User talk:Wfeidt

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

re: PEN/Faulkner Award Award for Fiction - No probs Bill. Don't worry if things on VfD aren't dealt with straight away. They normally get deleted after a week unless there's an argument against it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention though. Angela 19:36 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy editing of some of my articles, but one thing you do not need to do is turn all the [[Canadian]] into [[Canada|Canadian]] , Canadian is already a redirect to Canada. - SimonP 19:36, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I've changed back the ones I remember; when I first started doing articles, mine were "corrected" in this way, so I assumed this was the proper style. - Bill 20:03, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
No reason to change them back. It does no harm to have [[Canada|Canadian]] , its just a waste of effort since it isn't needed. For many other countries they should be changed, however, because they also have a language by the same name e.g. Japanese, French, Russian. - SimonP 20:10, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
Understood. By the way, thanks too for tending to "Coto de casa"! -- Bill 20:13, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, you cast a vote in the TEMP5 debate. The Temp5 proposal was voted down by 61.3% to 38.6%. We seem to be going around in circles on the whole issue of the main page. A new vote is now taking place to clarify what exactly we want, namely

  1. Do we actually want to have a new page?
  2. If so when (immediately, after a pause, timed to the press release, etc)?
  3. What do people want on the front page and what do they want excluded?

As of now, the whole issue seems surrounded by complete confusion. This way, finally and definitively, we will know what we want and when we want it. So do please express your opinions. The vote is on the same page as the previous votes. FearÉIREANN 20:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Where's the page? It used to be linked-to from the "Recent changes" pages, but it is no more. -- Bill 10:18, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page/Layout design. There's been a bit of an edit war on recent changes so the link may reappear later! Angela 10:22, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I didn't noticed it earlier, but when I found by accident (I was only checking from where Willywilly was linked]]) that you nominated my Provinces of Thailand project to the brilliant prose candidates it was a very pleasant surprise. So I just want to thank you for this appreciation of my work. I am coming closer to finish that project, 69 of 76 are done, so soon you can recheck it when it is done. But of course they are never fully finished... andy 15:13, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is there any chance that I can argue to convince you to change your vote on the inclusion of Peerage titles? -- Clarence Threepwood, 9th Earl of Emsworth

Holly Cr*p Batman, I'm impressed with your addition to KFI AM!! Thanks

  • My pleasure. Thanks for noticing and commenting. Bill 15:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mutual fund scandal (2003)

Bill, nice work on the mutual fund article. Does "market timing" need to be defined more or is it the same as "late trading" in the article? --Rj 04:59, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Whoops. I'm just seeing this now. Thanks. No, "late trading" and "market timing" are two different things. I'll add a definition to the article. -- Bill 22:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, i get it now... --Rj 01:28, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur Radio

Thanks for your "sharpening" of the Amateur radio article, good job. I (and others) have added more info, as you said it needed. 'zat nuff yet? :) I was thinking of adding more tools and maybe splitting it into buiding tools and tools to have on hand for an emergency. Perhaps later, unless someone else does it first.  :) --ssd 06:30, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your help too. No doubt, the article is improving. My main problem with it is that reads more like a promotional piece for the hobby than an encyclopedia article. Too often the text is verbose and rambling. Also, I suspect it's too long. It probably needs to be broken up into a briefer main article and a series of sub-articles. But, another problem is that there are quite few articles in English Wikipedia that have been created totally indepent of this one. I've thought about re-organizing the whole shooting match, but it's really a big job; one that I'm not prepared to take on, even though I do know a lot about the subject. Anyhow, good luck. Bill 15:02, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I sort of agree with you, but I'm not sure it really needs to be broken up. I think my recent changes may have made it a bit better in viewpoint, and I've broken up the intro into individual sections. I think it still needs a bit of reorganization. As to sub-articles, I've done extensive improvement on antenna. I've considered adding more models to antenna, but I think it getting too long, and I can't decide if I should add more there or make a second article for less common antenna models.
As to "re-organizing the whole shooting match", what did you have in mind? Perhaps we could make a list of articles that need work or coordinating and/or expanding and split up the work or ask for help, perhaps even start a project and put inset boxes on all relevant pages to better coordinate them, etc. There's a big huge list under Glossary of antenna terms and several similar lists that would be a good start. --ssd 19:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Monobook.css

Wfeidt, did you mean to create your own Monobook.css to modify your own display stylesheet? That's supposed to be under Wfeidt/Monobook.css. Do you want to Move it? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:53, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • That is what I was trying to do. Guess I did not do it correctly. I'm not even sure where the file is to move it? Bill 22:26, 11 Jun 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)

[edit] Philanthropist

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, 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 Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it 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. — Sebastian (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Brickman

I have reverted your latest edit to this article. He is alive and well and currently touring if you go to his website. Thanks. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Longtime collaborator Gerald Levert died in November 2006. Wfeidt must have picked that up by accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmajohnnym (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)