User talk:Wayland-2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2003 archive

Hello wayland- regarding your edits to the Vegan page... personaly i feel that it is unethical to use the 'minor edit' box when actualy making quite major changes to a page- for me the 'minor edits' box should only be used for spelling corrections, etc. I've been vegan myself for 20 years, and advocate for veganism where it is appropriate, so am actually sympathetic to much of what you are saying, but find that striving to use a nuetral point of view actually strengthens our arguement. Some may percieve using the 'minor edits' box for major and POV article changes as trying to be sneaky and actually respond in a way that harms our case in the longer term. No-one has the last word on wikipedia!! Best wishes, quercus robur 23:30, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wayland, thanks for your efforts re books, but you may want to write in a more prose-style which is more common on the Wikipedia, than in short points. Take a look at A Small Killing and Signal to Noise for examples. Thanks! Keep contributing :) Dysprosia 11:55, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page Dysprosia 22:17, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not trying to be nosy (I watch Recent Changes) but you're asking a question of Quercusrobur on his/her user page and not their talk page. The user isn't notified of changes to their user page. Try here instead :) Dysprosia 13:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] List of digital library projects

The section headers on the List of digital library projects page are all one level too high. I think you need to add a single "=" to each set, except maybe "See also" which is probably fine. If you're not finished with this page, maybe you could do it, or else let me know and I'll see if I can squeeze it in before end-of-lunch. HTH HAND --Phil 12:14, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Sadly the structure is still rather busy but I suppose you're constrained by your subject. --Phil 13:05, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The link you posted at C.S. Lewis

...appears to be broken. Can you go to the article and try the link to make sure it works? I got a weird error page when I tried it. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 19:07, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yep, works great. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 23:45, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Flint and steel fire

Please see my comment on the talk page there. --Smack 23:31, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kyz

Hi Wayland, I concur with this. I was quite surprised to notice you gave me a user page :) Kyz 23:33, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Food articles

Hi there, looks like a lot of the food articles you've created are being nominated for deletion. For the most part this is because they are overly specific. When you are thinking of creating sever related little articles, its often a good idea to create one big article instead. For example make one called fritter instead of pineapple fritter, apple fritter, pea fritter, etc. Same thing for the breakfast foods, if possible. Otherwise the small ones really have very little potential to become encyclopeid and may be deleted. —siroχo 22:54, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pineapple fritter

Hi Wayland, I quite liked your pineapple fritter article. Now it's been merged I won't vote on the article, but I just want you to know that if someone lists an article you contributed to onto VfD it shouldn't be counted as a personal attack. (well, not usually and if this happens to you please let me know) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Villages in the United States

Please use a more specific category, such as Category:Villages in Wisconsin. older≠wiser 12:23, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm already on it, thanks! --wayland 12:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you so much for your efforts at History of literature. I worked on that page for a while but the immenisty of the task proved far too daunting, and I gave up in despair. I have since tried to enlist others to work on areas they knew to help flesh out the article, with limited success. Your recent additions of a skeletal structure to 18th Cent. lit look very good (though I admit, I know little about the period), and I was so pleased to see your work, I thought I'd let you know. Please do keep editing, and let me know if I can ever be of any help, Jwrosenzweig 23:45, 2 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:

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)[[]] 15:07, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Illness

Could you please explain what you were planning to do with this category? I find its addition really unhelpful; Category:Symptom is not a legitimate child of Category:Illness - not every symptom (e.g. itch or palpitations) is considered an illness. I'm therefore removing "symptom" from "illness". Please comment - in the present form I'm very much tempted to revert all your work. JFW | T@lk 09:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I'll put a reply over on your talk page Jfdwolff.

--wayland 10:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Wayland's user page

The following was found on my user page so I've moved it here:

  • That's just...wrong. PsiXi 20:39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

--wayland 10:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)