User talk:IntrigueBlue/2006
This is an archive of discussions with IntrigueBlue during the year 2006.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Cette page contient les discussions avec l'utilisateur IntrigueBlue qui ont eu lieu pendant l'année 2006.
Pour voir ou intervenir sur les discussions actuelles, vous pouvez vous rendre sur la page de discussion courante.
Dette er et arkiv over inaktive diskusjoner fra bruker IntrigueBlue. Vennligst ikke gjør endringer her.
Ønsker du å fortsette en gammel diskusjon, ta det opp på den aktive diskusjonssiden.
VandalProof lock
[edit]Thanks for telling me; however, AmiDaniel and I sorted it out a while ago. Everything should be fine now. Master of Puppets That's hot. 10:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, good to hear. Just wanted to make sure it worked out all right. --IntrigueBlue 06:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't feel offended with the "unreferenced" template. I am not questioning the content, otherwise I would have posted questions in the article talk page. The references are given not only to "confirm" information (according to wikipedia:Verifiability), but also to provide additional insights in the topic, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for more reasons. There is much more to be possibly said about viaducts (history, engineering, etc.). `'mikka (t) 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If a particular statement needs citation, usually a local template {{fact}} is used. My concern was total lack of any external references for a pretty broad topic. `'mikka (t) 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
User talk redirects
[edit]While it's possible (and even probably helpful) to put #REDIRECT [[en:User talk:IntrigueBlue]] on the foreign language wikis, be aware that it won't actually work (interwiki redirects are disabled). What you'll get is a fairly official looking "Redirected here" page with a big arrow on it; take a look at [1] for an example. You may also want to use code similar to the {{softredirect}} template or whatever the local equivalent is on those other language wikis. Good luck. -- nae'blis 19:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the help. I just left a note on the talk pages.[2][3] I guess that works better than a hard redirect anyway, since the user is then aware that they're going to a different Wiki, and is aware of the email alternative as well. Thanks again. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Very classy. -- nae'blis 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Divinity
[edit]Thank you for your suggestions regarding my edits of the Wikipeida article on "Divinity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearDivinity (talk • contribs)
Disputes
[edit]So I was contributing to a page the other day, and noticed that there was a discussion that was getting quite heated. I left a message about using Wikipedia with respect, but wasn't sure what I should do, or if I should even do anything. What is the best course of action when you are working on a page and a dispute between other users (one that you're not involved with) becomes disruptive to the improvement of the article? Sylverdin 22:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I assume you're talking about the argument in Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, mostly perpetuated by Duke53? In this case I would say that you have probably done all that you can. If you're interested in taking the issue further, you could look at WP:DR.
- In general terms, if the argument is over a specific set of edits to the article itself, you are in the enviable situation of being outside the discussion. That means that you are in a position to propose a compromise that may be acceptable to both sides. Just be careful to stay outside the argument yourself. As for those participating in the argument, linking them to WP:NPA is a widely used reminder of acceptable behaviour. If that doesn't work, it's time to look at some of the methods available in WP:DR.
- Hope that helps. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- It does. Don't think I'd like to get involved in the debate. I'll just let it be. :) Thanks for the help and the answer!! Have an awesome day! Sylverdin 16:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
U+F8FF
[edit]I don't think that we're in quite the same position as font vendors who want to sell Apple-compatible fonts for money; corporate logos are allowable in some fair-use contexts on Wikipedia (though not on Commons...). AnonMoos 12:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- The Apple logo was removed from userboxes because Fair use images are not allowed to be used in Wikipedia "userspace", only in "article space". I think that when Apple chose to use a variant form of their logo in their fonts and font encodings, they opened themselves up to the legitimate fair-use of that particular variant form of their logo in reporting and commentary about the particular fonts and font encodings in question (and that's what I would put down as the fair use rationale of a rasterized Apple logo as it appears in fonts)... AnonMoos 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Jennifer Huygen
[edit]Looked this one up after the reunion dinner. Lawl, and nice job.
I would have expected some edit happy user to have it deleted by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucidGA (talk • contribs)
- Thanks. I assume you're talking about Jennifer Huygen here, so I added an appropriate section header. Why do you figure it'd have been deleted? She's pleasingly notable.
Oh, and who is this? I checked your profile but I can't think of any Pages I know that go to NAIT. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I figured it out. Greg, right? I've only heard of you by reputation, and I don't remember running into you at the reunion, but at least I know who you are. In fact, I linked to your blog. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
excessive link removal
[edit]You removed the link bridgetype.googlepages.comfrom the bridges page for no apparent reason. It is a relevant site. I have looked at my pages viewing history and unless you where in Edmonton you did not go to the site but deleted the link
75.28.151.72 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have indeed visited your site and it contains nothing that contributes to the article. Just because a page talks about bridges doesn't mean it should be linked from the article. From the look of it, the page is in fact mostly taken from Wikipedia. Because of this, no matter how many sock puppets you create to re-add your link, I will continue to delete them. Rather than creating parallel sites to Wikipedia and trying to sneak your links onto the site with fake edit descriptions, perhaps you would like to contribute to the project. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 06:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- First of all I am not the user cinnagingercat. second of all it is not taken from wikipedia. If you looked at the bottom of the page you would see the books that were my sources. And did you go to my site from Edmonton on a Intel Mac with Safari browser 419.3?Beagleball101 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- My location and software are none of your concern. At Wikipedia there is a policy called "assume good faith": if I say that I have visited your site, I probably have unless you have reason to believe otherwise. And whether or not you are the same user (which I still suspect), I do not believe that the content on the site is of any use to an individual reading the bridge article. No matter your source, the content largely duplicates that of the Wikipedia article. External links are used for providing information that could not otherwise be presented in the article, or valuable in-depth further reading. Apologies, but your site contains neither.
- If you do not object, I would like to move this discussion to Talk:Bridge to seek a consensus on the issue. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not cinnagingercat. Cinnagingercat is a friend of mine. I'll stop posting it because you keep removing it. I asked about your computer to check if you visited my site.Beagleball101 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)