User talk:Ora

Hi folks

Feel free to leave me a message... ora 13:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi ora,

why did u remove this from the unitary urbanism page?

"(…) I would prefer to define unitary urbanism as a very complex, very changeable, constant activity, a deliberate intervention in the praxis of everyday life and in the daily environment; an intervention aimed at bringing our lives into lasting harmony with our real needs and with the new possibilities that will arise and that will in turn transform these needs." +++ (extract from Unitary Urbanism, manuscript of a lecture held by Constant at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, 1960) +++

Hi there, It was out of context in the article, and as i understand it, such quotes from copyright works are not allowed. If you feel this is important information, i would integrate it into the article, in a form like " <the author of the work you cite> defines unitary urbanism as...", then rephrase the ideas in your own words in a way that fits with the style of Wikipedia. For instance, when making an edit you see the statement: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. By editing here, you agree to licence your contributions under the GFDL."

I was also somewhat uncertain as to whether you were making edits in good faith given your changes to the CERN and ENQUIRE articles (i assure you quantum time bombs played no part in either). ora 18:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanx ora, apologies for my slapdash style - i will try and develop the unitary urbanism page as you have suggested - it is more in line with what is required, ie showing the development of the praxis through different people involved. as for the quantum time bomb, are u aware of Qinetiq's installation at Stonehenge?

No problem, glad that you see my point, I had some of my early edits reverted as well for bad style and unconfirmed information myself. Also, in general i think people are more trusting of people who sign up for a username, rather than just being anonymous. Then you can also sign your posts on places like this talk page with four of this symbol ~ in a row.

On the Qinetiq issue, i see they are involved in the archaeological explanation of the site, and from your edit i assume you believe they are using the road extension to build some sort of installation. I have to admit i am dubious, but would be very interested if you had any good sources to confirm your belief. Wikipedia also requires edits are based on verifiable sources, so having such things would make it easier for you to write about it here. ora 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ora, Plugging a company or an organization, for advancing their particular bank account or cause, has always been considered a spam on the internet (at least as far as I can remember -- the 70s.) So let's take a look at how inappropriate the plugging of SETI@home is, shall we? 1. You are using that name many times in a single paragraph -- clearly publicity. 2. You are using that name as IF they invented grid computing -- A. they didn't even invent the cute idea of using a screensaver on a client (in the early 90s there were companies using "push" technology between desktop client's screensavers and the server back at home), afterwhich the data gets sent to the server (client/server architecture) and B. they certainly did not create the world of "grid computing." In fact grid computing is more related to the crossbar bus (hardware/software) concept than any client/server capability that your favorite project uses. 3. There are many variation of grid computing architectures -- by plugging one organization you will have to allow other companies and organization into the publicity picture whether you like it or not. 4. You are fighting too hard to keep those paragraphs rather than modifying them appropriately -- smacks of publicity for a company or an organization (spam.) --IlonDalon 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabo

Thanks Ora, the article was a real mess before. After doing sources and some external links I think I am done. I am also trying to work up the other contructivist artist pages and Victor Pasmore so let me know if you have any ideas. Piersmasterson 09:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grid computing

Hi Andrew, nice to see others participating in the Grid Computing revision, doing it on my own would have somehow been against the Wikipedia ethos. Nice lead suggestion, though I would say it follows the bias (which i share) toward multi organisation Grids over intragrids or enterprise Grids. That said I hadn't actually started putting in new text yet so I am hardly complaining :). I look forward to collaborating on this, I should have a fair bit of time the next 4 days so will take a stab at some of the other sections. Cheers! ora 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the message. I'm not sure that concentrating on multi organisational grids is a bad thing as there is a huge literature that says, approximatly, "for a grid to be a grid it has to be cross the boundaries of organisations". However, I will try to put an additional bit in there about intragrids and enterprise grids and will alude to a more detailed discussion in the first section. (We are going to have cover these in the next section.) Andreww 08:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Enabling Grids for E-sciencE

The article Enabling Grids for E-sciencE has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]