User talk:Duncharris/archive7

Wikipedia:Babel

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

fr-3

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau avancé de français.

Search user languages

At page load, it was -- T in UTC
(see W3C Date and Time Formats)

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. Duncharris 16:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Start a new discussion

Archives

Archives of old discussions:

Category:Pseudoscience

I'm currently feeling like we ought to perhaps scrap the pseudoscience category alltogether and replace it with a list. In thinking about it the other day I hit upon a logical problem with my stance on it and think that in the interest of intellectual honesty and NPOV it might be best to do it as such. Here's the question I pose. I'm still sifting through my thoughts on it, though. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Fastfission 30 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)

The Kallikak Family/Pictures

I'm pretty sure you are mistaken in thinking that they are copyvio. According to our own Copyright FAQ, and this wonderfully straightforward page about copyright, in the U.S.:

"Any work published on or before December 31, 1922 is now in the public domain.

"Works published between January 1, 1923 and December 31, 1978, inclusive, are protected for a term of 95 years from the date of publication, with the proper notice.

But, if the work was published between 1923 and December 31, 1963, when there used to be a (non-automatic) "renewal term," the copyright owner may not have renewed the work. If he or she did not renew, the original term of protection (28 years) would now be expired and these works will be in the public domain.

After 1978, the way we measure the term of protection changes. It is no longer related to a date of publication, but rather runs for 70 years from the date the author dies (called, "life of the author" plus 70 years). Further, publication is irrelevant. Works are protected whether they are published or not.

Finally, those works that were created before December 31, 1978, but never published, are now protected for the longer of life of the author plus 70 years or until December 31, 2002."

Since all of those photographs were published in 1912 (I scanned them myself out of a first edition), they clearly fall under the first category: works published before 1923, i.e. in the public domain. I of course agree they should be moved to commons at some point but I find that pretty time consuming personally so I haven't done it yet. (Commons hadn't launched when I created the page). --Fastfission 1 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

You're a saint for moving these to commons, thank you. Is there an easy way to do it, or is still all gruntwork? --Fastfission 4 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)

VFD wmc / GW

You're welcome to vote how you please on VFD, of course. I'm not trying to change your mind. You've voted on the mistaken assumption that it was autobiog, but so what. However I don't like your gratuitous insults to my user page - please stop that kind of thing.

Oh, and if you think that "patently obvious statemnt global environment change is supported by the scientific community" - thats great. I agree. But where are you in helping keep the skeptic nonsense of the global warming pages, then? If you look at the history of global warming and related pages you'll find that your assertion of the patently obvious is *not* acceepted by some vociferous wikipedians - and we could do with your help in keeping the pages sane. William M. Connolley 2005-07-01 10:22:40 (UTC).

Hi Dunc. On the question of notability, I just noticed these - Category:Gryffindors, Category:Ravenclaws, Category:Hufflepuffs and Category:Slytherins - and they are well populated...Tom Riddle has an article separate from Lord Voldemort. With standards that low we are probably all notable as Wikipedia contributors :) Guettarda 3 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Copyvio poem on Clifton College

Hello, how come this poem is a copyright violation? Talrias (t | e | c) 1 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

Brendan O'Shea tells me he isn't using a bot. I see no reason why you thought that. I do a lot of typo fixing myself and nobody accuses me of being a bot. I'm unblocking. Everyking 2 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

VP gallery example

Hi, I am very adamant about not changing other peoples edits, so I wanted to inform you that I made a slight change to your example, just to make the page easier to read. Gallery example on VP. I hope you don't mind, as I also left a note to rv if it was not liked. Thanks. <>Who ?¿? 4 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)

Clifton College Register

What's with the unhelpful redirects back to the school page? There is an article there and burying it under a redirect is not really helpful or appropriate. You can help by adding to the article if you want to do something useful! Please raise any points on the talk page before nuking the page - it keeps people happy! A curate's egg 4 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I really don't think it is up to you unilaterally decide that this article is not notable (I for instance disagree) - your killing the article with a redirect is in effect allowing you to make a fvd decision on your own. Ow! If you really don't like the article - and again I think it is harmless and does add interesting information in addition to the school page the submit if for vfd - and let the community decide. A curate's egg 4 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

Featured article

Are you a featured article? Your user page has a live link somewhere. Guettarda 5 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

It appears to be in the Template:EvolWikiProject. Guettarda 5 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Well spotted, it seems user:Raul654 was overenthusiasted about our project. Though I do keep meaning to nominate Hardy-Weinberg law for FAC, but it needs a decent de Finetti diagram in it first. Dunc|☺ 5 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

Nice. It looks like a good FAC contender. Guettarda 5 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

Carl Baugh article

Thanks for doing a wonderful job updating the Carl Baugh page. Since so much had been done on Hovind, I couldn't stand it that Baugh was left in the shadows. Great job, again!! Cheers, Daniel

My RFA: apparent misunderstanding

You wrote: created by User:Ed Poor in order to further their position (which I nevertheless agree wholehearted with) on global environment change. You don't seem to realise that Ed and I were on strongly opposing sides of the argument, not the same one. Given that, I'm curious, which side do you agree wholeheartedly with?). William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 20:32:22 (UTC).

re: Jew York Times

For the record, I just restored this article as a procedural matter. It has not yet been properly VfD'd. I tried to explain in more detail at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jew York Times. Rossami (talk) 7 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)

Plane crashes

Thanks for your answer at WP:RD about rich people killed in aviation accidents. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking July 8, 2005 20:52 (UTC)

verses

Hiya,

you recently declared that numerous articles about individual verses was reliousnutjobcraft at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to consider Uncle G's proposal and make a vote at the new VfD - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)

Ted Heath

It's not a matter of evaluation. There are two well-known figures; one (the bandleader) is known exclusively as "Ted Heath", the other (the politician) is known variously as "Ted Heath" (that's rather out-dated now, in fact; it was true in the sixties and seventies, but was beginning to change by the eighties) and "Sir Edward Heath". It thus makes sense to make "Ted Heath" a disambiguation page; even if (which I'm unsure about) more people know of the politician than the bandleader, that's balanced by the fact that many people think of the politician under a more formal name. my guess is that searches for "Ted heath" would at least as often be for the bandleader as for the politician. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:10, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, look at a Google search on "Ted Heath": [1]. Of the first ten hits, one is for the politician; of the second ten, again one is for the politician; of the third ten, two are for the politician (and one's for a chemist)... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:15, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD

Can you count the valid votes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gil_Student and take appropiate action, since you are an admin. It has been up for more than 5 days and is attracting too many unregistered voters. --Eliezer 12:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Thanks, I can go to sleep now. --Eliezer 14:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about your edit summary, "vote is roughly 8-2 discounting sockpuppets, more if you give extra weight to admins". I'm fine with filtering out sockpuppets (assuming you can reliably identify who they are), but why should an admin's vote get extra weight? Wikipedia:Administrators says, Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility. I don't see how that can be interpreted to give admins any extra weight in voting.

I also don't see how you came up with 8-2. I count 10 Delete (one of which you discounted), and 7 Keep (2 of which were unsigned, and one which you discounted). After eliminating the sockpuppets and unsigned, you're left with 9-4. Am I missing something?

Full disclosure: I voted to delete, and I'm not an admin.

RoySmith 16:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roysmith, He never gave extra weight to admins rather he just said that if he did it would be different However he didn't. BTW one of the sockpuppets that you elimanated User:Hullbr3ach may not be a sockpuppet because he had 16 edits before his vote dating back to March. --Eliezer 01:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments on Eliezer's talk page, it seems you may have understood the entire debate backwards. Gil Student is not a creationist, nor is the book that he published. Rather, Gil Student stood up publically for a book that had been excommunicated by Jewish creationists through the internet, and reissued it. The excommunication partially backfired because of the internet! This is the first time in modern history anyone has done something like that.

You deleted the article in the middle of an ongoing debate, minutes after two serious votes in favor had been cast. The two admins were not supporting deletion. I only noticed the Vfd today, and began to both improve the article - showing its relevance - as well as create a serious, factual discussion that didn't really exist before. Plus you certainly didn't look for the kind of "rough concensus" that an admin is meant try for.

It seems to me that some ardent sockpuppets gave the defense a bad name on this one, hurting their own cause. Apparently Student also has a fan club. But that shouldn't be ammunition in the pocket of someone who wants to censor information because of his own biases (Eliezer wants to eliminate Student's critical view of Chabad, as his biases edits today demonstrated several times). Dovi 18:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to get an explanation first.Dovi 18:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

There was no consensus for delete. Beurocracy aside, did you misunderstand the debate or not? Dovi 18:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Gil Student

I've opened up a VFU at [2] - please place your vote--Josiah 03:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

MOS

I disagree with that manual of style in cases where a 2 header follows a very short intro paragraph. It segments the page visually, and typically the second paragraph is simply an expansion of the intro. Sinreg -SV|t 21:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup on large group communication. EW

Crapsey "Introduction"

You added the CleanUpContext tag to my page on Adelaide Crapsey. However, "The introduction of this article does not provide enough context for readers unfamiliar with the subject" is meaningless. What "introduction"? What "context" This is a bio-bibliographical blurb on an American poet, not an in depth discussion of her work and life! Perhaps you'd like to suggest what sort of Introduction and Context you have in mind..... 21:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article E.S. Gosney, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I think most of the credit for that deserves to go to Fastfission. Dunc|☺ 12:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you really do not like me do you. However i do believe that you should vote for the deletion of stockport cricket club as it is very bad but also only my second ever wikipedia.

fr:Site Web chausette

Please use the sandbox or the "bac à sable" on fr.wikipedia instead of creating articles with non-sense content -- Dake 19:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]