User talk:Beekone

Welcome, Amigo

Jasper: Everything is a mythical, cosmic battle between faith and chance. [offers Miriam a joint]

Miriam: Maybe I shouldn't.

Jasper: You already did. Take another one. Now cough. What do you taste?

Miriam: Strawberries!

Jasper: Strawberries? That's what it's called: Strawberry Cough!

Kee: Wicked!

Jasper: So. You've got faith over here, right? And chance over there.

Miriam: Like yin and yang.

Jasper: Sort of.

Miriam: Or Shiva and Shakti.

Jasper: Lennon and McCartney!

Kee: [looking at pictures] Look, Julian and Theo.

Jasper: Yeah, there you go! Julian and Theo met among a million protestors in a rally by chance. But they were there because of what they believed in in the first place, their faith. They wanted to change the world. And their faith kept them together. But by chance, Dylan was born.

Kee: [picks up another photo] This is him?

Jasper: Yeah, that's him. He'd have been about your age. Magical child. Beautiful. Their faith put in praxis.

Miriam: "Praxis"? What happened?

Jasper: Chance. He was their sweet little dream. He had little hands, little legs, little feet. Little lungs. And in 2008, along came the flu pandemic. And then, by chance, he was gone. You see, Theo's faith lost out to chance. So, why bother if life's going to make its own choices?

Kee: Baby's got Theo's eyes.

Jasper: Yeah.

Miriam: Oh, boy. That's terrible. But, you know, everything happens for a reason.

Jasper: That, I don't know. But Theo and Julian would always bring Dylan. He loved it here.

Research into Prague history

Out of curiosity, what's getting you researching Prague history? I'm writing a novel set in Prague in 1900 myself. If you care to trade notes on occasion, you can drop me a line here: [1]. Donald Hosek 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing some preliminary research for an eventual graphic novel set primarily (if not solely) in Prague. I welcome all available info on the region, specifically from the first decade of the 20th century and pretty much all of the Crusade years. I'm reading three seperate books on the subject and more and more pertinent info rolls in all the time! Wikipedia has also been a huge help. Thanks for the offer, Donald, I could definitely use your collaboration! Beekone 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{ {crickets chirping} }

meddling

I took the liberty of putting your Wikipedia links in standard format; it's neater than the external link format that you were using, and has the advantage that you can tell right away if it's bad because it shows red rather than blue. You can always revert my changes.

By the way, everything I know about language suggests that the proper division of your surname is Roden-beek, not Rod-en-beek; the -en is most likely only a grammatical ending rather than a separate word – which I believe would mean and in Dutch, not in. —Tamfang 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still getting the hang of this Wiki-thing. However, you're the second person to bring up my lame linking abilities. According to the cheat sheet I'm supposed to parenthesis then insert my web address, a space, and then the word followed by another parenthesis. Where am I going wrong?!

That's for external links. For Wikipedia articles you simply put the title within double square brackets (much easier for later editors, possibly including yourself, to read and adjust); if the word you're using as a base differs from the title, put it within the brackets after a pipe |. Oh, and the first word of the link need not be capitalized, even though the article usually is. (This is why all article titles are, or until recently were, capitalized: so that we needn't have different syntax depending on whether or not the link is at the beginning of a sentence.) —Tamfang 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An important reason to use internal-style links is that Wikipedia is meant to be freely mirrored; to refer always back to the original Wikipedia would defeat that. —Tamfang 23:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Rodenbeek... what about Ro den beek? By all translations I can find this would read red in the stream, right?

More like red stream; I don't see any element that would mean in. As for Ro+den+beek, I doubt that Ro on its own is a word, though it might be an eroded (har har) trace of some longer word, perhaps one whose final consonant was lost before the d; den would mean something like the or of the or on the. But my money is on roden+beek meaning red stream, because this is a very typical form for Germanic (including Dutch and English and Danish ...) place-names. —Tamfang 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Roskilde, the first element is the personal name Hroar, if I understand right. —Tamfang (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: it now seems to me more likely that roden means reeds. There's probably a place in England called Reedbeck. —Tamfang 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

labor-saving

I notice that you wrote your comment on my Talk page by editing the last existing section. You can also create a new section in a Talk or similar page by clicking the "+" at the top of the page. —Tamfang 02:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhh Beekone 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visible Comet

Since you asked about this just a few days ago on the RefDesk, here's some info on a comet that's suddenly brightened to naked-eye visibility (magnitude 3). — Lomn 15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filks

Hi Beekone - a filk is a parody song. It usually takes the tune and structure of a well-known song and alters the words for humorous effect - they're pretty common in science fiction fandom, so many of them are adapted to science fiction or cult film/tv subjects. If it makes it any clearer, the best known filker in the world is probably "Weird" Al Yankovic. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bible Puzzle.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:"The Rock" disc golf.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:"The Rock" disc golf.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Viking-Innova.jpg

The file File:Viking-Innova.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bible Puzzle.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bible Puzzle.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]