Revision as of 09:05, 7 February 2006 editDragon695 (talk | contribs)1,687 edits →I shouldn't have but I did.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:11, 26 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
(334 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div style="padding:6px;"> | <div style="padding:6px;"> | ||
<u>''Archives (in blocks of |
<u>''Archives (in blocks of 100):''</u> | ||
⚫ | * ] <small>(''25 January 2006 - 04 September 2008'')</small> | ||
<!-- | |||
⚫ | * ] <small>('' |
||
---> | |||
* None | |||
{{TOCright}} | {{TOCright}} | ||
=='''Welcome!'''== | |||
Hello {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me on ] or see ]. Again, welcome! --]|]<font color="green">]</font> 06:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for saying hello! I hope to begin contributing in earnest once I get settled in. --] 06:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
== SC User box == | |||
Thanks for your help. I was surprised that there were none that I could find, so I made it. This my first template I have ever made.--] ]<sup>(])</sup> 02:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
:pls check the talk page on this template.--] ]<sup>(])</sup> 02:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Sounds like a great idea! --] 02:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
:No problem :). Initially, I had wanted to change it is so that it would be the same height as the USA template, but you know, once I got started I decided to throw in the other changes as well. --] 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Not encyclopedic, Violation of copyright? == | |||
How does including the lyrics to a song violate a copyright and in what way is not encyclopedic?? | |||
I believe usage of the lyrics is not covered by copyright and even if it were it would be covered under a fair use theory of law. | |||
Definition of Encyclopedia (merriam-webster.com): | |||
a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject. | |||
(] 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)) | |||
:The lyrics were reverted at least twice before (check history). ]. As to lyrics not being covered by copyright, I believe the author of that song would beg to differ. Also, it is one thing to selectively quote song lyrics, it's quite another to reproduce the song lyrics in their entirety. Reproduction of written works of any type, in their entirety, is rather dubious where fair use is concerned. --] 22:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Re ]: Dragon695 is correct. - ]]] 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I second the above. Most people believe that "fair use" laws cover a far more cases than they actually do. In personal life or private websites, that is unlikely to turn out to be problematic. On a large encyclopedia that also happens to be one of the top-50 most frequently viewed websites in the world, it is a problem. It is, however, nice to have ''information'' about a song, e.g. what it's about, how fans reacted to it, or if it won any awards or sparked controversy. ]]] 11:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
== EFF userbox == | |||
== That was really helpful == | |||
Please keep the width of the image at 40px, it f's up the layout for many people; userboxes are meant to have the smaller box to the left at 45px maximum. Thanks! —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 08:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Advising Blofeld to use Twinkle instead of rollback to revert non-vandal edits is high on the list of "worst ideas suggested to users", even for you. Come on - I know you're not stupid, and take a look at that page - there are five images, all face shots, of which only one (the first) could realistically be considered as possibly passing NFCC#1 even in the loosest terms of the policy. I know that NFCC can be argued about and disputed sometimes, but those four images fail so many parts of the policy that I don't know where to begin. It really would be a good idea if you focused your pro-fair-use somewhere that it would actually be useful, like on actually debatable images, or even on the policy talkpage discussions? ] 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:My bad, I'll be more careful in the future! --] 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'm sorry, but for me, 4-5 images is reasonable considering that the whole lists concept was a compromise to having individual articles about characters. If each character had an individual article, there would be no controversy. I feel lists are being abused by the fair use opponents. You shunt all the characters to a list and then complain that lists have too many images. In any event, I dispute the ''replaceable with text'' rationale in NFCC #1 based on my experience with persons with learning disabilities. Remember, not everyone learns or understands through the written word. If a picture can help to describe a character to an individual with such a disability, then it should be used. We mustn't allow this freedom ideology to trump our ultimate goal, to be a repository of information for anyone to access. I think it would be best if those concerned with too much fair use spend their time helping commons, which has the '''primary''' goal of creating freely redistributable content. The replaceable with text clause was a recent addition by POV warriors at NFCC and thus is not a provision that has community consensus. Thank you for reminding me about something that needs to be done, namely getting rid of that portion of NFCC. Text is never a suitable replacement for a picture! --] (]) 23:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:: Yes, but you're missing the point. I agree that text is never suitable replacement for a picture, but when that image is non-free, that can only be <i>if the picture is adding something to the article that is clearly necessary</i>. Pictures of what are, in the end, just random ordinary-looking people don't hit that necessity, I believe (which is why I think the first picture had some validity). As far as lists go, my mindset would be as follows - if a character isn't independently notable enough for their own article, then they're probably not notable enough to warrant a non-free image <i>unless it's really necessary to illustrate some facet of their appearance that can't easily be described in text.</i> Hope you can see where I'm coming from? Incidentally, it'd be appreciated if you'd go back to Blofeld's talkpage and fix your comment - he's a really productive editor and I'd hate him to lose his rollback edit-warring with it when it's not necessary. ] 23:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::: I think you are missing the point. To be practical, I will refer to something that happens to me often. I remember seeing a movie or whatnot but I forgot a character's name. Now how can I find that character just based on text? Can I even be assured that there will be the correct description or series of events in that character's profile for me to put a name to a face? Often, only a picture will do. In that case, that of identification, I am strongly asserting that the picture ''enhances my understanding'' of the article. As for notability, I find that argument to be a bunch of crap. Like everyking, I believe that characters in fiction are notable enough to deserve an individual article. I really fail to understand why it is necessary to shunt them to lists. I find TTN's editing to be quite vexatious, in fact. It makes no sense, since we are in no danger of running out of room or resources. To your last point, I '''was not encouraging edit warring'''. I pointed out that since server rollback is for vandalism only, using twinkle would be more appropriate (AGF rollback). I don't see what the problem is. Hell, you could just use the undo button, it is all the same. --] (]) 23:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::: Yes, but using Twinkle to edit-war is also likely to get it removed from your monobook. Why run the risk? If you're going to revert, use a proper edit summary. As for lists, it isn't as cut and dried as you make out. I'm quite aware of the "everyking" theory, but I can't agree with it (and nor does Misplaced Pages policy, whether you or I agree with it or not). If "every character" in fiction is suitable for an article, where do you draw the line? You know as well as I do that we'd soon end up with articles for any named character that appeared in one episode of a TV program for five seconds. A quick look at a lot of the "List of minor characters in..." articles reveals two things to me - firstly, that yes, some of those characters would justify an article if someone could find enough real-world notability for them, and secondly, the corollary, which is that most of them couldn't. Incidentally, my answer to some of the "images for minor characters" issue would be that for a lot of fiction (especially science-fiction and anime) there is a spectacularly good independent wikia devoted to those series. Many of those couldn't give a stuff about fair-use images, so why shouldn't we link our "List of..." articles to those instead? ] 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::: Unlike server rollback, Twinkle's AGF rollback ''does'' allow for proper edit summaries it pops up a dialogue asking you for it right after you hit the AGF Rollback link. As for linking to Wikia, I just can't accept that. It makes no sense to keep information pushed off to other projects. I would much rather the people who edited on wikia do so here instead. Plus, while I believe in quantity, I also believe in quality. It is not ok to have poorly written character sketches, but those wikis are often terrible about having any basic standards. Plus, wikia has those annoying ads and doesn't have SUL. --] (]) 00:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
== |
== hi == | ||
hi whats up ] (]) 00:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I'm sorry - but is there some misunderstanding? Could you please refer to which actions I have conducted which are questionable? And also, I am unsure of what action you wish me to take - I am not an administrator, so I can not delete nor undelete things, so may I therefore ask you clarify your statement. Thanks! <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">]|]</span> 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Never mind, I thought you were an admin ;-). I'll tak it to nightstallion. --] 17:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::No problem, its just because it sounded like you were questioning some of my actions. Good luck! <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">]|]</span> 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Oh no problem, sorry if that was the impression, my beef is with Tony Sidaway. --] 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
== interview request == | |||
== <strike>Removing comments and/or positions on an RFC </strike>== | |||
<strike>Is extremely, extremely discouraged. We are talking really really discouraged here. Please don't do it again (and yes I do suppose this counts as an official warning and all *sigh*)</strike> ] 03:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: Excuse me??? I didn't remove anything. Please clarify! --] 03:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Crap, you are correct, my sincere apologies. It was an anon, and I was briefly mislead by the way in which the anon had written it. (Please feel free to refactor this section off of your talk page, once you have read the apology) Sorry again. ] 03:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: No problem at all, I was worried I accidently deleted somthing by mistake. Thanks for clearing it up. --] 03:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::: And here I finger the real culprit ], sorry for the misunderstanding. ] 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::: Don't sweat it! I know you probably have your work cut out for you with that RFC ;-). BTW, unless you want it, I'd kinda prefer to not delete talk entries in the interest of openness and full disclosure . I'll go ahead and put a strikethrough to indicate that it was just a misunderstanding :-). --] 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hello, | |||
== thanks! == | |||
My name is Natalia Ioana Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of user motivation to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Misplaced Pages. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. | |||
I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 1st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. | |||
Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. | |||
Thank you, | |||
Hey! Thanks for the Murrow pic barnstar thingy! Actually, I felt I didn't deserve it -- I haven't ''really'' done much work on the pedophila articles, I just put together a project structure -- so I gave it over to ] who deserves it more. But thanks! ] 09:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Natalia Olaru | |||
Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com | |||
] (]) 14:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Hey Nicholas == | ||
How are you? I don't know if you remember me, but we met once. Have a nice day! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I take it you were referring to the RfC I'm preparing against Tony Sidaway, as that's the only thing of the sort I'm undertaking at the moment. The charges are outlined, and I'll gladly add the anti-Randroid box deletion to the list of grievances. What's still needed is more diffs proving that people attempted to reason with him on all the listed violations; I haven't gotten around to that yet. If you want to help, the RfC is being compiled ]. ] 12:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
: You are going to have to be a little more specific about it than that. All I know is you have a Clemson IP address.--] (]) 12:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Happy Birthday (2012) == | ||
<div style="align: upperright; padding: 1em; border: solid 3px #2B547E; background-color: #E6E6FA;">] '''Wishing ] a very happy birthday on behalf of the ]! ] ]] 22:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)</div> | |||
I thought you might get a laugh out of the story I put on the Payson, Az's vandal's user page. | |||
]--] 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Apparwntly it didn't work, cause all I see is a redlink :-/. --] 09:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:11, 26 February 2022
Current time: 02:07. Purge page cache Welcome to Dragon695's talk pageon Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit
Messages
Please add new discussions by clicking here. Archives (in blocks of 100):
That was really helpfulAdvising Blofeld to use Twinkle instead of rollback to revert non-vandal edits is high on the list of "worst ideas suggested to users", even for you. Come on - I know you're not stupid, and take a look at that page - there are five images, all face shots, of which only one (the first) could realistically be considered as possibly passing NFCC#1 even in the loosest terms of the policy. I know that NFCC can be argued about and disputed sometimes, but those four images fail so many parts of the policy that I don't know where to begin. It really would be a good idea if you focused your pro-fair-use somewhere that it would actually be useful, like on actually debatable images, or even on the policy talkpage discussions? Black Kite 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
hihi whats up Mallory claybaugh (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC) interview requestHello, My name is Natalia Ioana Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of user motivation to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Misplaced Pages. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 1st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com MulgaEscu (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Hey NicholasHow are you? I don't know if you remember me, but we met once. Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.255.224 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Happy Birthday (2012)Wishing Dragon695 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. about my edits? 22:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC) |