User talk:Saudade7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Question

I can't figure out how to put up one of those banners that say something like "this article needs to be cleaned up and clarified vis-a-vis grammar / structure etc." I was going to place it on the Mezzotint page because I cannot really understand what it says. Merci. Saudade7 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well for a general clean up you can type {{cleanup}} on the article that you think needs some cleaning. Also there are many more in detail template messages here. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me on my talk page. — Seadog (Talk) 19:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptical Activisim

I read your most recent comments on the Mel's Hole Talk page and I share yoour concerns about Skeptical Activisim. Right now certain activist skeptics are trying to gut, merge or delete a very helpful article calle Pseudoskepticism. I bring that article to your attention not because I want you to jump into the fray but rather to point you in the direction of a very helpful article that explains the rabid skeptical point of view. In my view, extremely aggressive skepticism is no different than activist atheism. Both groups feel that groups who believe things they consider to be nonsense are inferior and that their belief in these nonsensical ideas are worthy of ridicule and attack. Wikipedia admins would not stand idly by if a group of Christians gutted every article on any other faith nor would they permit atheists to gut all articles on groups that believe in a god or higher power. However, we do have an organized project of skeptics, one I belong to, that is sometimes downright militant in their activities towards paranormal, religious and estoric subjects. Just take a look: WP:SKEPTICS. Look under the To Do list and you'll see tht they keep a close watch on articles covering subjects they consider to be fraud or pseudoscience. It's all well and good so long as ediotrs keep their editing limited to legitimate criticism from reliable sources but I have run into editors from that project who follow around editors from the paranormal project revrting their edits, attacking them on the talk pages and making sure to nominate any new articles for speedy deletion before anyone else can improve the article. They often question its notability. I have a couple editors who follow me around and I'm actually a Skeptic! it's annoying. Wikipedia is not without its faults. Sadly, there is a group of highly motivated activist skeptics who are determined to do everything they can to push their POV. Their behavior reminds me of accusations made about members of Scientology and the way they are said to police articles of interest to them.LiPollis 09:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Saudade7...

No, my request "not to monopolize" the Indigo Children article was not directed at you at all. It was meant for Wooty, who deleted every single one of my contributions obviously without researching the data for himself first, or even giving me a reason. I fully agree with you that no one "owns" any particular wiki article, and that it is "rude and out of place" for me, or anyone else, to "demand that others not participate." If anything, we should be telling this to Wooty. What I did was add some more information, and rather than completely displacing what was already there, I simply organized some of the details, and paraphrased certain words or sentences which seemed either too generalized or ambiguous. I was actually relieved to see the grammar corrections you made, and agreed with your comments, particularly on the "self-esteem is a big issue" part. Sorry for the confusion.

[edit] Great Minds think alike

Dude! That's the first cordial message I've got in my inbox in a while! Thanks, and rock on! Bacchiad 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) SystemGlitch

[edit] Indiana Jones 4

My revert was accidental and intended to remove the Google cache. A removed article is not in the "public domain" -- if you try to access most news articles in Google News Search older than 30 days, you usually have to pay a certain amount. So no, the information is not suddenly and abruptly free to roam the Internets. Rest assured, I am aware that you were not the first person to add the Google cache, and my amateur reference is to the discourteous approach of providing information after the publisher had purposely removed it. Hence my reference to torrents and Youtube videos, providing an online glimpse at what is under the jurisdiction of whoever distributed the media. There is supple information addressing the circumstances of the extra's actions, and like Alientraveller said, there's no reason to provide the Google cache. I welcome you to Wikipedia and apologize for my brusque edit summary -- I am in disagreement that providing the link to the Google cache is necessary. You may want to revise your tone as you do not seem to assume good faith about my approach just because Alientraveller and I have worked together on improving the structure and content of many film articles. Any further discussion about the Google cache should take place on the film article's talk page. I hope we can meet more amicably in the future after this situation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh, like the template says, "I won't be able to keep away from Wikipedia for that long." I've been editing everyday this past week despite all the academic priorities on my plate. I didn't speak up on the talk page because I had agreed with Alientraveller's reasoning for not having it. I suppose we both believe in presenting verifiable information that would sit intact in the Wikipedia article for the long run, and providing a Google cached page didn't merit inclusion for that structure. We both have a stringent approach in having long-lasting content about films, even when they have yet to come out -- I think it's an approach that's created some well-informed articles. As much as I enjoy delving in all kinds of information in the film, I play by Wikipedia's rules in maintaining encyclopedic content, not treating the mainspace as a free-for-all for whatever plot details or leaked images float around the Internet. I think that in this information age, there is substantial enough coverage about any given topic, especially films, that it is not an issue to find the most reliable sources to add verifiable content to articles. I hope you understand that Alientraveller and I have collaborated quite a bit, and if we agree on something, it's as a result of repeated, separate discussions about different aspects of Wikipedia's film articles. I imagine that after all this time, we both tread a similar path in our roles as editors after all the "honing" discussions on how-to-best-contribute. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there's always something to do on Wikipedia. I've generally agreed that it would be an awesome gig to get paid to edit Wikipedia (not in favor of any particular perspective, of course -- just to spread information). You can definitely find your share of arguments, too -- my last major dispute was with another editor about Dragon Ball Z (film) and whether or not Variety's information about hiring a screenwriter was verifiable even though the information was not reiterated ever again. (I don't even like Dragon Ball Z!) Wikipedia's a good time-killer, but it takes a lot of devotion to get major tasks done. I've been honing Fight Club (film) for a year (gotta consider school and other film articles) and I still don't feel that it's complete. Academic interpretations of the film (of which there are many, and complex) is the last hurdle before I submit it to the FAC process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Committed identity

No one would probably have an interest in corrupting your account unless you were at least an admin or an important non-admin member of the community. So this really isn't necessary for everyone. If you change your mind and decide you don't want it posted, I can always delete the revisions in which you added it to your userpage. Let me know on my talk page if you'd like that. Mangojuicetalk 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Electronics Association copyright violation cleared

Hello – I see you're one of the main editors of this page, so I thought I'd let you know that I deleted the article and restored the versions without the offending content. The article's history may look a bit odd and some of your contributions are gone, but the problem is also gone. If it happens again, let me know. Thanks – KrakatoaKatie 02:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I messed up and only reverted the inappropriate edits instead of deleting/restoring the non-cv versions, so I had to toss my big impressive paragraph. You can still see it in the page history, but it doesn't apply now, unless you still need help reverting. Just be sure to blank the article when you use {{copyvio}}, and don't use it for sections of articles. Thanks! - KrakatoaKatie 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Usafis.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Usafis.jpg, 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 19:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision history of Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada by Justice LeBel

Wow. That's really nice of you to say. Though the work is for my own interest and enjoyment, the encouragement really makes a difference. Thanks. -PullUpYourSocks (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johannes Factotum

Cool. Thanks for your advice. That's really useful.

Amazingly, someone else got there ahead of you and emailed the article to me so I have it already. But many thanks for your effort. Just goes to show...

Best, AndyJones 00:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WRT "if I knew how [to upload on Commons]"

If someone hasn't already told you or you've found out:

Go to Commons (<http://commons.wikimedia.org/>) or just go straight to the upload page (<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload>) and upload it. Also note that you need a username there and they ONLY take PD/"Free" stuff. 68.39.174.238 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image description of the image on your User: page. 68.39.174.238 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just wanted to say thanks

I'd been looking for an offline Wiki editor, but didn't get much in the way of help from the help desk. Thanks for asking at the refdesk, the replies were just what I was looking for. Dureo 07:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for the confusion

I was talking to Sean, not you. Your answer was fine. Sorry for the confusion. 64.236.121.129 14:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Many thanks for the Barnstar! It's beautiful - I've been polishing it - obsessively perhaps - Precious! The nassty hobbitses wants it but it's my Precious! ....Um sorry. I have it under control now!

So are you going to take a shot at Java? There are other languages you could start out with - but Java is probably the best compromise between ease-of-learning and usefulness-when-learned. The basic software you need is at http://www.eclipse.org - you'll want "Eclipse IDE for Java Developers". There is a Wiki for people learning Java with Eclipse here http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Eclipse_FAQs

SteveBaker (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thx

Just wanted to drop by to thank you for your efforts at the reference desk. I still can't allocate that quote, but I remember now that the guy was working at some Australian institution, doing intelligence research (maybe indeed related to AI, not sure though). There is one Michael O'Boyle, an American psychologist working somewhere in Australia, but I found that name through raw googling for terms like "evolution/ary", "step"/"leap", "Australia" etcpp. Well, I guess I'll have to keep looking. Anyway, thanks again. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 07:58, December 5, 2007

[edit] thank you so much!!

I actually knew the Linklater film, which makes me doubt whether the original source really was that interview I had talked about. I still think I read it there as well, but OTOH the quote "Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human" is so exactly what I meant that I'm not entirely convinced any more that it didn't just stem from the film alone.

I'm not at all religious, but I just celebrated consumerism like most people over here, so I'll book it as a Christmas present. Thanks again! [[User:Dorftrottel]] (talk)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the advice for the cold chills page. Do you have any idea where I might find writings by those authors? I can't really seem to find much. Thanks--74.138.145.133 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other authors

What about the other authors, how did you know they wrote about the "holy shiver"? Thanks--DatDoo (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

Your answer on the topic of torturing animals gave me a titter. Nicely done! :) --Sean 04:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

I'm glad I made you laugh, but - really - what else could be said? :) - Nunh-huh 15:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taraborn

Thanks for that note. I glad of your moral support & that you took the time to let me know. I guess I live in hope that s/he'll improve or else get bored. I've not seen enough of his/her postings to have been able to form a general opinion ... our interaction was more fraught than was necessary, but seems to be over for now. Thanks again - Tagishsimon (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict

Hi — didn't mean to cause you grief. But edit conflicts don't actually delete your edits; you'll find your stuff down at the bottom of one of those windows. Just for future reference. --Panoptik (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C. Soon

Thanks for double-checking me on the English translations of Cantique de Noël. I understand be bold, but I had just returned after a year's hiatus, and my first edit back was to blank an article as copyvio. I felt like giving whomever a chance to defend the third translation. Thank you again. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:SethMollyAuraTHMB.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:SethMollyAuraTHMB.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Breno talk 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Testing

Hi! 70.143.75.31 (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Your Bot...

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. My bot's edit was not what broke that particular userbox; in actuality the bot's edit was to fix an entirely different userbox and its edit was what it should have been. The bot switched {{User FTCoffee}} to {{User:Scartol/ubx/FTCoffee}}. The box that was broken was {{User:UBX fishy}} which had been moved to {{User:UBX/fishy}} resulting in what you saw. Thank you for the note though, and should you notice any further possibly problematic edits by my bot in the future please be sure to let me know.--Dycedarg ж 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)