User talk:Andeggs/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Andeggs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Andeggs/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 12:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. As a contributor to music related articles on Wikipedia you may be interested in reading and contributing to the current standards for music related articles on Wikipedia such as:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music and descendants
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)
Wikipedia:Notability (music)

or creating new ones. There is also Portal:Music, which is like the front page but music exclusive.

Hyacinth 09:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes?

In Template:Epochs of Roman Emperors, you changed "Julio-Claudian dynasty" to "Julio-Claudian_dynasty", "Year of the four emperors" to "Year_of_the_Four_Emperors", and others, why?--Panairjdde 15:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to make those links go bold when one is viewing on it on that page. The reason they weren't was because "emperors" needs a capital 'E' to go the real article (rather than a redirect page). The underscore is irrelevant. Hope that makes sense Andeggs 15:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I just wondered why.

I would like to know your opinion on one thing. The current version of the table reads "Dominate: Constantine Dynasty | Valentinian Dynasty". My impression would be that the Dominate is actually divided into Constantiniana and Valentinian dynasties. Would it be better to write something like "Dominate (Constantinian and Valentinian dinasties)"? Best regards. --Panairjdde 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde, I know next to nothing about this subject so am probably not the best person to ask! I was just fixing the template - that's how I got involved. In my humble opinion, they should not be in brackets because it seems from the articles that the Dynasties were consecutive rather than concurrent. I may well be wrong though - so go ahead and change if you think best. Andeggs 07:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Epochs of Roman Emperors

Re. {{Epochs of Roman Emperors}}: I removed some of the new editing for several reasons:

Roman emperors after Antiquity had been cut out, e.g. "Holy Roman Emperors" have Roman Emperors in their name, + an adjective Holy → if one wants to have a navigational template that covers all Epochs of Roman Emperors, they have to be there somewhere. As there's no continuity of these Roman Emperors with those of Antiquity, I sought for a layout that put them somewhere out of the usual frame. Similarly for Byzantian Emperors after the final schism of the "Eastern" and the "Western" Roman Empire: the material link of the Byzantine Emperors with the City of Rome was from that moment reduced to zero, so, graphically out of the usual "frame" of the Roman emperors of Antiquity.
Many other details, e.g. "5 good emperors" is not *completely* synonymous with the Nervan-Antonian dynasty (that had more than 5 emperors, horizontal lines in the columns could indicate simultaneous developments in physically separated realms, etc...
Technical issues (minor, but still...), e.g.: the "align=right" instruction gave messy layout when the template was ranged in a list (as it was e.g. on Roman Emperor); automatic categorisation implied with the template (some articles using the template relied on it), etc...

In short: the "uniform layout" (which is a principle I support in general!) simply didn't work in this particular case, seen the complexities involved, so I used creativity in an attempt to give an appropriate representation. --Francis Schonken 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Francis - I have replied on the template's talk page. Please give your thoughts Andeggs 11:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

I'm sorry, but I just can't have the ability to log in Wikipedia as well. Something strange happened that made it so that after I log in, visiting a new Wikipedia page will take several minutes as opposed to a few seconds, starting with a warning message asking "Do you wish to abort??" 66.32.237.222 21:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (Note: this is User:Georgia guy not logged-in for convenience based on what has happened when it comes to logging in.)

Football AID 16 April - 22 April

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Ukrainian Premier League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Football AID 23 April - 29 April

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

History of football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

RE: Query

We are different beings. :) A the 0th | talk | 23:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re E Pluribus Anthony

Hi there - thanks for your help and interest on Template_talk:Regions_of_the_world. I haven't replied to the latest comments because I suspect that ... User:A the 0th [is a] sockpuppet...

This has now been confirmed - he is a sockpuppet. Andeggs 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Andeggs. It's disappointing to discover User:E Pluribus Anthony is likely to've been using a sockpuppet, as, if memory serves, s/he has otherwise been constructive. As regards the template, I'm not sure if/how/when to proceed...? Regards, David Kernow 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Diocese

Hi, Andeggs! I've been using Template:Diocese (and Template:Diocese NoImage) on Scottish Episcopalian dioceses, and I feel it gives pages on diocese a good common look. Last year, I overhauled Template:Infobox Language, which has a massive syntax to cope with the number of demands placed on by the varieties of languages in the world. I was wondering how ParserFunctions could be used on the template. I've come up with a trial version, which you can see at User:Garzo/projects/template. It's basically what you wrote with a few parser functions thrown in. The functions allow the same template to be used whether or not there is an image, thereby reducing the need for two separate templates. They also remove the website line if there is no website, and allow the replacement of Archdeaconries with Deaneries or Subdivisions if needed. The idea is that the same template could be used for dioceses throughout the world, whether or not they have arms images, websites or call their subdivisions archdeaconries. You can view some examples at User:Garzo/projects/sandbox. Please let me know what you think of it, and any suggestions you might have. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 19:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Codification of principles...

Hmm...I remeved the sentence. On second reading, it seems a bit too ambiguous. Maybe I will revisit it later. Thanks for the note! --HappyCamper 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Torts templates

I disagree with your decision to switch out the tort law templates - the revised template which you are removing divided the intentional torts between personal, dignitary, and property torts, and thus made the template more informative than the old template you are switching it out for. bd2412 T 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

While it is very positive and proactive for you to undertake to "clean up" these templates, please bear in in mind that (1) they are part of a series which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law#Resources, and it is important that all templates in the series are consistent in appearance, and (2) these templates were developed through a lot of discussion across individual templates as to what should be included and how each should appear. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate the thoughts. I started doing this because I felt (quite strongly) that the templates were difficult for users to read if they were unversed in law, too long and not aesthetically pleasing. I realise my edits are bold but I feel they are positive.Andeggs 15:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I take that to mean you intend to similarly clean up all the templates in the series? bd2412 T 15:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup - is this a complete list? Andeggs 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The legislation and SCOTUS infoboxes are not part of it - those should really not be changed without going through the Supreme Court WikiProject, as they voted on just about every aspect of the infoboxes. The Civ Pro template is, well, just different... bd2412 T 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just reverted a couple and then realised this was meant to be a change across the board. Please can you discuss this at the wikiproject page before changing everything! The older templates had a lot to recommend them. I certainly don't find the newer templates (which are quite different) easier to read than the older ones. Furthermore criminal cases and criminal law are different kinds of things. Can you please try and get consensus on this before doing a hatchet job. Lots of us had become used to the templates, and I suspect a lot of readers have too. Francis Davey 16:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have to say that my first reaction was yuk! (just on the appearance) I certainly don't go with the aesthetic! Francis Davey 16:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should propose it for discussion at the WikiProject? To tell you the truth, I was never crazy about the old template scheme (even though I came up with most of it) - the blues are too bright! bd2412 T 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup that seems like a good idea. I see now I've caused a little storm doing this solo! Andeggs 19:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've undone most of it - not that your efforts were in the wrong direction, but they constituted a sweeping change which should be discussed first with the community of Wikipedians who maintain law-related articles. Based on your changes, I've added a ton of stuff to the Crim-Pro template, which is now ghastly long and does need to be subdivided (as the torts template did), and I've come across some other articles which need to be merged. I'll work up a proposal over the next few days. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:BobMarleymural.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:BobMarleymural.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jkelly 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

law template

Just replied! I hope it's an okay answer. User:Wikidea

Hello Andeggs - do you have any ideas, about more that could be done on the law page to improve the what's actually written there, I mean as the content? Are there particular bits that you think are lacking somewhat and could be made more worldwide, or where you would like to know more about something else? I'd like to help! Wikidea 23:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO I think the whole article needs to be rebalanced to reflect the legitimacy of different legal systems and the history of Western legal traditions. Many of the founding principles of our legal systems derive from customary law and religious law but I feel these sections are more "tagged on" to the end of the article than properly brought to the fore. There are many societies which today recognise very different legal systems and these should occupy an equal place in the law article. For instance, this page shows some of the conflict Australia has had with Aboriginal law. In the UK we have 'Jewish courts' (and there is a possibility of Sharia courts too) for civil cases. Wikipedia should cast no aspersions on these, or any, legal systems - indirectly or otherwise.

I am not trained as a lawyer and know little about world legal systems. I appreciate you asking me to contribute but I don't want to make poor edits. We need an expert on the subject really. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andeggs (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Economist article

On the Same-sex marriage article talk page, you mentioned an article about the subject. Could you please supply me with the author, page number and exact issue information (volume, etc), so I can use it as a reference in a related article. Thanks in advance, Jeffpw 11:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Fallacy templates are awesome! If there were to be only one required subject (any school level, any major) it should be logic.

Do you know if the "Stolen Concept" fallacy is covered in one of the WP articles? This is where one or more concepts on which an argument logically depends are denied in the argument, i.e., asserting a concept while denying or ignoring its epistemological or genetic roots. Example: "All property is theft" contains this fallacy. The concept of "theft" is derived from, and depends upon the existence of a concept of validly owned property inorder to have a meaning of its own. Steve 20:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Paradoxes template

Andeggs, while the falacy template is not very good it is a start and marginally better than nothing. Could you please do something similar for paradoxes when you have time. Ossie 17:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:George_mallory.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:George_mallory.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, then 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, then 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-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yonatan ^talk 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks but the picture itself being 70 years old is not a sufficient reason for PD. The author (ie. the photographer) of the photograph must have died 70 years or more ago for it to be in the public domain. Yonatan ^talk 07:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Energy is the new Core Topics Collaboration

You showed support for Energy at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help.

I note that there has been some editorial disagreement on that page recently, so please be polite and work via consensus. Thanks! Walkerma 04:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Poppers image

Hi Andeggs,

I'm concerned about an image that you uploaded—Image:HOpoppers.jpg. You've stated that the Home Office website you took it off released it into the public domain, however I can find no such notice at the URL you linked to. The only copyright notice I can find is the terms and conditions page, which states all the content is subject to crown copyright. By my understanding, (from Template:CrownCopyright) Wikipedia cannot use the image, since a free equivalent could be created to give the same information.

I may have missed the copyright notice entirely, in which case please let me know where it is.

Thanks! me_and 13:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

see http://www.drugs.gov.uk/communications-and-campaigns/image-library/ which is the front page of the photo library. Thanks! Andeggs 14:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks! me_and 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)