User:Alterego/Archive 1

User subpages

Hi alterego.

Your user subpages need to be suffixed by a User, to be in the user namespace. You previously created a user subpage in the main namespace by mistake.

welcome, newcomers and all that, though you seem to know your way around...

Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:36, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okie

Thanks.

Table and Letters

The top table in Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has letters left and right, words in the center. The top line appears to have the letters reversed: "E" goes with "Introversion" but "I" with "Extroversion." Is that the way they're supposed to be? Fg2 02:33, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Whoops thanks :) They were flipped the wrong way before and I forgot to switch the words.

Signature

Hi, Alterego, welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign comments you make on talk pages. You can do this by using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. --Lowellian 20:46, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Move of List of people claiming to be deities

Please, next time you want to do an article move, use the move function, don't just cut and paste the text, as that way loses the page history. Thanks. Shane King 06:51, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

whoops. never noticed that up there :) Alterego 10/11/04

Hi - I saw your footnote proposal, and I'm guessing that making sure that people cite their sources is important to you. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) at my proposal, "Remind people to cite sources while editing", and if you like it, please put in a good word for it. Thanks! -- Dwheeler 03:02, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Footnotes / references

Hi I just made one of my rare visitors to the village pump and noticed that you are interested in references - in particular the template book reference I created. I always hoped that would lead on to greater things - though as I think you noted there has always been limitations (particularly the non-optionality of template parameters - such as templates for uniformizing other references and using footnotes appropriately. So if there is any major shift to work on this, I would be pleased to be involved. Pcb21| Pete 00:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. The recent software upgrade opened up the opportunity to make footnoting work well with just the two templates. I've listed the f1-f20 and f1b-f20b templates all for deletion, having moved all the articles that were using them to the new simple templates. Since you created them initially, I thought you may want to add a vote or comment supporting the new mechanism - see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Footnote templates. -- Netoholic @ 05:58, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

olympic image in commons

Hi, I'm trying to categorise your (great!) olympic picture over in commons, Is it from the 2004 opening ceremony?. I'd like to get it onto a proper article rather than just 'olympics' category. Thanks, Wombat 02:53, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC) (here and commons)

Hey. Most of the pictures i've uploaded are in articles. I'm not sure to which one you are referring, but its probably in a couple of them related to the olympics already. --Alterego 03:40, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Found it, its the flame at the opening ceremony one. Sorry, meant a article/category on commons, not here (going through the unused images list...). -- Wombat 07:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Edited your userpage

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that I replaced {{Book reference2}} with {{Book reference}}. The new one looks the exact same, and the old one is going to be deleted soon because it is redundant with the second (you can now use more than 5 of the same template per page). -Frazzydee|✍ 14:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your blog - urgent

Hi Alterego, I happened to read Angela's blog here where my name was mentioned. I wish to clarify my point to you. I never accepted Zen-master's conspiracy theory argument. I was only asking him proof by way of valid references.Please have a look at my edits here Talk:Google#NSA_.2B_Abu_Ghraib_censorship. Also, I've made detailed clarifications in your blog. I've nothing against you or Google. It appears that you've mistakenly thought I'm in favour of the conspiracy theory argument. I've also clarified here. Please take some time to go through all my clarifications and revise your blog accordingly. The mention of my name there along with all the arguments about the NSA theory makes acasual reader believe that I made the argument, which I did not. I make it clear that I don't buy the NSA conspiracy theory argument at all and my comments in that discussion pertain to other sections of the article like Google uses only Linux, Financing and IPO etc. Please update your blog indicating that I was never inserting POV into wikipedia as otherwise such an inaccurate fact will harm my reputation. Also, please change the title of your blog, because Yahoo has nothing to do with all these. Zen-master is not working here and I didn't insert the section. Please make all these clear. -- Sundar 05:58, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Alterego for your timely correction on your blog. -- Sundar 06:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Alterego. Had some thoughts on the recent unfortunate imbroglio that we were in. Though the talk pages are technically under GFDL, I feel such issues ought to have been resolved within our talk pages itself. The problem with blogs is that the blogs don't have complete context, read and spinned off by many others, mirrored by many blog aggregators that do not simultaneously change when the blog gets revised and more importantly are indexed by search engines. The current issue anyway was a result of a misunderstanding, which could've been resolved very easily had we sought/gave clarifications. In any case, it has left an indelible mark (unpleasant) in me. It was definitely a damage to my online and to some extent offline reputation. I don't blame any individual for this because I should've also been more careful and clear. -- Sundar 06:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't personally draw a dividing line between here and there. If it's online, anyone can read about it. Both my blog and the Google article's talk page are indexed by Yahoo, Google, and MSN etc...'s spiders. The information responds equally well to a search query in either place, no? My blog is a place for me to vent, ponder, and reflect, and considering the ludicrous nature of the claims made I did just that. I also believe in diffusion by detonation in cases where that seems appropriate. --Alterego 06:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

AFIK, there are some pages in Wikipedia (probably User talk) that are off the limit spiders, but I was wrong about article discussion pages. But, the information doesn't respond equally well to a search query in both the places due to the complexities of ranking. There will be fewer inlinks to a discussion page from external domains as opposed to blogs. The audience for the talk pages might have better contextual information than blog readers who might've arrived more randomly than in the talk pages. Usually people end up in talk pages either after reading an article or something similiar (not usually from external domains directly).

I agree that those claims were ludicruous, but they weren't mine. But, I had to undergo a lot of agony, right? If any, you could've posted my critical statements, but would've definitely not attributed somebody else's edits to me if I'd clarified before, right? Also, I wasn't aware of the post until a friend pointed it out to me. If he hadn't, I wouldn't have been able to clarify. I take your point that I can't do NPOV edits to the article, but in many cases competing POV (factual) edits by people amenable to reason will aid NPOV. Any way, let's try to forget this issue. -- Sundar 06:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough! --Alterego 06:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Autonumbered footnotes.

Hi, following on from your Footnote2 proposal, I've made a somewhat similar new one with autonumbered footnotes at Wikipedia:Footnote3. Could you please have a look and say how you like it. Mozzerati 13:39, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

hi, yeah i read that yesterday. i'm not exactly sure if I followed the example, but it seems that it has been proposed for a long time now and the reason it is not done is that it puts a lot of load on the server because it is dynamic. --Alterego 17:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

World population

It wasn't my edit, all I did was add the category as my edit summary suggests. It must be some sort of bug, as it's happened to me before. Xezbeth 19:37, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Vector art

Re: vector art, what kind of sound icon are you talking about? silsor 17:27, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

hey silsor. i've had an idea on the backburner for a while to put sound clips in articles. so a tiny little speaker that just oozes "if you click me i make a sound" would help a lot. that's all i mean. it'd have to be as tiny as possible, but if it could also get scaled up to big that'd be a bonus --Alterego 22:05, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Universism

Are you talking about the Bham Weekly article being generous? I agree it's too positive, there are many anti-universist views that should be included in such articles, but it's for real and here is the author's pedigree: http://www.writerstoolkit.com/AboutAuthor.htm Here is the Wikipedia article we are discussing: http://faithless.org/wikipedia.htm A suggested alternate Wikipedia article: http://www.universist.org/npovuniversistmovement.htm ...I just think Universism deserves an entry in Wikipedia, regardless of who writes it. Universist 21:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was talking specifically about the wikipedia article, and the place to discuss this is not my user page. Thank you. --Alterego 22:17, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ack sorry. Universist 00:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

500,000th article

Thanks for notating it to the nearest second on Wikipedia:Half-million pool, but which article was it? I don't know where to look for an official (or even unofficial) announcement. David Brooks 21:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Impossible to say! See my blog entry on it here. --Alterego 21:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

As you may have seen at Wikipedia:Press_releases/March_2005 and Wikipedia talk:Half-million pool, Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union was picked as the winner, based on your work. David Brooks 17:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out. I posted a clarification on the talk page over there --Alterego 17:54, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Image:BeerDayDubuque.JPG

Is Image:BeerDayDubuque.JPG, which you claim to have taken, licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License? --Ellmist 06:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

fixed --Alterego 06:47, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Simplifying the disambiguation article for record...

66.167.138.211 03:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC):What exactly disturbed you about the pruning I did for record? Please respond on Talk:Record. The changes I made were done with the best intentions. Thank you.

fair enough --Alterego 03:39, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Maurice Greene

Maurice Greene (the american athlete) is not gay, there has never been any mention of this anywhere. Somebody keeps changing his article saying that he is gay.