User talk:Wighson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reminders

Hello, Wighson!

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 00:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] History of CA

Of course you're right! I know where Benicia & Vallejo are--drive thru there all the time. Guess I woke up on the wrong side of the bay this morning. BTW, you're doing a great job on the history of CA page--there's so much to say about it. Elf | Talk 04:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: note on East Prussia article

I'm too disqusted now. Wikipedia needs clear policies and courage to deal with disruptive users that can't uphold them. But there is quasi-democratic system that promotes goodwill and talking. Effect? Two warring users attracts perhaps ten others that waste their time for fixing constantly reverted and malverted articles. I'll wait. I'm nearly sure that nobody's paradigm will be irrevocably twisted by reading some nationalist rubbish in the meantime.
OK. Enough ranting. You are obviously right and I see more articles for merging - the prime example is needed merge of Regained Territories with Eastern Germany. Both articles deal with the same territory basicaly but the former from Polish and the other - from German POV. In Wikipedia, you know.
-- Forseti 12:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of CA

I responded on its talk page--hard to do a pretty layout when people are using all kinds and sizes of screens & browser settings. I like having a lot of illustrations in long articles. Do you have info on the source and/or copyright status of the images you uploaded for that article? If so, could you update the image pages so it's clear that they're not copyvio? Thanks again. Elf | Talk 01:31, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I put in more descriptions. I am stopping now, since the connection to Wiki very slow right now, and I am going to bed. --Wighson 04:19, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)


[edit] History of California text

How much of the huge dollop of new text that you put into this article came directly from your cited source, (Principal source for this section: Laurence Fletcher Talbott, PhD., California in the War for Southern Independence)? How much did you rewrite? Just checking-- Elf | Talk 15:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.
I wrote it all in one sitting. I consulted the book to confirm names and dates. Nothing is quoted. The book is 235 pages, so the amount is well within fair use. The publisher is now defunct, but copies can be ordered from AbeBooks online, which is where I got mine. I confirmed much of Dr. Talbott's research for accuracy, but the fact is that little research has been done on the topic. The book is quite a find. Thus, Wikipedia's entry is now better than anything online!
I think I forgot to unclick the "This is a minor edit" box, but I don't know how to fix that after the fact.

--Wighson | Talk 00:42, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

You're just too good, then. Try to write it crappily next time so we know! ;-) Elf | Talk 00:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wow! That's quite a compliment. Thanks, Elf.

[edit] Template User non-3

Apologies for the unsolicited advice but it strikes me that anybody using this template is probably overestimating their knowledge of the language. Respectfully, Stefán Ingi 23:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Darn. There goes my publishing contract! I'll have to call them.
I would rank all modern Icelanders close to a five, and technically since old languages are for reading knowledge (Egil's dead), they really ought to be a "6," since the average Icelander would likely read better than the average Norse. Wighson 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
They look much better now. Of course we will never know what Egill himself would have written if he had had access to Wikipedia. Stefán Ingi 13:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
While on that note, I am slightly concerned about the move you made of Egill Skallagrímsson to Egill Skallagrímssonr. Egill himself would probably have written sunR at the end in the Runic alphabet but that is a bit on the level of speculation because we don't have any texts available from him. The best and more or less the oldest manuscript we have of Egils saga is Möðruvallabók and that doesn't have the r, see e.g. [1] where the text towards the bottom right hand side, starting from the large Þ reads: "Þorólfr SG-son bioz eitt sumar..." (the character set available to me doesn't give perfect rendering of the handwritten text). But I have no strong feelings on this, so I'll leave it up to you. Stefán Ingi 16:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
According to at least one standard source (Cleasby), sonr is more correct. Egil, as you say would have put the 'r' on and the beautiful vellum has an abbreviation, not the full spelling. However, the 'r' makes the name a little harder to pronounce on English Wikipedia, which is why I personally prefer "Egil Skallagrimsson". I doubt the people who made Wikipedia's standard for spelling Old Norse here would object to leaving off the 'r'. Thanks once again for the stimulating discussion and for the link to the beautiful manuscript. Best wishes! Wighson 19:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Odin

Are you planning on doing a rewrite here? Daemon8666 17:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to, but it would be reverted. I for one would welcome a new hand on the article.Wighson 23:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm a repository of story, not language; as that seems to be where most of your disputes lie I don't know how much of a help I would be there; but I most definitely welcome the changes. Daemon8666 14:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wighson, thanks for dropping your $0.02 on dab. The article needed some major revision, and it was going to take a scholar to dig him out of his trench and get it so that anyone cuold edit the article. Daemon8666 14:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This and that

Thanks for your friendly message. I can assure you that you would not mistake me for a native English speaker if we met in person - my writing is better than my talking.

What I think Stefán is getting at with the ON Babel templates is that the current texts there are not very grammatical and perhaps don't quite use the right words. For one thing the language never called itself "gamalnorska" - "dönsk tunga" would probably be more appropriate.

Let the Odin thing cool down a bit and I'm sure we can find some solution everyone agrees on.

Kveðja, Haukur

Thanks! Sounds good. I'm trying hard not to laugh. It's made some entertaining conversations at work, though. I had to make a big explanation as to why I was even posting at Wikipedia. I said I was preparing research for a paper on "Patterns of Conflict and Resolution" or some such. They laughed. But when the new term comes around, I know I'll get a playful jab or two. This is why I am anonymous here. I don't want to look even more like an idiot.
On the template: I see, that makes sense. I only just discovered the Babel templates when I was browsing your page. Then, I had a choice between this and the OL template. Maybe I'll change the template at some point, if anybody else is using it. I was surprised no Icelander attempted it already. Wighson 23:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I updated the templates for Non. Wighson 05:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] "Mythology"

Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion still practiced, its not exactly "mythology", don't you think? --K a s h Talk | email 22:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I am trying to restrict that cat to articles already identified as "Persian mythology." If I have inadvertently put it on articles restricted to Zoroastrianism, the mother of all monotheistic religions, please feel free to remove it. You don't need to tell me. Wyeson 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay658

When Lindsay658 added a link to [[Placebo (origins of technical term) to the See also section of Charles Darwin for no apparent reason, my first reaction was to think this could be vandalism, and judging by the "Blatantvandal" tag you added to Lindsay658's user talk, this was your reaction to other such link additions. However I subsequently found that the link did have a rather obscure relevancy to Darwin which was actually of interest and though it's inappropriate on that page, I've incorporated it into explanatory text on other pages including A Devil's Chaplain and The Parson's Prologue and Tale. So with the benefit of hindsight it appears that this was genuine overenthusiasm and not vandalism. Lindsay658 is learning how to do things properly and the links added will be checked for appropriateness and improved or deleted as necessary. Understandably Lindsay658 would like to get the tag removed, and if you've no objection I'll remove it shortly. For once it appears that what seemed like tedious vandalism has turned out to be a learning experience for a useful contributor! ..dave souza, talk 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I did not reply sooner. You sound very kind and I am glad to read that you resolved the issue without hurting anyone's feelings. Keep up all such good work! Wyeson 05:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Pluto (and related pages)

Your recent edits to Pluto, Charon (moon), Hydra (moon), Nix (moon), Dwarf planet, Ceres (dwarf planet), and the Solar System portal added incorrect information and have been reverted or removed. While Charon has been discussed as a possibility for dwarf planet status, there has been no official change in status and it is still classified as a satellite of Pluto. I can understand your arguments for describing it as part of a "double dwarf planet" system. However, it is not up to us (as editors) to publish our own conclusions. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. Please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page first. Thank you. Ckatzchatspy 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bobby-fischer-early.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bobby-fischer-early.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Bobby-fischer-early.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bobby-fischer-early.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Insight_may03_focus_beaton_large.jpg

I have tagged Image:Insight_may03_focus_beaton_large.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:PE_RR.png

Thanks for uploading Image:PE_RR.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PE_RR.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PE_RR.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Korean_Demonstration_agst_RK_riots.jpeg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Korean_Demonstration_agst_RK_riots.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 04:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liite Buddhism deleted as copyright violation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Liite Buddhism article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Kusma (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a place to re-publish your blog, or to write a WP:POVFORK of Living Stream Ministry. Please do not recreate this article again without proof that someone besides the blog http://liites.blogspot.com uses the term "Liite Buddhism". Kusma (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No. The Living Stream Ministry according to them is just a publishing house. According to everyone else they are the headquarters of the religion. In any case they are not the same thing and NOT a POVFORK. Read the articles. Wyeson 10:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think the articles on Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee (both of which do not involve the word "buddhism") are wrong, could you fix these? That seems a better approach than publishing original research on how Lee's teachings are related to buddhism. Kusma (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying.
No. Those are different topics. That's why they are separate articles.
Further, the organization has full-time paid and volunteer staff of hundreds that man the pages and makes sure they reflect only that organization's official policies and POV -- their own unsubstantiated Original Research. They will not allow those two articles to have anything like a NPOV, and they are different topics from this in any case.
The links I provided you represent hundreds of pages, including PDFs and hard-copy print. I do not expect you or anyone to have to wade through them all. But if you did, you would see that nothing I said is original research. Wyeson 10:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The history of the LSM page does not show evidence of extensive whitewashing campaigns. Anyway, what reliable sources exist that use the term "Liite Buddhism"? I could find a lot about the LSM / Lee in your links, but nothing about "Liite Buddhism". Kusma (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
They have had the history wiped from to time. They REALLY do value their secrecy. Somebody else online has kept the record of the wiped Talk pages on his website. You can dig it up, or I can, if you persuade me with a reason. If you had time to read through the material referenced in the links, you would understand that they do this kind of thing all the time. The term "Liite Buddhism" is not critical. Since they do not take a public name for the organization beyond "Church in" with the names of a thousand different cities, others have given them a number of names. If you don't like Liite Buddhism, you can pick one of the others used by outsiders. Wyeson 11:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The article may have been deleted some time in 2004 or so, but apparently not since then. Don't we have an article on the movement already at Local churches? Kusma (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
According to that article, we do not; they are not related, and the writers of the "Local Churches" would deny a relation most vehemently. Wyeson 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Local Church of Witness Lee

An editor has nominated Local Church of Witness Lee, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church of Witness Lee and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It still seems to be a copyright violation. If you don't prove that you own the content or have the owner's permission, I will delete the page again no matter how the AfD ends. An easy way would be to post a note on the blog that the content is released under the GFDL. Kusma (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)