User talk:Solipsist/archive8

Other pages: main - talk - images - contrib - notes

Talk archive: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15

Potential Non-commercial licenses

Hi Solipsist: I'm not sure if this is at all the right place to put this, but you seem to be interested in the topic... rather than enforcing fully-free licenses for pictures on Wikipedia, would it not be possible use a CC NC-based license with a supplementary contract between the author and Wikipedia, granting Wikipedia commercial rights for the works in question as an exemption from the NC clause? I've been working with some lawyers on a similar contract for a system I'm developing, and it would appear this could solve everyone's problems. --MrAndrews 19:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi MrAndrews, and thanks for the note.

I may not be the best person to ask about this. I was never aware of the discussion leading up to ruling out commercial licenses last year. I think it probably took place on the mailing list, or IRC channels. However, in general, I doubt that the general community of Wikipedia would be interested in a license of the type you describe.

I get the impression that Wikimedia isn't looking to take Wikipedia commercial. The fact that material here is freely licenseable is one of the bastions that encourages people to continue contributing. If at sometime in the future, Wikimedia was bought out and started behaving in a way that was too commercial, the free licensing allows a mirror to be set up that maintains the previous spirit. They might not have as many servers, but most of the contributors would quickly migrate.

My only contention is whether it is right to rule out all the general non-commercial licenses such as cc-by-nc. At the moment Wikimedia is non-commercial, so such material would only be a problem for the commercial mirrors. Most people are willing to contribute material to Wikipedia for the altruism of sharing knowledge. Many editors would be very happy if no commercial use was allowed for any of the material. It would also allow us to use some more UK Crown Copyright material and several similar licenses from European governments, few of whom are enlightened enough to force the PD requirement of the US government.

The counter argument is that if you really want to make all this information as freely available as possible then you shouldn't rule out commercial licenses. The principle example being the production of printed versions for distribution in Africa. You are unlikely to be able to give the twenty-six volume edition away for free, so you will have to allow commercial reproducions if you want free market economics to bring the price down to anywhere close to the $10 edition instead of the couple of thousand that Britannica charges.

My only disagreement would be that the current policy introduces a skew for US-government funded PD sources, particularly with illustrations. Allowing non-commercial licenses would bring in additional educational resources to redress the bias. As long as they are clearly tagged, they could still be mechanically stripped out for commercial projects. -- Solipsist 20:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Photo Gallery

Hi Solipsist, I was wondering how I could make my gallery in the same style as the FPC page - the current style takes too long to save edits to. --Fir0002 01:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your reply --Fir0002 06:52, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

MotoX pix

Hi Solipsist Hope you can have a look at these. Thanks --Fir0002 June 30, 2005 01:53 (UTC)

Bob Dylan edit

Hi

Just wanted to know more about the removal of the quotations book link. I'm not advertising it. You will notice quotationsbook.com has no advertising on it. I've spent 8 months painstakingly developing this resource, and it continues to grow. Not sure why it wasn't a good external link?

cheers Amit

Sorry, but we frequently get people adding quote links like this. The question is not whether the link contains some information that is relevant to the page it is added to so much as whether they are useful resources. On quotable figures, we usually have a link to out sister project at WikiQuote.

Adding links to the same site on many different pages is effectively spam linking as described at Wikipedia:spam. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Further re quotationsbook

Hi Solipsist

More about quotationsbook.com removals. As I did explain, the site has been built painstakingly over a while, using consultancy services. Your mass removal is not useful, since you removed external links to quotations where:

- no wikiquote information existed - no set of quotations existed

This essentially starves users of any further information but a biography. Examples where this is the situation, where you removed the link:

All of these were useful pointers to a site (quotationsbook.com) that continues to verify and improve their quotable words, where absolutely no quotes exist in wikipedia/wikiquote at all! This seems slightly unfair, since every reference resource which ends ".com" is then classed as "commercial". How then would any external links ever be justified?

The facts are simple - quotationsbook.com contains vast collections, which are very useful, often unique. The fact that it does not have the gravity of bartleby or other reference sites does not justify it being classed as a spam site. More information is being cross-linked on the site all the time, with better attributions and tagging (first of its kind) coming soon. Using the arguments presented here, it seems (logically) unreasonable to remove external links that are adding a lot of value in terms of quotes where no other sources exist, even on wikiquote. It's penalising all my work and research, since it took me many months to compile unique sets of quotations which are rare to find.

I can honestly say my intention was not to spam - otherwise I would not have been so detailed and selective adding information to these under-represented biographies in wikipedia (for which I have quotations). Let me know your thoughts about these special cases.

Please reply on this post since I have yet to create a Wikipedia account.

Kind Regards Amit

Hi Amit,

Spam linking is not just about connecting to commercial sites. I appreciate that your links are more thoughtful than some that get added, but you might like to also read Wikipedia's guidelines on adding External links. In particular the section on 'What should not be linked to'. The discouragement for adding links to ones own web site is specifically to avoid people using Wikipedia as a vehicle for self promotion.

However, Wikipedia is built on community consensus, guidelines are not absolute and my opinion is just one amoung many. You could try asking for opinions from other editors on the talk pages for a couple of those articles. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)

FPC Redwing Nest

Thanks for supporting the image :) Your comment cheered up me and my wife. These were exactly our thoughts - the image might not be studio quality but the moment we caught was inherently interesting and illustrative. - Haukurth 1 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due - its an effective picture. My only concern was whether taking a picture like this might have disturbed the parents. I'm sure I've heard warnings on wildlife programmes, but I've always suspected that they are somewhat over-cautious since the reality is that nature is 'red in touth and claw' and a ground nesting bird must be used to other animals coming across the nest.

One of the problems with WP:FPC is that people don't always consider the effect negative comments might have on the person who took the photograph. Unlike FAC, photographs are usually much more of a solo effort, so it is difficult not to take criticism personally. If at the end of the day we discourage people from contributing photographs, then FPC would be being counter-productive. I've commented on it a few times on the talk page, but I should probably write a guidance page for new contributors and critics. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

It's supposedly all right to look in nests as long as one doesn't touch the eggs or the hatchlings. I was actually a bit worried about this too but people who know more about wildlife than I do reassured me that it was not a problem.

You're right about the effect of negative comments on FPC. I was actually hoping that if our picture got featured my wife would become more interested in contributing images to Wikipedia. Our lack of success was a bit disheartening but your nice comment cheered us up :) - Haukurth 1 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)

Interactive art

Hi Sparkit,

Can you take a look at the recent edits on Interactive art and to a lesser extent Kinetic art. It looks to me like a couple of anons are engaging in self-promotion and many of these changes relate to artist who aren't particularly notable. I've reverted a number of times before, but I would prefer a view from a different editor. -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)

Hey Solipsist!

Sure, I'll do that.

First, Interactive art, it seems to me that the external links to individual artists is inappropriate -- that their notablilty is more appropriately established by an article about them. At least that's the gist I get from reading similar edits. But, I want your opinion on that. Maybe that info could go to the talk page until such time as someone writes articles about them?

Kinetic art needs expanding, eh? I also don't think of motion implied in painting as kinetic art, but I'll need to research that.

--sparkit (talk) July 4, 2005 14:41 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the recently linked artists on Interactive art page aren't sufficiently notable to merit an article of their own - I've done some searches on each of them and all I can find is their own homepage and at most one other self-authored page. As such I have just been deleting the additions and links as self-promotion (as per Wikipedia:External links). However they have been fairly persistent in re-inserting the links via a couple of different IP addresses - as a general rule after I've reverted an edit two or three times, I look for another editor to offer an opinion which would help to show the anon that it is not just a personal vendetta.

Sorry, Kinetic art was a red herring. I actually meant to point to Kinetic sculpture which had attracted some edits from the same anons, but that is looking alright at the moment. Kinetic art was split off from Kinetic sculpture after some discussion on a confusing #Redirect. And as it happens, I just found an old make-and-do book on the subject in my loft - Tim Armstrong, Make moving patterns [1]. They are mostly based on moire pattern type of effects - sometimes with a grid of lines painted on a transparency suspended just above the main canvas. A few of the examples may also be exploiting some of the steroscopic effects seen in Magic Eye books to produce the impression of a moving pattern in the eye.

Many years ago I also saw an exhibition at the Tate, where several of the artists used deeply corrugated canvases so that the perceived image changed as you walked past the painting. I wouldn't be able to remember any of the artist's names though. -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)

I made changes to the Interactive art site to clearly distinguish between internal and external linkage. Most of the artists have either slick professional looking sites, list several exhibitions or list installation sites. Though the most recent addition's website looks a bit rough, he does list several exhibitions, whether they're notable or not, I don't know. One of project links is to thesis. I support your evaluation of the revertions (made-up word ;) ).

Thanks for the explaination! I now understand what is meant by kinetic painting. --sparkit (talk) July 5, 2005 00:47 (UTC)

ocean image award

hallo Solipsist! Thank you very much for the award - I will carry it with pride - its a lot of fun working with you guys - best greetings to fine GB from Uwe Kils July 4, 2005 20:07 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Thanks greatly for that Solipsist, its a nice early birthday present for me. I can't improve on the caption, except to mention we quicky ruined the peace and tranquility by kayaking very poorly on the lake!. cheers Wombat July 6, 2005 07:16 (UTC)

:) -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)

Main page POTD

I'd like to to read and comment here →Raul654 July 7, 2005 03:33 (UTC)

Elle20

Hi there! Thanks for the heads-up. Elle20's behavior is an almost exact match of that of User:Gabrichidze or however you spell that - i.e. persistent adding of copyvio images to unrelated articles. Even the same articles, and the same images. I've permablocked it as a sockpuppet. Those images are copyvio and should be deleted as such; the user has no other meaningful contribs. Yours, R adiant _>|< July 8, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

I've added a note on the talk page. By ArbCom ruling, when it's not possible to tell the difference between one user and a sock, and two identical users, we may assume them to be one user and a sock. Neither has any useful edits; if they did I wouldn't have been so stern to them. Yours, R adiant _>|< July 8, 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Anon user pages

Thanks for working on cleaning those up. Could I ask a favour of you: If they don't have any prior history, could you tag them for speedy deletion instead of blanking them? Thanks. JYolkowski // talk 8 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, forgot you were also an admin. JYolkowski // talk 8 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

Sunrise over Stonehenge

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Summer Solstice Sunrise over Stonehenge 2005.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

--Spangineer (háblame) July 9, 2005 14:04 (UTC)

Re:DreamGuy

Sorry, but these comments are out of place. I can't characterise User:DreamGuy's edits as vandalism. It seems more like you have a problem with their behaviour as an editor, so this really needs to taken up on Requests for Comment. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for more advice on how to resolve disputes with individual users. -- Solipsist 8 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

I myself was questioning whether he could be considered a vandal or not. However, his obviously rude and brazen comments against other Wikipedians are definately against the "No Personal Attacks" policy. Please at least warn him about his comments, or give him a 24 hr. block. Four users have begged him to end his arrogance, but he simply blanks off these warnings. Horatii 9 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't. Contrary to common expectations, administrators don't police activity on Wikipedia, they are just editors with some extra facilities so that they can act on community consensus. There are a few situations where administrators can act on sight, such as blocking some types of vandalism and speedy deleting some inappropriate material, but in most cases a dispute resolution process has to be followed.

As I say, in cases like this, you need to start an WP:RFC on the problem under the individual users section. Typically you need to warn the user on their talk page that you have found their behaviour abusive - it looks like you have already done this. Get the RFC supported by a couple of other editors - from the above I guess you already know four others editors who might support the RFC. Then gather evidence of the disputed behaviour - at this point, evidence of personal attacks in edit summaries and the like are usually seen as fairly strong evidence. In general Wikipedians take a dim view of abusive editors. If the RFC can't resolve the complaint, the case can move on to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, who do' have the power to impose sanctions such as blocking or banning a user.

If you would like a helping hand with the dispute process, it is best to put in a request to the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. Although it can be a bit long winded, the dispute resolution process is needed to avoid editors persuading administrators to act on a dispute when they don't really understand both sides of an argument. -- Solipsist 9 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy this on my talk page. Horatii 01:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken your advice, and another user and I have filed a complaint under the RFC page. Thanks again for the advice.

. Take care. Horatii 03:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You are truly a man of valor, and I beleive that you are certainly a great Wikipedian. I commend you for your efforts with me and my endeavors to stop rudeness on Wikipedia, and I give you an editor's barnstar. I was a little confused, but everything is fine now concerning what you had told me on my talk page. : - ) Take care, Horatii 22:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMA request

Thanks yet again for the advice. I did as you have asked, and reported DreamGuy to JCarriker, and I'll hope that he'll help me.

Dreamguy

I realize that the problems around DreamGuy should be resolved, but I believe that the trio filing a new RFC is not going to help (especially given the large amount of people that signed Carnildo's view on the events). Also, the reason given for the second RFC was to get enough votes to block DreamGuy, and that is entirely not the purpose of RFCs. Therefore, I've done this. Hope that helps! R adiant _>|< 14:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Declaration of POV

I came to your pages following the conversation with Radiant! about the deleted RfC. When I saw your userpage, I was amused to realize that I could copy your Declaration of POV and paste it straight to my page without changing a word. Everything there is true of me. Joyous (talk) 16:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to use it. I 'borrowed' the idea from someone else, but I think its a handy way of letting other editors see where you are coming from. I recently noticed User:Omegatron has quite a nice similar list too. -- Solipsist 16:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

By your and Joyous's request, I've restored the RFC. I hope it will be fruitful. R adiant _>|< 21:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:FPC

Hello, Solipsist. Thanks for asking my opinion. I will have to ponder it a bit to try to figure out exactly what I don't like about it, and of course how it could be changed. You are right of course that the standard can't just be lowered. To tell the truth, I am not certain precisely what I don't like about the process. On the face of it, it looks pretty good. On the other hand, I can't help but notice that I've stopped going out of my way to take pictures for Wikipedia, even stopped uploading the ones I already took. I'll think about it and let you know if I figure out anything. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've long felt that one of the biggest problem with FPC is that most pictures are individual contributions, so it is difficult not to take any critism personally. Plus there is often little that can be done to fix a photograph. Whereas if an article on FAC gets rejected, you can always take the view that if you do more work on it it might get featured sometime in the future. Although I imagine it is still quite dispiriting to get an article rejected from FAC.

In the past Raul654 has suggested that FPC might be improved by having a stronger, up-front, set of criteria for judging, but no one has managed to come up with a set of secific rules that could be applied in all cases, although we did recently replace the '...just plain brilliant' guideline. -- Solipsist 07:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pog PFC

in reply: - I guess i'll leave it on for now. judging by the immediate feedback i was getting, it will most loss. i hope the picture Image:American Robin nest.JPG is accepted better.

by the way, which simpsons episode are you refering too. (i'm a big simpsons fan) --ZeWrestler 14:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

barn stars

by the way, i've been meaning to ask how one goes about earning barn stars? --ZeWrestler 14:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

You are truly a man of valor, and I beleive that you are certainly a great Wikipedian. I commend you for your efforts with me and my endeavors to stop rudeness on Wikipedia, and I give you an editor's barnstar. —Horatii/Dbraceyrules 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put my barnstar in a format so you can add it to your user page. Thanks for all your concern, I'm glad to tell you that I am back at Wikipedia. — Horatii/Dbraceyrules 00:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Horatii,

Thanks for the barnstar, but I'm not sure that I deserve this one. Lets see how things work out between yourselves and DreamGuy. If the everyone can stay away from the personal attacks and get on with constructive editing, I will be happy to accept it. -- Solipsist 18:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bouillon, Belgium

Thanks for your note. I understand your concerns about my remarks on the pic. Putting this pic forward for Featured Pic annoyed me so I said what I thought but I did then temper it with Better luck next time. So I half accept what you say. Perhaps I'm wrong and everyone else will love it! - 82.33.101.120 13:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 82.33 etc is me, I wasn't logged in - Adrian Pingstone 13:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be nicer next time, and calmly explain to the contributor what I see the problems as being. Thanks for pulling me up- Adrian Pingstone 13:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mute Swan

You've made BJAODN. :) -- Solipsist 20:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I didn't even know it was something to aspire too! Thanks for the nomination but you should get half since I was just playing off your own parody 'there once was a talking duckling'. David D. 20:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

welding image

That is a great welding image, though it isn't gas metal arc welding&mdashit's either gas tungsten arc welding or plasma arc welding. Once GMAW is featured, I'll probably take on gas tungsten arc welding next, so I think I will try to contact them and ask if they would be willing to relicense the image. Thanks for pointing it out to me! --Spangineer (háblame) 11:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

nomination

Thanks for information about competition. -PioM _EN _DE _PL 20:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania Comp

Thanks for drawing me attention to it Solipsist, much appreciated. --Fir0002 10:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I was just applying a simple filter of looking over the WP:FPC archives for the past year and picking out any nominations that had got > 10 support votes, not too many opposes and were for pictures generated by Wikipedians (I've most likely still missed a couple). There must be plenty of other images that could be entered. -- Solipsist 12:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wing warping

Ah, I posted to the mailing list, but never thought to write to the village pump, for some reason. It's because HowStuffWorks listed wing warping as its example for their "How Wikis Work" article, which you can find here. It would be nice if the authors of these pieces could warn Wikipedia before they do this, but that's life, I guess. Most of the anons are pretty good-faith (not surprising, given HowStuffWorks' usual readership), but yeah, that article's attracted a lot of other edits too. It would be nice if they would actually link to the Sandbox article instead. --Death phoenix 14:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's good to know. On the plus side, now I am famous. On the down side, I guess we will keep getting these little edits for some time to come. But at least it should bring in some editors - I'll just have to remember to be on my best behaviour and especially avoid biting newcommers on that page. -- Solipsist 16:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed your name in that article as well. Use your newfound fame wisely. ;-) At least this is attracting a different crowd from those who kept vandalising warthog after it was mentioned in FoxTrot. --Death phoenix 16:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another London Wikimeet

elements cross-posted

Heya,

We're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there...

James F. (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The last one similarly floundered until I was a bit bold and made a decision, too.

Hope that this doesn't mean that I will become the standard socials organiser.. ;-)

James F. (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of the day

Hi Sparkit,

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 24, 2005 to check over the caption. Normally I wouldn't ask, but since this will be up at the weekend, there is a good chance that it will be featured on the Main Page and I don't want to mess up too much.

Its also a bit of a shame that there is no content at 1898 in art, otherwise I could improve the date link. -- Solipsist 18:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask anytime!

I suggest:

Art Nouveau ("new art" in French) is a style that peaked in popularity at the beginning of the 20th century in Europe and the United States. Unlike ~~some~~ most art movements, Art Nouveau bridges the divide between fine art and applied art (illustration, decorative arts, crafts and architecture). Dancel (1898) by Alfons Mucha with strong, flowing, organic lines is typical of the style.

>>sparkit|TALK<< 20:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Dalek modulation

What kind of program do I need to use the plugin on? I think I can dig up a microphone to use... - Mgm|^(talk) 13:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's probably where you are going to have to experiment a little. The straightforward answer is pretty much any version of Cubase, but they can get expensive. Cubase VST is available on a demo license. However, although the VST plugin protocol was developed by Steinberg its now quite widely supported on Mac and PC music software. According to the VST article there are even Linux based VST hosts now, but I don't know whether plugins always work accross platforms.

Basically all you should need is a simple recording environment that supports VST plugins. Record your voice, then experiment with applying the ring-mod plugin to it. A search for 'free VST host' leads me to MiniHost which might do the job - it appears to have the right features, but the screenshot doesn't look like anything I would expect though it might be showing an example of hosting a synth plugin.

There must be other alternatives too. You could probably find a free Ring Modulator for other plugin standards like DirectSound that should work with Windows sound programs such as MediaPlayer. -- Solipsist 15:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, a Combination of MiniHost and the BJ Ringmodulation plugin works quite well. I had to also download the ASIO4All drivers mentioned in the MiniHost documentation to get my weird DSP microphone to work, and for some reason I only get a bunch of sliders instead of the pretty control panel for the Ring-mod, but it gets the job done. Now I can sound like a dalek in real-time and also record the results. To be honest I'm not sure whether I sound more like a dalek or a cylon, but with a reference sample, a bit of tweaking and a bit of acting you can probably get quite close. -- Solipsist 18:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the program up, but it doesn't see any input channels. I've got an ancient mic that's labelled "MDE Uni-directional Dynamic Mic Impedence 600 Ohm DM - 202". Do you know of any drivers for the thing, or is it too old to be computer compatible. (No I don't have any manuals for the thing anymore). Thanks for the help so far! :) (Once we're done, please copy this to my discussions archive page (User:MacGyverMagic/Discussions), or leave it for a while so I can do it). - Mgm|^(talk) 20:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The mic itself probably doesn't matter so much. I guess you are plugging it in to the mic input on your sound card. So you really need the ASIO driver for that make of sound card. If it is a hi-tech sound card the manufacturers might produce their own ASIO drivers, but if it is a SoundBlaster or generic motherboard soundcard the ASIO4All driver will probably do it. There is a link to ASIO4All in the MiniHost documentation. Although even then it didn't work at first for me - I think I had to select the right input and output driver on the ASIO menu of MiniHost.

I also downloaded a simple VST instrument plugin so that I could generate sounds from inside MiniHost, which made it a little easier to tell when I had got the sound card/driver settings right. -- Solipsist 20:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up

You appear to have someone mimicing you - [2], User:SoIipsist. Shimgray 21:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. -- Solipsist 21:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked him (and hopefully not you). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You just beat me too it. -- Solipsist 21:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second feature

Then what should I do if DYK is updated multiple times a day? DYK is already archived in Wikipedia:Recent additions. I don't think it's useful to duplicate that. -- Mgm|^(talk) 13:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Picture trend

Hi, Solipsist. Thanks for the picture of the red fox! I've thought about adding that one to my user page before, but it seemed a bit redundant with the Firefox logo. :) Unfortunately, it was too cute, and now, it has a nice, cozy spot on my user page. Thanks again, Sango 123 15:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Handling talk.

Gzuckier added to (→Cars with unusual handling problems). I am questioning his being so hard on the Porche 911. Maybe he will tone it down a little. Otherwise his contributions seem valuable. --David R. Ingham 19:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip on making references to changes. I didn't mainly originally mean to compete with Consumer Repots but, on the contrary, to show that a wheel lifting is not always catastrophic. Yes, maybe it will eventually develop into its own page. I think more to the point is the DOT link by type. Discussing individual cases quickly looses sight of the fact that it is safer (as well as causing less global warming) to have a small car to drive when one is not carrying enough to fill up the SUV or pickup. --David R. Ingham 21:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Passive safety for the other guy

I have already put a link to car handling in the car safety article. It mentioned only electronic stability control! An FMC engineer working on the Bradley military vehicle told me that if they make the driver's seat too comfortable, he will trash the vehicle. I do think it is reasonable for cars to have weight on the order of the passenger load. Even the Messerschmitt KR200 was heavier than the driver, but that was 1950s technology. If the car weighed as much as the pedestrian, the initial impact force would be only half as hard as if it were heavy and the driver's weight wouldn't hit the pedestrian until he was stopped by the restraining device. A Mercedes killed 80 people once at Le Mans. If it had been a Deutsch-Bonnet, it would have been many less. --David R. Ingham 21:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sango's RfA

Hi, Solipsist. Thanks for supporting my RfA! I am honored to have your endoresment and hope to make good use of the mop. Sango 123 01:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

te lillith article

no, that users edits are mosly rather weak, and had i the time earlier today i would have fixed them , which is why i kept putting them back in, i felt they were salvagable... sigh, but i didnt getthe chance to fix it up, because whenever i tried, i either had to put it back , or was called away for money making stuff...

Gabrielsimon 07:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks -- my aim was to disentangle Akkadian Lilitu, Hebrew Lilith, and medieval Christian stuff. The article is not finished, of course, but I think the present structure makes more sense. Most of all, we need more information about the Talmud stuff. dab (ᛏ) 14:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Fader

Hi - I saw your note on user:John Fader's talk page. He hasn't made any edits since May 21, so is either on an extended wikibreak or has simply gone missing. His account has email turned off, so I'm not sure there's a reasonable way to tell which of these is going on. Just thought I'd let you know you might not be getting a response soon (or perhaps ever :( ). -- Rick Block (talk) 22:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Incomprehensible

In response to the comment you left on my talk page:

You're absolutely correct. I have no idea what the heck that was. It certainly did not look like that when I finished my edit. Very strange indeed. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for not keeping up with things. I've been out of town and I have only intermitent acess to the internet. [Well I have acess, but I have many other things to do.] I'll be returning home in a few days and will try to help then. This link is Broken 20:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BCE Place photo uploaded

Hello,

Thanks for your help regarding account creation.

I have uploaded the first photo of BCE place:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BCE_Place_Galleria_Toronto_Panorama_2002.jpg

The other one will come later as it's on a different computer.

Molotov cocktail

Not sure what you mean by replacing an older image. There was no image before in the Molotov cocktail page. I dont see any other image also in the history of the Image:Molotov_cocktail.jpg page. Please advise. --DuKot 15:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things seem alright

Things look better between DreamGuy and myself. (I even voted to close the RfC) Hopefully we can get past the whole thing. I am thinking about changing my username again to make sure they stay behind. Take care, Dbraceyrules 21:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. I've still noticed DreamGuy and Gabrielsimon locking horns a little, but much less than before. It will probably take quite a while before you can each forgive and forget. It is quite likely that everyone is watching each other like a hawk on their watchlists, but it is best to avoid diving in too quickly if someone makes a mistake or says something a bit too provocative.

I still watch on editors I disagreed with over a year ago. One of them seems to get into battles with everyone, but I resist the urge to step in and for the most part just shrug my sholders and think 'yeah - this his style'. -- Solipsist 18:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thanks

Thanks for the flower and the kind words. It's fairly easy to write and photograph your job, especially when you enjoy your work. I notice that you live in the town that my town is named after.CambridgeBayWeather 05:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derry murals

Hey there, good to hear from you again. Popular these days, nearly time for an archive here ;-) You were right in that the wee lad was nothing to do with the IRA so it would have needed a lengthy caption to contextualise it (imho), I also saw the BBC mural, it would be great to go through the articles here with the amount of pics those guys have to choose from! For me there is a funny thing about that Bogside mural though. I'd seen it for years in books and after when they did the mural. I always thought it was such a strong poignent image - particularly the photograph. One of these days I'll get round to starting a Battle of the Bogside article. Don't fancy it at the minute though, I know it would be vandalisised to hell. Anyways, I'd just started with my driving instructor in Derry years back, and at that time the young lad, now grown up, was same said driving instructor. You talk about a juxtaposition of images! He'd decided to go public with the big revelation that he was the young boy. Thing was, he was starting his own business and reckoned he could use a bit of publicity... Now that I'm here, I have a bit of a question. I have uploaded a reasonable amount of images to wikipedia but I guess really they should go into commons. My own shots are all GFDL and the ones I found were mostly PD, with a couple of ESA and fair use ones. Anyway it seems like such a chore to do it all. Are there any tools to help automate the task? Admin or otherwise? Seems crazy to have to upload them all again individually... Cheers, SeanMack 14:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]