User talk:The0ther
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wiki is a website where any visitor can edit any page in the wiki. Most wikis require users to first register. Once you're registered a "talk page" is created for you, which servers mainly as an area where you can take notes, engage in discussion with other users (who can edit your talk page like any other page in the wiki), or otherwise experiment with the wiki.
The essence of wiki is that anybody can edit any page. How does it work out though? Every edit results in the previous version of the document being saved-off. Wiki acts a lot like a versioning system in this regard. Vandals sometimes make abusive edits to a document, but this is easily reversed by rolling-back to the previous version. Users have a watchlist so they can take a sort-of ownership of any page and see when the last edit was made.
Finally, the contents of a wiki are organized by URL. So if I want to check an entry in the "wikipedia" (an online wiki-based encyclopedia) a knowing user can just add the search term to the end of the URL. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington is the entry for our first President. If no one had previously entered this into the wikipedia I would be presented with a blank page and I could immediately begin writing the entry for George Washington. To me, it is this feature which makes the wiki much more useable than any other CMS-like thing out there.
The0ther 20:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Your pic
Thanks for uploading Image:Sixfat 1955.gif. 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.) Thanks so much, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 02:02, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Six Fat Dutchmen
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Six Fat Dutchmen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo7565 04:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I stumbled on the article tonight (but I can't remember how, now that I think about it... I know nothing about polka music), and with a little googling I made an attempt to expand the article a bit. For what it's worth, in 1958 they had a vinyl LP issued by the famed RCA Victor record company, so they weren't entirely some unknown local act. A website said they were popular for a time in Texas, well outside their home stomping grounds of New Ulm, Minnesota. The band was created in the 1930s, yet a couple of "Greatest Hits" compilation CDs for them came out in the 90s and as recently as 2006, so somebody still thinks there's a market for their music.
- There's apparently not a whole lot of historical background on the web about old acts such as these; it's not too hard to understand why since those who were around when a band like this was at it's most popular are probably dead by now, or if alive may have not be very inclined to create web pages. It's up to another generation of people dedicated to a genre's musical history to put historical content up on the web. Polka has limited appeal to begin with, except in certain geographic locations, so that probably is one strike against it as far as building a comprehensive historical online narrative about it... Or maybe I just didn't find one better resources in my brief bit of searching. - Itsfullofstars 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Harold alone.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Harold alone.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
