User talk:H/Archive 10

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Comments in history page

How do you do the writing in the history page? Because when I check the history page, there is some writing in () marks. For example:

(rv.)

How do you do it? --MacintoshApple 10:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

When you edit any page, at the bottom of the page by the Save page button there is a field caled Edit summary. When you make a change you type into that box a summery of your change so that other editors know what your intentions are. People use abbreviation here often, rv mean revert(to change back to a previous version). You can find more details here: Help:Edit summary HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello Ryan!

As you asked me, I have made a review of your latest activities on the WP. As Dlohcierekim already mentioned, your edits reflect that you are polite, helpful to the newcomers and you have a good balance over controversial issues. If running for adminship now, I would support you straight away. However, several users would prefer if you had some more XfD experiences, as adminship usually means you will have to delete lots of things. So I suggest you to keep an eye of the XfD pages for a week or two, I think it will suffice in your case, as you are an experienced user already. When you feel ready, I will be glad to nominate you, if you like. Regards, --Tone 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take your advice regarding XfD, and accept your offer of nomination in about 2 weeks. I appreciate your effort and support. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

HD Mountains article.

The photo I uploaded can be easily proven as open source, I will have the author change the reflected license on their respective flickr page as soon as they check their email. The photo is by default marked as all rights reserved by flickr though the author feels that her images may be used freely. Please refrain from deleting the article HD Moutains for a few hours so that the image you are questioning has time to be marked CC so that you are able to see the proof you rightfully need to see that will allow you to have peace of mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rylincoln (talk • contribs) November 7, 2006

Ok, the reason the article needs to be deleted is that it is new and has a copyright violation in it's history. In just an little while it will be deleted, removing the copyright violation from the history. At that point you are welcome to recreate the article using your own words, refering to the original document as a source.

The status of the image does not effect the article in any way. The image must be deleted until proof of it's release to a compatable license. If, as you say, the other is willing to change the copyright notice from All rights reserved to something compatable with wikipedia, such as the Creative Commons license, then we will welcome it.

We try not to hassle new users too much, but it is essential that we keep this site copyright free. Just wait a few hours till the page is deleted, then go ahead and recreate it in your own words, no problem. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the lesson.Rylincoln

Need Help on AETC

Hello, Ryan!

I appreciate your comments. I am just starting with wikipedia right now. Can you help me rename the "Aetc" page/title to "Wikipedia: PAF AETC" ?

I also need to inset the "aetc_logo.png" which i upload, how do i do that?

regards.

Manuel (alszcve)

Hi, it it not appropriate for encyclopedic articles to have the Wikipedia: prefix, as that is reserved for policy, and discussion about policy. To rename it to PAF AETC, simply click the move button at the top of the page and enter the new name and provide a reason. I am not sure if new users are able to use the move button right away or if the account needs to be a couple days old, so I will do it for you, let me know if I do it wrong.

As for inserting an image, simple add this to the page:

[[Image:aetc_logo.png|thumb|a descriptive caption goes here]]

This will create a link to an upload page you can send the image too, and once the image is uploaded it will be shown with the caption.

However, please read Wikipedia:Image_use_policy regarding the standards we hold for images. I assume that this logo is copyrighted to the AETC, however it may qualify as fair use if you meet the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet tag

Thanks for removing the silliness, but technically it does have to stay since he's got his evidence page up now. I don't believe I'll have any problem with the results of such an investigation. :) Seraphimblade 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Wright

Liked the joke. --Oakshade 08:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

hehe, just tired of people calling that guy the most powerfull man on earth, he is actually pretty ineffectual. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral photo

Thanks for posting the Christ Church Cathedral photo in the related article. I saw the article a couple of days ago and I didn't see it. It happened that I visited Victoria once and just fell in love with this cathedral, the only inconvinient is that I didn't have any digital camera that time and you can't find a lot of images of it in the internet. Good day there in Victoria!!! - Pascaweb 2006-11-10 16:37 PM.

Thanks, I like how that one turned out(except for the artifacts near the tree and flag). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Bullet #3

Thanks for putting that back in. See what I mean about Friday afternoon? --Aguerriero (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

hehe, yes I do, definetly. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question on Cultural Norms?

I had posed a question related to Muhammad originally with regards to potential for child abuse allegations I found floating around and I wanted to see if there was any solid evidence on way or another there. Though your response I find interesting, and I was wondering if I could ask you another question here, instead of on the Muhammad talk page since it would not be about him anymore, but about cultural norms and Pedophilia? I do not want to spam or offend anyone. Nonprof. Frinkus 05:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask whatever you like, but I am no expert. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I would just like an academic opinion, on a extremely delicate topic here. The Wikipedia article on Pedophilia defines (well lists the WHO definition as primary) this medical disorder as ...

The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (F65.4) defines pedophilia as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

So with that established, does it really matter what the cultural norm is (today or at any given point in time) from a medical or scientific point of view, about whether something meets that clinical definition of a serious mental disorder? Though historical accounts are far from perfect or complete, many Muslims take the age of one of Muhammad's wives as being the age of 9. Now, age of puberty is far from fixed, with it today occurring in a 3% percentile by the age of 9 in girls (median age today is around 13-14 years in girls). Now, that age (median and start) has dropped over time; due to improvements in medicine, nutrition and prosperity (people can eat more than they need to survive today, just look at expanding waist-lines ;-) ). So, talking of a time well over a millennium ago, the odds of someone just hitting puberty by the age of 9 would have been extremely rare. Even still, the WHO definition states "prepubertal or early pubertal age". Would that not mean that Muhammad could be by clinical definition, should someone supports the idea of him consummating with a wife whose age was 9, be a pedophile? Would I get a lot of rotting fruit tossed at me now? Nonprof. Frinkus 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The ICD did not exist back then. I guess if you are going to apply modern definitions to a historical figure then fine, but historical figures are often looked at in the context of their time. I personally know nothing of the personal habits of Muhammad, or what was culturaly acceptable at the time. In short, we don't know what went on then, or what the prevailing view was, so speculation should be avoided. And yes, it is very possible you will get rotting fruit thrown at you, not by me though. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. My concern was, hmmm, for lack of decent communication skills, can be illustrated by this example. What Nazi's and previous European regimes (like Russian goverment's policies of Pogroms) did to Jews were technically a cultural norm at the time. Does that means Nazi's and others who killed Jews were not murderers. The definitions of such crimes against humanity did not occur until after WWII, forming a basis for the modern definition. The scientific (modern) definitions take in account the biology of the species as well, showing what is natural, and what is not (regardless of culture). That is why I say cultural norms should not be used in determining what points can be stated. The status quo means an encyclopædia might not be able to be clinically honest without emotion or bias in stating facts, I am afraid (or am I just paranoid ;-) ). Thank-you very much for your openness here. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time it was beleived by many people that those killing were murder. Both before and after killing was considered murder. I find that sort of comparision is not always helpfull in find the truth because there are often not enough parallels to justify the comparison. Regardless, I am not too attached to the philosophy, nor do I regularly edit the Muhammad article.

I could be wrong, raise it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes, or throws rotten fruit. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points. <lol>  :-) I am in a personal struggle within myself to avoid subscribing to much of any philosophy … which is a paradox in of itself (fear not … many call me mad, including my spouse ;-) ) Nonprof. Frinkus 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

One should never be overly attached to a hypothesis, just becuase it is one's own. If you ever catch me doing so, just pop by and remind me.HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Ring modulator

Please don't comment on things that don't concern you. Ring modulator 15:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here on wikipedia, we are all welcome to comment. Your name change is the concern of all who choose to be. It was not my intention to upset you. There are no private discussions on wikipedia, I suggest you use alternate methods of communications if you do not wish others to join in. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.