User talk:CoyneT/Archive October 2012
Hello CoyneT, the order in which the gases were listed in that table was not random, it was the order they are generated by the algorithm described in the previous section. Admittedly the text did not make this clear. Securiger 01:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks. Securiger 02:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just to let you know, we normally add our comments to the bottom of talk pages, not the top. There's no real reason, as far as I know, but it's nice to have a standard way of doing things. Accordingly, I have moved your comments at list of colors (if some of the unsigned comments are yours as well, you should consolidate them all in one section so it is easier to see who wrote what). Tuf-Kat 23:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Others are welcome to comment on my standardization thoughts. You can read my thoughts at the link above. CoyneT 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Images and media for deletion
[edit]- I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 03:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nature of Needed vs. Not
[edit]- I posted this response, under this heading, on 12 Apr 2005, at User_talk:Achilles. It is reproduced here for posterity; there was no response to this article at that location. Either it was boring, and not worth responding too, or perhaps there was tactit agreement. Either way is fine; I didn't post it to start a war, just to express my opinion.
- I am wary of "policies" against indecency which are aimed solely at what this group or that group thinks is indecent. While I, as well, found the picture(s) offensive (particularly the big one), it seems to me that the question should revolve around what the image adds to wiki rather than just, "Who does it offend?"
- If wiki goes down the latter road, there will in short order be little of wiki remaining. After all, the article on the Holocaust offends deniers; the article on Holocaust denial, Israelis; the articles on religion, athiests; the articles on athieism, the big bang, and anything on sex, religionists; the article on black probably offends at least some blacks; and etc. If there is to be any sanity and/or "residual" value to wiki, it seems that there must be some insistence upon being able to write and/or show what needs to be shown.
- But part of the defense of freedom of speech involves saving the big guns for what matters; therefore, it is desirable to avoid unnecessary controversy. So items (pictures or text) which seem designed to shock or offend other individuals without meeting a specific need don't seem to me to have any business here: wikians need the freedom to express what needs expressed and we won't have that if everyone is offended...and can ban everything as a result. We can avoid a slew of bans only by being able to defend the "shocking" stuff on rational, defensible basis.
- The text of the [redacted] article was more than explicit enough to explain to anyone (non-retarded) how the act of [redacted] was accomplished. Therefore the picture was redundant -- and since it was redundant, it added nothing but controversy to wiki. This is exactly what I think needs to be avoided and is exactly why I voted to delete the picture.
- Let's save our freedom of speech guns for the things that really need to be said, and not waste free speech on trivial, "How big a shock can we give?" nonsense. (Achilles: sorry I missed the vote on [redacted].) CoyneT 01:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User_talk:10.0.0.23 Issue
[edit](Thanks for responding.) Wikipedia is supposed to use the external IP, I understand. But there is something funny going on, because when I visited wiki yesterday, there was a banner saying, "You have messages." When I followed the link, it delivered me to User_talk:10.0.0.23. It appears that wiki identified me, at least temporarily, as 10.0.0.23. As you know, this IP is invalid for the internet, it is only used within institutions. Since I am not part of wiki, it should have known me as 204.4.13.x rather than as a 10.x.x.x number. So I don't see how this could have happened unless wiki also identifies users by the wiki-side institutional address. Should this question go to a developer or something? CoyneT 17:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, you should take it to a developer — it might mean a misconfigured Squid proxy on Wikipedia's side (they are supposed to tell the Apache servers the right IP). --cesarb 17:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikiproject Color
[edit]I have raised a question here: you will see that my preference is to keep the individual color systems linked to their respective articles, but to link the Color Coordinates caption to an explanatory article, using your draft as a starting point. --Phil | Talk 11:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, I just thought: can I move your draft into WikiProject Color (or you could move it yourself if you're OK with that)? I suppose it really belongs there. —Phil | Talk 07:50, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Picture copyvio
[edit]I didn't upload the image, actually. --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:34, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- That's perfectly OK. I learned the same thing about the Commons, when I uploaded the picture at Saskia van Uylenburg. --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Edits to Template:Please leave this line alone
[edit]As long as you're trying to fix its appearance, I should inform you that the box now renders over the text in Firefox. — Dan | Talk 00:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Wikiproject Color
[edit]Hi CoyneT, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Color. It seems to have been dormant for a while, even though there was a lot of great work and discussion already done. I'm looking to start it back up again. Care to join me? --Laura S 00:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Stolen Valor Act of 2005
[edit]Please see Talk:Stolen Valor Act of 2005#A Limit on Free Speech.