that license so that it isn't used in commercial works unless I say so. :-)

[edit] AfD Process

Before you go around accusing established editors of not following policy properly please see the history of the AfD discussions and you will find the first edit to the page where I properly began the AfD process. Other users moved my nomination and wrote on top of it. This is what you may have seen which made you believe that I did not nominate the article properly. I also updated my nomination throughout the discussion which is acceptable and not against any Wikipedia policy. The article was properly nominated. Please review the policy at WP:AGF before you attack and insult other editors. Please also remember that it is against policy to edit a closed AfD discussion. Thank you. --Strothra 19:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, Strothra, I apologize if I made a mistake but I left that quite open in case I did make a mistake. However, the facts are and remain quite muddy. Your handling of the situation is not something I can comment on because I do not have the details. Hopefully the administrators do their jobs. Meanwhile, I don't see you as any better than anyone else - so chill out. :-) Nobody's dieing. Now, in my opinion, your nominating it for deletion is questionable - and that is my opinion regardless of what the Grand Poobahs decide. Their decision does not change mine. I don't like the article, but I also don't like people walking around and posting deletion notices because they felt like it - and I think that's what you did, because the substantiation seems rather weak. But that, of course, is my opinion and subject to change with new data. But rather than nitpick this instance, I'm just going to keep an eye on things posted for deletion. Since you're a deletionist, or so you say, you can expect to see me again. Keep your ducks in formation. :-) --TaranRampersad 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WP policies are still WP policies. You may question all you wish but my AfD nom, especially as it is now, is well reasoned and it will be nominated again after a few months if it not brought into compliance with Wikipedia policies. Further, you should not attack or insult other editors and their motives. Once again, I direct you to WP:AGF. You are also urged to be more precise with your comments. If you mean to say that a user did not follow a policy correctly there are channels for arbitration for that. You should use them instead of insulting the editor - an action which is against policy. Tact goes a long way. Basically, look before you leap. This is the last I will comment on this subject. --Strothra 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not attack or insult you, and at this point I am beginning to consider it because you are beginning to become offensive to me. I do find your motives questionable. That is not an insult, that's my perspective and an observation. I am urging you to stay off my talk page with something that I believe to be resolved, or perhaps you can nominate my talk page for deletion. :-) Bear in mind that I, too, am an editor, and you should take your own advice. Now be done with it. Hugs and kisses. --TaranRampersad 23:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside observation

Hey -- this is a response to your request on my talk page. I think you should be careful in claiming that other users aren't acting in good faith (ie, Strothra's deletion nomination/vote), without a clear reason. Assume good faith is one of the central tenets of WP after all. I'm not going to vote in the AfD, as it seems there are plenty of people involved already. However, I can see why the article is nominated for deletion: it contains hardly any information, and claims a low level of importance.. it's a classic deletion candidate. You said you don't care much one way or another (this seems to be the position of most reasonable people in your position, I've come across a few before), but you might consider improving the article if you can make it more clear why people should want to read a biography about you. It's okay to edit an article on yourself, as long as you are careful to be neutral and back up your information with sources. FWIW, I don't think you were making personal attacks against Strothra. My advice is to disengage. Let me know if you continue to feel hostility from Strothra and I'll look into it and warn him if it's appropriate. Mangojuice^talk 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow your advice and disengage. My assessment is based on past experience as well. However, I always get a strong sense of "I'm the only one who knows the rules and therefore I'm always right" from him, which I consider extremely dangerous when mixed with whatever a self-described deletionist actually is. I typically do assume good faith, but I sincerely believe that the AfD process is being bastardized from it's original spirit. Where I am, I'm trying to encourage use of the Wikipedia. I've written often enough about it. But when people can just assign pages for deletion (I mean, I could...) and the same names keep popping up, there's a big question that starts forming. So I'm on record for saying that. I'm very tired of this sort of thing. It takes away from things. I was going to add information on Bonnie Bracey - but who would put in effort when there's a big deletion notice at the top? And I have all sorts of stuff for other things that I want to add... but you know, this stuff takes it's toll. I'm not looking up to the Wikipedia like I used to. I'm seeing the emperor has no clothes.

And for the record, I haven't looked for this person. His name just keeps popping up. Very disturbing. I'll start editing again when I feel like it, because right now I just really don't feel like it. --TaranRampersad 08:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Further... Wikipedia:Harassment seems to be exactly what is being done. Strothra even edited the discussion to remove the things said there. --TaranRampersad 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was not removed but moved to the discussion page of the AfD as is common practice in AfD's when discussion does not concern the article. That's what the AfD's talk page is for. Anyway, I for one feel that you would make a great editor but you're still new so you should be more open to guidance and not become upset so easily. I will tell you that, I have higher standards for inclusion than most do but that's because my view of what an encyclopedia should be is more "by-the-book" since people use Wikipedia as a source, and sometimes their first and only source, for information on a topic. Too often are articles on Wikipedia filled with false statements and unverified facts because the bar for research if far too low. Wikipedia has the potential to be both a very positive and very dangerous tool for the public. Do not take my comments as attacks but merely as attempts to guide you. You have the ability to read Wiki policy or not to and, of course, you are allowed to ignore all the rules (that's a policy too, oddly enough). I ask you to stay or to come back after time but be willing to compromise with other editors who are trying to build a more verifiable and stronger encyclopedia. I've seen too many students fall into traps because of Wikipedia. I guess part of my "mission" here is to promote an encyclopedia with high standards. It's unfortunate that the truly great encyclopedias such as Britannica are not free as Wikipedia is. Since, Wikipedia is free, however, it should hold itself responsible to the people it attempts to inform. For the record, I do not also promote deletion and actively support keeping articles that are properly cited using verifiable sources. --Strothra 01:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've said what I have had to say, I have disengaged, and I do not really want to hear anything more from you. You win. I won't be editing the Wikipedia until I feel like it, and your actions have had a direct effect on that. Congratulations. I trust you'll feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Now leave me be. --TaranRampersad 04:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you reconsider and stick around (we need more Trinis). But I don't suppose there's much you can do when people choose to be assholes. If it isn't fun there's no point to be here. Remember, there are more important things to think about - like beating England ;) Guettarda 04:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but - if everything that people start contributing and fleshing out is going to be deleted instead of made better, I believe that the Wikipedia has lost it's spirit. People in ICT and working on digital divide issues are apparently being singled out. By the very nature of digital divide issues, references online are still being built around the world. I view this as a cultural censorship of the Wikipedia, especially if self-proclaimed deletionists can run around and do whatever they want and hide behind processes. I was pro-Wikipedia, but right now... I don't really care too much for it. I've written strong articles advocating the Wikipedia; I've gone to bat for the Wikipedia in many circles and have done so with personal insults leveled at me. Well, if this is the direction the Wikipedia is taking, if this is the way the grand poobahs want things - I can see why there is negative press related to the Wikipedia. The emperor has no clothes, and I can thank Strothra for setting me right. I can't in good spirit tell people that they should participate in the Wikipedia if deletionists are more concerned with deleting than adding value. Strothra has decided to not add value, because if he followed the links on the talk pages for many articles, he would have seen much more. There's no punitive measures to be taken for people who wantonly post things for deletion and yet they critique the people who create. What kind of silly process is that? I'll see how I feel about this in a week (I have to cremate an Uncle in an hour), and depending on how I feel I'll write about it off the Wikipedia. And from there, let the Wikipedia handle it's business as it sees fit. I'm now an outsider looking in, no longer a participant. Wikipedia Processes and Strothra have determined this. --TaranRampersad 13:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your uncle. Focus on what's important - you and your family. Guettarda 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

I just wanted to let you know I have 'prodded' Alcohol receiver - it was on the verify list, and frankly it doesn't seem to me to merit an article at all. If you want to discuss, use the article's talk page. --Brianyoumans 16:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your vote to retain the XPLANE page. I would like to add more information on some of the methodologies but will refrain till I see the outcome. I appreciate your comments. dgray_xplane

Hello again. The XPLANE article has been revided and is up for deletion review. I'd appreciate it if you took a look at the revised article at User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE and weighed in on the deletion review process at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24Dgray xplane

Thank you again for your comments. I am learning a lot about Wikipedia and you are helping a lot. Much appreciated. Dgray xplane 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zanta

Note that Zanta has been restored, and place on AfD for a proper deletion debate. -- Zanimum 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

Thomas Carter (inventor) was deleted for being a copyright violation, as you would have discovered if you had followed the prominent link to the deletion log on the page right in front of you when you edited it. Furthermore it was not, contrary to your edit summary when you re-created the article, originally submitted by you. The original editor was Joel Lindley (talk · contribs). The text that you re-added was exactly the same copyright violation as before. I have deleted it. Please write in your own words, citing sources, or not at all. Read the Wikipedia:Copyright policy for more information. Uncle G 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Well then, I'm not going to edit that one again. It's more important for people to delete it than correct it. I'm familiar with Wikipedia copyright policy, thank you very much. Incidentally, there was no link to a deletion log that I was aware of... I'll look for that in the future. I honestly thought I was the original author of that entry - in fact, I could swear I was - but hey, the way things get whacked around here, who cares, right? Thanks for your explanation, that IS appreciated. :-)--TaranRampersad 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

He has spoken at conferences in St. Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago related to Free Software and Open Source, but no web references are available.

Are you aware of any non-web refs? Guettarda 19:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to enable your email address for a bit? Guettarda 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue-gray Tanager

I changed the image because the previous was small and blur. You can't see the detail of bird. "Frankly, it looks suspect in my eyes" = your opinion, what can I say ? FYI, you are allowed to change/edit freely (not vandalize) on Wiki. Just change back, if you feel your image more informative. That happened to me and everybody. I rather using my time to create or edit an article instead of arguing. If easily offended, do not Wiki. Cheers --Stavenn 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Placed back on your talk page, where the discussion is. I'm not offended, but it seems you are. I'm sorry for pointing out how other people may feel. I assumed good, I would think you would as well. Had I not assumed good I would have rolled back the picture. --TaranRampersad 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So it's not that you got offended because I replaced your image, that you sent me a message ? Assumed NEVER good. It always leads to negative, misleading or wrong info. Too much assume = became a drama queen. There is no Good Assume. It's a BS. I can't see which part is good. I rather people speak up their mind and ask, better than assuming. You don't need anybody approval to do what you got to do. There's my opinion. Back to the bird: you said the picture lacks color which is an important part of the bird's appearance, and that would be ....? image was taken about 40cm distance from the object, not from far away. --Stavenn 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, if I were offended I would have replaced the image. Your image does not show the colors of the tanager very well - period. I had thought you would see the point and take it constructively, but since that is not the case, I'll simply note to myself that you are not someone who allows for being wrong. Good day. :-) --TaranRampersad 20:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Image:Palm tanager.jpg listed for deletion ==

== Image:Blue-gray tanager.jpg listed for deletion ==

Pilotguy, I uploaded the pictures once and noted the license properly. A 'speedy deletion' is silly even if I did not mark them appropriately; there was no time for someone on a WIKIBREAK to respond. I see this as just more of 'Meet the New Boss, Same As The Old Boss' of the Wikipedia. Congratulations. --TaranRampersad 06:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problem administrators

You are encouraged to report problem administrators to WP:AN. I have had similar problems with specific users. Sorry that some people here are assholes. ... aa:talk 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)