Misplaced Pages

User talk:Donald Albury: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:01, 17 July 2006 editThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits User:Satris and possible sockpuppets: no problem← Previous edit Revision as of 23:10, 20 July 2006 edit undoYr41193 (talk | contribs)82 edits Those images were from wikipedia!Next edit →
Line 104: Line 104:


::No problem. Mistakes happen every day. ] 16:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC) ::No problem. Mistakes happen every day. ] 16:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

== Those images were from wikipedia! ==

== Copyright problems with Image:El nido.jpg==
Hi, I have seen you have reverted my edits removing the images you have uploaded from other sites. These images are clearly copyrighted, with rights belonging, in most cases, to the manufacturer. They can be claimed to be fair use in some specific cases, but would require a good rationale. It is, however, against both Misplaced Pages policies and the law, to replace free images with copyrighted ones. Please acquaint yourself with Misplaced Pages:Image use policy in more detail and revert your edits that violate it. Thank You, ]

Revision as of 23:10, 20 July 2006

Against voluntary dual-licensing
I am against voluntary dual-licensing of Misplaced Pages contributions.


Jimbo Wales has asked that we consider removing all userboxes expressing a political, religious or, more generally, polemical point of view from our user pages. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed policy on userboxes#Note from Jimbo.
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
If I posted something to your talk page, I added it to my watch list.
I would prefer replies in the same page as the original post. 
However, feel free to reply wherever if you want.
vn-1This user talk page has been vandalized 1 times


User talk:Dalbury/Archive1
User talk:Dalbury/Archive 2

hi

hi b my freind

Paris Combo article

I see you added the "access times" for the external links and referenced the Manual of Style. There is nothing in the MoS about adding access times to external links. Could you please provide a reference to support why you added the access times back? Thanks. --Mperry 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not in the MoS, but in Misplaced Pages:Citing sources/example style#Websites and articles (not from periodicals). This is also shown in Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Embedded HTML links, without the explanation. I'm in the habit of using "accessed" instead of "retrieved", but I think that is a non-issue. -- Donald Albury 20:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That is for citations not for external links. Please see the References and Notes sections of the Beatles article for an example of the proper usage of the "retrieved" or "accessed" comments. In the meantime I will re-remove the access comments from the external links of the Paris Combo article since they are not citations. --Mperry 22:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of those sites were used as references in writing the article, and I have moved them into the References section. When I created that article I was still leaving all web sites in External links even when they were properly references, as that seemed to be the usual practice. Also, can you point me to anything that says one should not provide access/retrieval dates for external lniks even when they are not references? -- Donald Albury 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything that discourages the use of the retrieval dates for external links. The Paris Combo article was the first one where I had encountered the use of retrieval dates in that section. There's no mention of retreival dates in the manual of style. Personally, I don't think the dates make sense for external links. I can see the need for including them with citations as someone might need to do further investigation to support a claim. If the page at a citation's URL has changed they could easily use the wayback machine to retrieve the cited version. External links don't seem to need that level of specificity. Either the link works or not, and if not someone can fix it. This is, of course, just my opinion. --Mperry 19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The distinction between References and External links is not always clear, and for a while I put all websites in External links, whether or not I had used them as references. I'm trying to go back and fix all sorts of things I did early on, but it may take me a litle while. -- Donald Albury 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Monobook tool

Hi,

I don't know if you are aware of my tool to reduce unnecessary links to solitary months/years.

You only need a single click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. If you want to use it, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to the bottom of User:Dalbury/monobook.js. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work.

Please feel free try it out. It also has a 'units' tab. Regards. bobblewik 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Great new article

Hi, thanks for creating Jake Gaither . I wanted to let you know about Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football as you may be interested in participating. Thanks! Johntex\ 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but I came to Jake Gaither from an interest in Florida topics rather than as a football fan. -- Donald Albury 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article creation on DYK

Updated DYK query On June 29, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jake Gaither, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Kimchi.sg 04:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

X-Americans etc.

Thanks for your comments. What I meant by common sense was basically, not absolutely insisting that each person has to be listed as an Irish-American. My main concern was if we have a source stating an American whose both parents were Irish and born in Ireland and there is no evidence that the person was not brought up by those parents, but we then insist that the person cannot go on the list of Irish-Americans, but can go on the Irish American article as an example of the offspring of Irish immigrants, it is a slightly ridiculous position. Arniep 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And I think that "X-American" often has connotations beyond having X ancestry and living in America, such that we should be cautios about using deduction to apply it. -- Donald Albury 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course I am not arguing that any person with distant ancestry should be included who has shown no interest in X ethnicity or nation, but I think X born parents who actually brought a person up who would have the accent and customs of that nation automatically indicates a closeness and relevance that would merit that person's inclusion. Arniep 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
But Arniep, the problem is, regardless of how reasonable you think your deductions may be, they are still your deductions, and may be in dispute. That's what the NOR policy prohibits with the plagarism example Mad Jack 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Caron

There is an ongoing dispute on the talk page about whether it should be called caron or háček/hacek. It has been suggested that professional linguists' advice would be beneficial. Would you please consider participating in the vote? 85.70.5.66 23:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Grey Mangrove

They're not double redirects. Grey Mangrove is maintained as a disambiguation page. Gray Mangrove, Grey mangrove and Gray mangrove are redirects to the disambiguation page at Grey Mangrove. Thus all four titles direct the user to a disambiguation page, but only one disambiguation page needs to be maintained. Snottygobble 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So, it means that readers can be redirected to a disambiguation page? Ok, if you want to put them back, I won't revert again. I may have reacted too fast on this. -- Donald Albury 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking that I may have reacted too fast. Thanks for the friendly response. Snottygobble 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. Truce? :-) Common names for mangroves, as for so many other taxons (pseudo-taxons?), are a mess. At least the two Grey mangroves have non-overlapping ranges. -- Donald Albury 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely :-). I think this common name issue is a problem everywhere.
You might like to have a look at something I tried in Category:Banksia. I entitled every article by its scientific name, and tagged the articles into Category:Banksia species by scientific name. I then created redirects from the common names, and put the redirects into Category:Banksia species by common name. Probably I broke "the rules" by putting redirects into categories, but it appears to have worked brilliantly. Snottygobble 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice when you have enough to write something on each species, and they all have common names. I recently did Coccothrinax, which is a mess. I wanted to do Coccothrinax argentata, but the research got messy and I realized I needed to sort out the genus first. -- Donald Albury 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On July 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Florida mangroves, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm| 20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Laguncularia racemosa

Hi Dalbury - as you'd noticed, the page as started by previous contributors was a copyright violation. The wiki policy with such pages is to delete them to remove the copyvio from the page history, rather than just re-write it (which retains the copyvio in the history). I have therefore done so and re-started the page using most of your re-write, tho' rearranged the ordering of the text a bit. - MPF 11:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 12 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Ashmore, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm| 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Goad

OK, and hi. --Bhadani 11:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Satris and possible sockpuppets

(cross-posted from WP:ANI)

User:Satris was blocked for 3RR and blanking an AfD page. Now new users Julliardgal (talk · contribs), Lotsofmusic (talk · contribs), Pianochic (talk · contribs) and Lotsalove (talk · contribs) have been making the same edits to Ronen Segev, Ten O'Clock Classics, Veda Kaplinsky and Laser hair removal that Satris made. -- Donald Albury 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Mistakes happen every day. Thatcher131 16:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Those images were from wikipedia!

Copyright problems with Image:El nido.jpg

Hi, I have seen you have reverted my edits removing the images you have uploaded from other sites. These images are clearly copyrighted, with rights belonging, in most cases, to the manufacturer. They can be claimed to be fair use in some specific cases, but would require a good rationale. It is, however, against both Misplaced Pages policies and the law, to replace free images with copyrighted ones. Please acquaint yourself with Misplaced Pages:Image use policy in more detail and revert your edits that violate it. Thank You, yr41193

Category:
User talk:Donald Albury: Difference between revisions Add topic