User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (17)

Quote Of The Decade

All who have accomplished great things have had a great aim, have fixed their gaze on a goal which was high, one which sometimes seemed impossible. Orison Swett Marden.

-- fm Anthere

I, Reene, hereby award dysprosia the Wiki Wiffle Bat for her general awesomeness and a great attitude.

Vandalism[edit]

How much vandalism have you been reverting?? 66.32.241.1 01:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History edits[edit]

Dysprosia Hi. Could you clarify something for me on history records please. at times I do a quick edit on The Duke of Wellington's Regiment page without logging in, this records up as 62.252.96.10 however when you go into the page history and click on this link it shows a lot of other edits attributed to that number. None of the ones below Battle of Monte Cassino 1 Nov 2004 are mine except for the Duke of Wellington's Korea edits eg 18th October I was offline scuba diving off the east coast of england from the 14th so couldn't have done any and as for football I don't go near it. why are these linked to me?? Richard Harvey 13:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am awesome[edit]

Just passing on my knowledge. - [[User:Vague Rant|Vague|Rant]] 07:00, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your offer of help[edit]

I thought I would send you an email, but that didn't work, so did you mean for me to put my questions here?

You suggested that I move my comments on Talk:Original Unix Shell to Talk:Bourne shell. Actually, I should have put them at Talk:Original Unix shell because there is a Original Unix shell. So, how would I move an article, when it has the wrong name? I didn't see any obvious place where this was addressed in the help documentation. Another topic I didn't see addressed in the tutorials were the rules for making a disambiguation page. Geo Swan 03:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

cross-dressing impass[edit]

Hi, Dysprosia,

I have tried to sort things out a little on the Cross-Dressing discussion. Unfortunately the two individuals who are debating are not getting anywhere. I can talk to one of them, but 'e is so angry that I doubt that I am getting anywhere. The other person is, in my opinion, in need of some advice about trying to "put a stop on" other contributors. When I engaged the other individual in an attempt to clarify his terminology in my own mind (I had actally misconstrued what all the shouting was about), the person newer to Wikipedia as much as told me to butt out. In my opinion he does not discuss matters in an open and fair manner. I have said that my take on the situation is that Joan of Arc was identified by members of that society as a female, and that there is no argument from anyone to say that Joan never wore a man's clothing, Joan's behavior clearly fits "cross-dressing" as it is clearly defined in the article. So Joan is probably the most outstanding instance of cross-dressing in history and a brief notice of that fact is entirely appropriate, and that out to be the end of the matter. Having said that, I doubt that I might have any influence with the newer contributor. I thought it might be helpful if you or Maverick or one of the most stable of the old timers (jeez, I'm the one at retirement age) could give the newer contributor some advice. I'm not angry at him, but I have difficulty in communicating with someone who seems so clearly intent on icing me out. In the long run he may interact with other people who will not be gentle with him. It might keep things saner in the long run if he could be steered toward using a less manipulative approach.

Best, P0M

Subpages[edit]

It was discussed on the endorsements talk page. I apologize for not notifying you personally, as there were far too many to deal with. Naturally, feel free to deal with that page now as you wish. --Michael Snow 04:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Given the volume of discussion that resulted, that's easy to do. --Michael Snow 04:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 50 most. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

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:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 15:27, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Jamesday sed on IRC that BSD license is okay, so I release all my contribs under the BSD 3-clause license, barring those which I've already marked with GFDL unless it's possible to have these relicensed under said license. Dysprosia 09:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A relevant discussion is happening here. crazyeddie 07:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NRZI/NRZ/etc images[edit]

Hi. I can't help but notice that these images you've created appear to be a derivative work from my original Image:Manchester.png image. Would it be possible for you to highlight this somehow? However, there may be an added problem as to your wish to license the derivatives as PD, which I'm not sure is possible. Thanks Dysprosia 05:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

oh geez. sorry, i forgot. i was going to. you can add it i am busy right now. what license should i use? (you can add that, too. :-) ) - Omegatron 15:40, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Well, we tried.[edit]

Hi,

I just saw your contribution to the discussion I wrote you about before. You got the same kind of response I got. It's unfortunate, but I don't see an easy out. The ego issues and the need to appeal to "the authorities" seem to make attempts at helpful interventions unsuccessful. Thanks for trying, anyway. P0M 05:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Your note is much appreciated -- I'm getting a little burned out, but I figure I can't back down from my oft-expressed belief that no amount of trolling or unpleasantness should make a good contributor sink to a bad contributor's level. I need these little words of kindness, though, to keep me refreshed and willing to continue, and I very much appreciate yours. My best to you this holiday season, Jwrosenzweig 20:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD[edit]

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Strange edit[edit]

I just wanted to bring this edit to your attention. I have no idea if it's something that was done by your client or if it's a server bug or what, but the characters π, γ, etc seem to have been corrupted. anthony 警告 15:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be a problem with NetPositive, HTML entities, and the transformation to the actual character after they've been saved. I've tried to repair all the occasions where NetPositive did bork the entities on that page. Dysprosia 03:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Level set[edit]

Now that you removed the word "Theorem", the words "This theorem..." have no meaning. I think some more clean up is needed then, for consistency. On other matters, putting the proof as a subsection is not good style I think. At least this is not how things are done in math papers, and I wonder why Wikipedia would be different. What do you think? --Oleg Alexandrov 05:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You wrote:

This fact (a theorem) is ...

Why not just say "Theorem" at the beginning? Plain and simple. This is a bit convoluted. --Oleg Alexandrov 05:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not remove stuff from your talk page. Could be some wikipedia bug. --Oleg Alexandrov 05:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You said: Welcome, by the way! I hope you like the place and choose to stay. Nice to see another math person, even though you ...)

Could you please finish your sencense? --Oleg Alexandrov 05:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Never mind! I found the body of the text.--Oleg Alexandrov 05:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You wrote:

Wikipedia articles have a reputation for being difficult to understand by the layperson. That wording was aimed to try to make it less so. Dysprosia 05:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perfectly agree! That's why I put the paragraph about the hikers. Now, if only you could explain to me why putting the word "Theorem" at the beginning of the paragraph, rather than later, makes things harder to understand, I would be much grateful. On other matters, the text starting with "This fact..." better go into a new paragraph. The reason for that is, to quote you "... to logically organize the page". Or in my words, discussing about the theorem, is not the same thing as stating the theorem. So one should put the discussion of the theorem in a new paragraph, because we switch gears a bit. What do you think? --Oleg Alexandrov 06:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I modified back the level set page, and included a commentary on my talk page. --Oleg Alexandrov 16:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I updated my comment on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov 23:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I posted a short reply on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov 01:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi. You uploaded Image:JIS.png but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for more info. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 16:18, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Parly House pix[edit]

What is the source and status of your Parliament House photos? Are they from Auspic? I have been all sorts of trouble by copyright fetishists here for posting Auspic photos of MPs and Senators. How did u get permission to use them? Adam 04:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I took these myself when I visited recently, so there should be no problems with the images as far as I know. Dysprosia 04:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised you were allowed to take photos in the Chamber. You must have friends in high places. Adam 04:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Hi again! You are doing a good job of categorizing pages. My question is though, why do you put the category at the top of the page? Most of the time this results in an extra blank line at the top (to the one which already exists by default), and makes for unesthetic empty space. But you've been around longer, is that the way things are done? Oleg Alexandrov 01:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Putting the category tag at the top produces no blank space if the line directly below it is not empty. Otherwise, the location is a matter of personal preference, though many like it at the bottom and do move it there (which is a little unnecessary). Dysprosia 03:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are right. You put the category at the top, with no empty space after it, and all was nice. Then somebody else came and put the article in another category, and also put a newline after it. The latter thing is very tempting, one feels that disconnected things have to be separated in different paragaphs. I think ultimately the category belongs at the bottom, both for the reason that the wikicode looks better then, also because this is how it ultimately shows on the page, and lastly because nobody is tempted to put a newline between the category and the actual text. But I appologize for claiming you did something you did not do. Oleg Alexandrov 17:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia manual of style, Wikipedia:Categorization, suggests also putting categories at the bottom. Oh, and I did identify the person who systematically inserts categories and newlines after them :) Oleg Alexandrov 18:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) PS: Probably I should not be obsessed about it, it is just that I got tired of fixing the empty newline at the top of articles :)

The Wikipedia:Manual of style doesn't include Wikipedia:Categorization, however. But it's good you found the culprit :) Dysprosia 22:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if you put two categories on top of page, one under another, and with no newline, too much empty space is still created, see Divergence theorem. Oh, and I do agree that Wikipedia:Categorization is not part of the Wikipedia:Manual of style, however, it is still a set of recommendations (I found the link to Categorization page from the Manual of style page).

None of these are meant to tell you what to do. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 23:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, you need to keep these on one line. Forgot about that. Dysprosia 06:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)