User talk:Mceder/Archive1

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 21:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sturgis Motorcycle Rally

Do you have reference sources for this? I'm not doubting any of it, I just want to find some primary material so I can verify the facts and wikify the article a bit. WP:CITE for encyclopedic reliability for future readers. Thanks! Barno 03:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was there for a day in 1993, passing through enroute to an end-of-summer job in Yellowstone N.P. The event had interesting motorcycles and interesting people. Barno 03:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rune stone fv1975 107

I was just wondering where you got your information from on this article, as Uppsalas universitets rune database claims that the code in question for your rune stone is "Fv1976 107." If the database is in error, I would very much like to inform them of that. --Adamrush 10:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work

Dear Mceder, I would just like to thank you for your work on runestones. I hope to see more articles from you in the future.--Wiglaf 11:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the encouragement! Added a few more. Eventually they will all be here... --Mceder 05:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Östergötland Rune Inscription X stubs

Hey, it's great that you're adding all this information, but for those inscription articles that consist only of an infobox, wouldn't it be better to consolidate them into an umbrella article? Melchoir 05:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and same comment for Uppland and Medelpad. Melchoir 05:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re User talk:Melchoir: Oh boy, another thousand entries? It just seems to me that an article per inscription is inefficient. Unfortunately, I don't have any constructive advice; I guess organization isn't my strong side either. Maybe you should ask some Wikipedians with more experience than myself!

On a related note, what's your source? Melchoir 05:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is personal - i.e many photos I have taken of these stones, the info-sign next to the stones etc. The majority however is from the Join Nordic Rune database project, aka Rundata --Mceder 14:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should not be 956 articles on Uppland Rune Inscriptions. Maybe you could just make one big article about them all? I don't think that they alone are worth that much attention. You would save a lot of work for yourself ;) Renata3 06:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've had an idea. Perhaps the inscriptions and their translations should go on Wikisource, and here on Wikipedia you could write an overview article for each region, with images and whatnot. Warning: I know very little about Wikisource, so this suggestion may be bunk. Melchoir 06:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikisource is a very good idea. What would be better: a single article describing the history and comparing all rune stones in a region (an overview). And then there could be a list of say rune 1 - rune 50 and rune 51 - rune 100 and so on where you could talk about individual runes, their unique features, give translations of inscription. It would accomplish several things: (1) readers could easily compare the runes, they would not have to go through 100's of articles; (2) if left to be independent articles, most of them are destined to be stubs with just a couple of sentences and a template; (3) rune pages would not be flooded by 100's of stuby articles; (4) I believe it would be less work for everybody. One more note: if there is some very special and famous rune it might deserve its own article. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help. I'll be glad to assist you.. Renata3 14:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions guys. I guess I am getting a bit gun shy about adding anymore right now. I started this as an effort to translate pages off the Swedish Wikipedia, for example: [[1]]. I guess I assume that if it was worthy of the Swedish Wikipedia then it would be okay to translate over into the English one, but perhaps my assumption is incorrect and that each countries Wikipedia content is objective/selective ONLY for that country? My intention was to complete the entire rune stone set for Sweden, with pictures eventually, on the English Wikipedia and then tackle the Swedish one. Even though Swedish is my native language, English comes more natural for me. I will hold off until I can get a good answer to these questions, perhaps being bold sometimes is not the answer :) --Mceder 14:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh, no no no. I am so terribly sorry if I have discouraged you. No, your contributions are perfectly fine and higly welcome! I just wanted to point out that there might be a better way to organize this information (I have never said that this info is not worthy to be on WP; I just said it could be organized in a better way). Because as far as I understand you plan to add 100's of new articles. All I said is just a suggestion. It's totally up to you to decide if you want to follow it or not. Please do not get discouraged.... We need you and your expertize! Renata3 03:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Just keep them coming, we can still figure out how to present them best later. I do think it would maybe be better to make each inscription a section in a larger article, but that's technicalities. The most important thing is that we even have the information. dab (ᛏ) 09:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HDI discussion concluded and next steps ... pitch in!

Hello! Thanks for your recent input. After your hangover (and I sometimes feel like I'm in a perptual one!), this may be of interest: the discussion to determine the appearance of the HDI in the country/infobox template has been concluded, with an outline for moving forward. Please consider entering some metadata; we will more quickly realise the fruits of our labour if more users do so. In any event, thanks again for your participation! E Pluribus Anthony 06:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4chan user?

Are you a 4chan user? -User:daisy-berkowitz

If I am, I am unaware of it! What is a 4chan user? Mceder 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - User:daisy-berkowitz

Ah. No I am not. Mceder 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rune deletions

I feel a bit guilty about this; I didn't want to suggest you should delete all of it, and I was quite fond of the list articles. At least the list of inscriptions with the original texts and locations should be preserved, maybe just remove the copied translations? Or write Rundata first asking if they are willing to license the transliations under GFDL? regards, dab (ᛏ) 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Mceder -- I most definitely think that lists of runic inscriptions and associated maps will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. I wouldn't worry about copying straightforward translations too much either. A translation like "This is the stone of X, Y carved the runes" is certainly not copyrighteable. Since there are about 6,000 inscriptions, this is a huge project. I would already be glad for a comprehensive list of Elder Futhark inscriptions (some 350), and one of Ogham inscriptions (also some 350). best regards, dab (ᛏ) 22:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harley-Davison risks

Thanks for your message. I responded to your message at Harley-Davidson. If you cannot provide good wiki-based reasons for deleting my work, please restore my work. David F. Traver 14:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runestone database

I think you are right; such indices are probably not copyrightable. The English translations might be, as far as they go beyond simple "X raised the stone for Y". In any case, I would welcome the addition of the Rundata index. See also Ogham inscriptions, where I began compiling a list, essentially copying material from ucl.ac.uk; if it is fair to copy the information manually, I don't see why it should be illegal to generate it automatically, if the outcome is exactly the same anyway :) regards, dab (ᛏ) 11:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

No. I got that information off a government website. Infoplease must of too. My sources are [3] for James McCleary, [4] for Frank Eddy, and for Godfrey G. Goodwin: [5]. Thanks for checking, but I think I'm okay. -- R helmerichs 09:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]