User talk:Solipsist/archive10

Other pages: main - talk - images - contrib - notes

Talk archive: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15

---

RE: Fawn in Forest

Hi, you recently asked me for some details about the picture so you could write a better caption. The picture was taken at the forest surrounding Desert Lake in southeastern Ontario, Canada. I'm not really an expert on deer, but this was, in fact, the second time I had seen this deer, the previous time being when it was in the same area with its mother and sibling. I can't recall the mother's colouring from memory, but I do have a few pictures from that time that I could try to dig up, so you'd have a visual you could use to determine which exact species it is.

About the lighting in the original: Yeah, several people use the same camera that I do, so the lighting setting is often inappropriate for the situation due to absent-mindedness. I am getting better at remembering it though.

Anyway, I'll get those pictures for you as soon as I can, and if there's anything else you need, just let me know --Elfer 21:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I found the pictures with the mother in them on a different computer, but due to some network difficulties, I can't actually get them online for you to see yourself. However, all of the signs point to it being a Roe deer. Relatively small, reddish-brown coat with grey face, two spotted fawns, and no male accompanying the female. I can't tell from the pictures, but if I recall correctly, there was a white rump patch.

I'd say it's a safe bet that it's a Roe deer, but I'll leave the choice of whether or not to add that to the caption up to you. --Elfer 21:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the Day

Hi! from Adrian. Thanks for letting me know that my picture of the peacock (Image:Peacock.detail.arp.750pix.jpg) is coming up again as Pic of the Day next Monday. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 17:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

alexander

I think it's ok, check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_the_Great&diff=28317858&oldid=28073058

+MATIA ☎ 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it out eventually. It was a combination of minor problems. There was another anon user who slipped in and completed the revert whilst I was trying to do it. Then there's a minor feature problem (not really a bug) in the current MediaWiki, which returns a page suggesting that a revert has succeeded, but doesn't actually change the edit history if there is no difference between versions. Trouble is, it then looks like your revert doesn't get saved and I wasted half an hour repeatedly trying to make a revert that had already happened. -- Solipsist 18:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Remembrance Day

You recently removed a link from the Remembrance Day article

• Powerful piece by soldier who was at Dunkirk. Perhaps if you had bothered to read the piece in question (by an old soldier no less), you would have seen that it was powerfully relevant. Also, many readers did follow the link. Perhaps there are times when usual protocol can be relaxed, especially when the piece linked to is definitely to the point! -- User:Curiousexplorer 10:31, 15 November 2005

Hi Curious,

I can understand how this might be a sensitive topic for you, but please be aware that the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. As such external links in general are discouraged and should only be used to link to information directly about the topic concerned. In addition, editors are discouraged from linking to their own web sites - see Wikipedia:External links and related pages for more guidance.

Plenty of people try to add poetry links to various articles, yet about the only place they are truely relevant is on an article about the poet who wrote them. There are also a considerable number of high quality poems which are considered relevant to the topic of Remembrance Day, see for example this collection.

Nevertheless, which external links to include or leave out is not a decision that is purely down to me. Wikipedia is built on the basis of group consensus. If you can find several other editors who think that the link is a good idea, it might be possible to persuade people to include the link on that page. A good place to ask might be the talk page for Rememberance Day — although it might be an idea to wait a little while, there has recently started a complicated discussion about merging Rememberance Day with Armistice Day and a couple of other related articles that will probably consume the attention of most interested editors for a while. -- Solipsist 11:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Solipsist,

I take your point but still find it rather negative & petty. I can't imagine that there were many who read the Remembrance Day article & objected to such a link. Some may even have enjoyed reading the piece in question. No-one is forced to follow external links but some might welcome the option. When so much else in the Wikipedia needs editing, to remove a link which someone added in a constructive spirit hardly seems worth it. It's certainly discouraging to someone who only wished to contribute to this co-operative effort. Besides, there are other external links. The whole point of the WWW is to hyperlink!

Wikilove

Solipsist,
Thanks indeed for finding the problem with my user page. My borderline OCD streak meant that that one pixel consumed 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. Since I am fresh out of gold-pressed latinum, are there any mundane, difficult, or life-threatening wikijobs that I could undertake in order to demonstrate my gratitude?
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem Aaron — glad to help. I was going to say don't worry about demonstrating gratitude; being and Englishman, I am of course totaly uncomfortable with public displays of affection. However, having just spent half an hour removing a couple of dozen Wikipedia:spam links added by an editor over a period of time, you might like to try your hand at pruning some external links. Pick a popular article like Tropical cyclone and see how many external links are unnecessary or fall outside of Wikipedia guidelines. Be warned though, its not easy and few people will thank you for it. If you would like an easier task, just find an excellent illustration on an article you like and nominate it on WP:FPC. -- Solipsist 08:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism links

Hi sorry to edit this page...i didnt know where else to contact you... but i noticed your edited the buddhism section and since you nicely taken out my site why didnt you take out this site ReligiousTolerance.org Buddhism Page a non-biased description of Buddhism. its not very good is it...if you take off my link you should aleast keep to your standards and take off that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.129.69 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 22 November 2005.

Well done, you found the perfect place to contact me - and thanks for the note. You are quite right, I was probably being inconsistent. Don't worry though, its not a personal vendetta. I just remove links that are against Wikipedia's guidelines as and when I notice them. I was working through the list of links to keoshi.co.uk and didn't have time to check all the other external links on each page. In fact, if you check the edit history for buddhism, you will see that I noted there were probably many more spam links on that page, in the hope that someone else would work through the list and remove any others that shouldn't be there.

Many of the more popular articles are a magnet for external links. If you can see any links that you think should also go, please be bold and remove them too. (Also responded on user's talk page) -- Solipsist 18:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the note...i do understand where you are comming from and it wasnt my intention to spam wiki especially with the site keoshi.co.uk. the reasoning for my links is because the site is primaryly a buddhist website which is geared to help people be more happier. its a website to benefit other people. and most of the links that i have put up i did think carefully on its revelance to the article and which i thought would be useful. maybe you didnt think they where good articles or relavent... but being a buddhist myself i thought the articles were interest and useful.

What a cracking picture

Brookie here - just a note to say what a great picture of the conkers is todays POD - brilliant shot. Well done! :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 14:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad you like it. But then I'm guessing you really just like the conkers because they are 'round things' ;-) -- Solipsist 14:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy portal issue

Thank you for your feedback. I'm inclined to agree with you concerning the more specialized articles, while it may be advantageous to place the portal at the top on the most general of philosophy articles (like the major topic lists, the philosophy main article, the branches of philosophy, and a few others. I've noticed that Socrates' face clashes with the portraits on the biography articles, but I wasn't sure what to do about it. Thanks for the tip about placing it at the bottom. I'll start experimenting to implement a smaller portal box, and will pay more attention to the "detraction" issue, for more tasteful placement. Go for it! 09:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User warnings

Saw a message from you about how some of the templates might be a bit brusque. Thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Wikiproject_user_warnings. Wikibofh 21:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - look interesting. -- Solipsist 08:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Standstill

Hi, Solipsist. Discussion on this award at WP:BAP has been at a standstill for almost two months. Since you were previously involved in the decision-making, please consider reviving the discussion. If no attempts are made within a week, it will be archived. Thanks, Sango123 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:AnnanStaff2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thank you for nominating it. Raven4x4x 06:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

territorialism on cat flap

Hi. I am feeling very frustrated by the way I am reverted-on-sight at that page. If you're interested, please read my rant at the bottom of talk:Cat flap. Thanks. Doops | talk 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Edit wars are always damaging. Unfortunately, I suspect there is some deliberate trolling going on and User:Jooler and yourself may be falling victim to it. -- Solipsist 22:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think an RFC is probably warranted and while protections are damaging, I think having an uninvolved editor temporarily protect the article if they return is a good thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doops' rewrite looks fine to me. Should satisfy everyone. It would allow for redirects from the other names and it's now general enough to be relevant to other pets as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ron Mueck

Hi Solipsist
First of all I'd like to apologise for not responding to the messages you gave me on POTD's - but I have been pretty busy. I'm glad to say exams are over and at least for my Yr 11 exams (the only ones I have back) I did really well.
I'm glad you like the Pregnant Lady pic, it was pretty dark in there and I hate using the flash when a presenter (who in this case was really nice) is trying to talk to our group, so it was ISO 1600 and f/2.8. Anyway it turned out OK although it would have been pretty hard to get a bad pic :). Ron Mueck is incredible! --Fir0002 10:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Fir0002 FPC page

Hi Solipsist!
Hope you can cast your vote on this batch of photos! Thanks --Fir0002 10:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And again here if you don't mind! --Fir0002 06:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:PalaceOfWestminsterAtNight.jpg

Back in February I moved this image to Commons deleting the local en.wikipedia version. User:dbenbenn has tonight requested an earlier version of the image (prior to smoothed sky), do you have it? Thanks, Oldak Quill 00:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. The copy I have on my hard drive is also dated 7/11/2004 and looks like the final version. However, when it went through WP:FPC (also arond Nov04?), I think someone else tried smoothing the sky too, so they might still have an earlier copy (long shot). -- Solipsist 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I took a look back in the history and found the last version of WP:FPC to contain this image ([1]). I believe the person to which you refer is David Remahl (User:Chmod007), I have left a message on his talk page. --Oldak Quill 18:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Canberra Photos

Hi Solipsist, I would very much appreciate your input in the following argument. It seems my contributions to Canberra articles are not wanted. It was risky to take my camera on our school excursion to Canberra, but I did for the sake of the photos I could upload to Wiki. Needless to say, I'm deeply distressed over the reaction that has taken place. Especially since this is my return to wiki after a 4 week break. In particular, I would like to ask if the removal of all my photos off the Lake Burley Griffin article was a step forward in the usefullness of the page.
I know, what you are thinking, but I sincerly do not want this to turn into another cat photo argument, but this time I fail to see much justification. As soon as I found out from some outside people that what they are doing at the WikiProject Canberra is reflective of the community consensus, I will withdraw. Please either voice your opinion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra or write back to me. Thanks as always for your valued opinion. --Fir0002 08:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Bottlenose Dolphin capitalization

You previously participated in a discussion on using upper versus lower case for the Bottlenose Dolphin article. This is a courtesy message for those who participated in that discussion to let them know that I have proposed a move; if you would like to share your opinion, please see Talk:Bottlenose Dolphin#Requested move. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Redefining SPAM

I think that Wikipedia people should rethink their definition of SPAM. In fact, the license that allows just anyone to use the articles on other websites clutters up the search engines. You see this when you type a term into a search engine and the results come up with multiple websites all of which have borrowed their information directly from Wikipedia. This crowds out other legitimate information sources, which are pushed way down the priority list. In effect, Wikipedia is SPAMing the search engines.

I know you all think that free access to your quality information is good, and yes, Wikipedia generally has well-written articles on a large variety of topics. But when other voices are crowded out, is this not a form of censorship?

Cordially,

W. J. Rayment

I know what you mean. Even worse are the price comparison sites which crowd out many search engine results. Unfortunately we have no control over the search engines. However, one trick that works on many, is to include '-Wikipedia' in your search string. This should exclude pages that include the word Wikipedia (eg. Google on Quantum Mechanics) and cut down on the number of false positives, at least on clone sites that have correctly cited Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are formed by collective concensus, so to get the guidelines on spam and external links changed you would need to put forward a persuasive argument for a better approach. The best place to start a discussion would probably be Wikipedia talk:External links or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- Solipsist 09:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Felix Creation Dispute

Hey, I'm having a bit of trouble with the current version of the "Creation" section on the Felix the Cat page. It seems fine to me, but the user Grant65 continues to reverse my edits and accuse me of "Sullivan bashing". I was wondering if you could help. - Pietro 15:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Signature dish

Hello, good work on Signature dish, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Signature dish? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 23:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have none. It was written as a corollary to Tarte Tatin and is based on absorbed learning and common knowledge. References are clearly possible, but you would have to expand the article to include them. User:Mothperson is well versed in this area, so he might be able to help. -- Solipsist 23:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Help

Hey, I'm really having trouble with the user Vitaphone/24.6.35.54. He keeps reversing my edits and adding huge images of cartoon posters without giving copyright information. Please help. - Pietro 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Sorry - I was in a bad mood, and the author was being incredibly ignorant. I still don't know who the author was though, so I'm not sure if it could be classed as a personal attack :P. 148.177.129.212 15:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Style

Hi Solipsist!
Heh! Isn't that interesting? I guess that will ensure me a place in photographic history ;-)! But seriously that's pretty cool that I have my own style which is recognizable to the outsider! Thanks for telling me. --Fir0002 04:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Salmon - Removed external links

Hello, you removed links to the salmonpage.com from the Salmon wikipedia entry. This site does not fall under the spam definitions. It would be better classified as a web directory. It's the extension of a project my 5th grade class started in 1995 with the goal to help people find information on salmon on the web. I wanted to talk with you before simply relisting the site. Perhaps there was some other reason it was removed? The other link you removed was to Lynn Salmon's collection of salmon recipe links. That site was one of the very first salmon sites on the Internet. It too would be classified as a web directory.

Both of these sites serve useful purposes and provide valuable information. I think they should be included in the external links section. I manage the Salmon Page but it is not a private site. Various government agencies and individuals interested in salmon restoration issues have contributed content over the years. All of the original content like the salmon art is published under a Creative Commons License.

So what's the protocol when people disagree over the appropriateness of external links?

BTW, I noticed your interest in digital photography. I teach digital photography now that I don't teach 5th grade salmon classes. You might be interested in the lessons we have online at OregonPhotoBlog.org.

Best regards, Paul ( User:24.21.86.3 05:46, 14 December 2005 )

Hi Paul,

As you may have noticed, from time to time I will clean out the External Links sections on many articles. Although many of the worst spam links involve blatant advertising, other sites such as blogs and link farms can also be considered spam. In a more general sense linking to a site in order to promote that site is spam linking. If you check Wikipedia:External links you will see that editors are also advised to avoid linking to one of their own web sites. Again, in general, if a web site is significant enough to be included on a particular topic another editor will add it. As a rule, we would much rather all information was included inside Wikipedia and there should only be a couple of External Links on a page where they are unavoidable.

That said, the general protocol when people disagree over an external link (or pretty much anything else) is to discuss it on the appropriate talk page. You've made a good start by asking here, but your best bet would be to ask other editors on Talk:Salmon whether they think the link should be included. -- Solipsist 09:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Stock Footage

Good Morning, I am curious about why you have removed the Rocketclips link on the Stock Footage page. The sites listed are commercial web sites as is Rocketclips. The world of stock footage is changing to include Royalty-Free lifestyle footage not just "news" or "historic" footage. Warm Regards, Mark Adams

You are quite right. I missed GlobalFoots site which is also obvious spam and raised the question of removing the others on Talk:Stock footage. -- Solipsist 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Stock Footage Links

I certainly hope the criteria for what is a valuable link is not dependent on who added the site but rather, does the site illuminate the subject. Stock Footage is a commercial venture almost by definition and sites that would bring greater understanding of the subject would almost necessarily be commercial. As a shooter of stock imagery for 22 years and specifically Stock Footage for the past 6 years, I feel a visit to Rocketclips is worth a thousand words. The idea that it might also be worth a thousand dollars should not detract from it's value as a vehicle for illuminating the subject of Stock Footage. Warm Regards, Mark Adams, Rocketclips

In general we don't want any external links, we would rather have the information inside Wikipedia. On top of that Wikipedia strongly discourages commercial links or links intended to promote a particular site - that is Wikipedia:spam. The criteria on who added the link is part of the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links, where you are strongly discouraged from adding links to a site in which you are involved. If your website is truely significant, someone else will add it. That looks to be the case when User:Mb1000 added the original group of external links last March. They may still be regarded as spam links due to their commercial nature, but they don't look like self promotion. -- Solipsist 21:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

Solipsist, thanks for taking some inappropriate words out of the censorship article and restoring to the version I had most recently worked on. I don't know if you can help, but an admin claims that because I registered a new user name after having forgotten a previous name's password, I am an imposter and a spoof. The admin made no effort to inquire on either of the name's user pages why I might have registered a new name.

While I willingly contributed content, I have little time to contribute to resolving a witch hunt by trying to identify some current center of power in Wikipedia and attempting to vindicate what User:Curp alleges is inappropriate activity on my part. I may or may not contribute to the good of the cause by calling to your attention this matter, but since you seemed to be the last person to recognize the credibility of my edits, perhaps you will also know a way to assist in preserving the integrity of my registered editorial name. Riebold 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My edits were simply a reversion of straight forward vandalism on Censorship and should not be taken as an endorsement of the preceeding edits by RyboId. I would agree with User:Curps, in that it looks likely that there is some bad faith editing related to these accounts. I would suggest returning to your original account and use the 'email new password' button, assuming that you registed an email address when you first signed up for the account. --

Prokudin-Gorskii

Talking of alternative sources, you may want to check this website. --Ghirlandajo 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Crimbo!

Have a Proper and Merry Crimbo. File:Pressie.gif, in fact here is a pressie from the Doctor to you. Ho. Ho. Ho! File:Unclecrimbo.gif Dr. McCrimbo 22:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanx from El Piolo

>> (You wrote) Just to let you know that your photo Image:Catedral de Segovia.jpg is due up for Pic of the Day on the 3rd December. As this will be a weekend, it should also appear on the Main Page. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 3, 2005. -- Solipsist 20:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanx a lot for letting me know, Solipsist :). Unfortunately I have just read your message now because I haven't been around often lately. Too late! :( ... :). Actually, I recently discovered that the pic had been nominated long ago as a feature picture and I uploaded a slightly higher version of it exactly one year after I uploaded the previous version (an unintentional coincidence). It was a great surprise, I think I got more excited myself than my bruv (the author). Thanx for your time! ¡My best wishes for this coming year!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And Merry Piolus... and happy Crimbol, too (whatever it is! XD )-Piolinfax 14:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Protecting voting Templates

Hi Solipsist!
Can you please protect these pages for me? User:Fir0002/Support, User:Fir0002/Oppose, User:Fir0002/Neutral. These are my voting templates, and someone brought up the fact on the talk of FPC that it would be easy to vandalize thises and substitute a rude picture for the icons.
And on a completely unrelated note, do you think there's any chance that the prizes of 2005 Wikimania will be given out?!
--Fir0002 04:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Fir, I haven't got much time at the moment, but I will check them at the weekend. There are some issues with permanently many types of pages, and I am not sure where user sub-pages fall in that spectrum.

Also I'm afraid I know no more than you about the Wikimania prizes. I rather suspect it is one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, but actually has fallen on fallow ground. -- Solipsist 18:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK on the 1st

Hi I didn't need to take you up on your POTD offer on the 26th, but I would like it if you could arrange a POTD for the 1st in place of DYK. Let me know if this is possible. Thanks.--nixie 10:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

TheodoreGray.com

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. Femto 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you help

Thanks heaps for your advice on the Drug Chart FPC. I was leaning towards that course of action, but you really helped put my mind at ease that this is the right thing to do. Thanks again. Raven4x4x 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Day

[[:Image:Meissner effect.jpg|thumb|100px|right|POTD]] "Hi Deglr,

Just to let you know that the photo you uploade, Image:Meissner effect.jpg, is due to make an appearance as Pic of the Day on the 15th January. As this will be a weekend it should also appear on the MainPage. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 15, 2006. Also, the image description page was missing a source link. I found a plausible source, by searching on the caption, but did I get it right? -- Solipsist 09:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)"

• Yep you got it! :) I improved the caption.--Deglr6328 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh oops, I guess I was too slow, its already been protected! If you would like to change the caption the revision should go thusly:

{{FeaturedPicture}} [[Meissner effect]] using a [[high-temperature superconductor]] and powerful [[Rare-earth magnet]]. Original caption: "In the late 1980s, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory researchers conducted research into superconductors. The ceramic superconductors are made from a material that has only very low alternating-current resistance and thus dissipates less power. Magnetic forces between the magnet and ceramic superconductor provide a magnetic cushion that keeps the magnet suspended above the superconductor. [[Liquid nitrogen]] cools the superconductor to about 77 Kelvin, producing the magnetic cushion." (incorrect temperature given in original caption, corrected to boiling point of nitrogen, 77K) Image is from the Pacific northwest national lab. Taken in March 1987. {{PD-USGov}} [[vi:Image:Meissner effect.jpg]] Source: http://picturethis.pnl.gov/picturet.nsf/All/44CT2Y?opendocument {{mprotected}}

Turf maze stories

Sorry I saved this as a blank! I was momentarily distracted, and then couldn't get back to it for a while.

Thanks for your kind words about Turf maze. I do vaguely remember hearing the courting story about Saffron Walden before, and it's interesting in that something similar seems to have happened in Scandinavia where similar labyrinths are called "Jungfrudans" ie Maiden's dance: there's a Finnish website with a curious little drawing of a stick figure girl at the centre of one [2] (you need to scroll down a long way to find it). Some British turf mazes were called Maiden Bowers. There's a nice copy of the earliest drawing of Saffron Walden maze at [3] SiGarb 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

uwe

thanks --Admrboltz (T | C) 23:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Just to let you know I've nominated Image:British Museum Great Court roof.jpg for featured pictures. BTW I'm in Cambridge too, we should have a mini meetup sometime, I'm sure there's a few other Wikipedians here. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 14:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination Wub, although its not as impressive as some of User:Dilif's interiors. I guess I need to get around to updating my galleries.

From time to time, I've also thought of organising a WikiMeet in Cambidge. As you say there are quite a few editors who live round here. On the last WikiMeet I went to in London I think there were four of us who had travelled down from Cambridge, and I know of a few more who I haven't met. If we pick a weekend, its quite possible that some others might fancy the day out from London or even travel from further a field. I should just go ahead and announce it and see who turns up. There was an inadequately announced meet in London last weekend (it may not have happened) and one coming up in Birmingham next weekend, so shooting for the 11 February or maybe the weekend after would seem about right. -- Solipsist 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the main reason I was thinking about it was annoyance that I'm probably not going to get to Birmingham. Well I just did a bit of digging and was surprised at who lives round here that I hadn't noticed. Around 11 Feb sounds good to me, but we'll see what happens. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

re: picture of the day

Thanks for the heads-up - you caught me just before I started my wikivacation. I tweaked the wording a bit. Have a good one! ericg ✈ 15:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jan 23 2005 Picture of the Day

You reverted my change on the image link for this picture. I saw that it was on commons, but neither that version nor the one here display anything when I view or link to them... which is why I changed it to the version that actually shows a picture. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's odd. Both versions show up fine for me. It may be an image cache problem; you could try purging the cache with this link and see whether it helps. -- Solipsist 11:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Very strange. I tried loading the page in Internet Explorer and I can see the image, but not when I use Firefox... even after purging the cache. Well, so long as most people will see it at Portal:Featured content that should be fine and I'll just try to figure out why Firefox has problems with it. Thanks. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm using Firefox 1.06 and see it OK. I'd be surprised if there were anything particularly special about this jpeg, so it could turn out to be something else. -- Solipsist 11:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I figured it out. It was the 'adblock' extension. The image is displayed as screen element 'http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Natto_mixed.jpg'... adblock was detecting the '/ad/' and suppressing the image because that's a common advertisement identifier. D'oh! First time I've run across that problem. Sorry for the confusion. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy Dispute

Hello, I am contacting you because I saw that you were involved with a previous DreamGuy RfC, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2.

His personal attacks and general uncivility have been increasing in frequency again. I tried to follow dispute resolution procedures and work it out with him on his talk page, but he just deletes the comments that I make, and accuses me of harassment. He is also deleting related comments by other users on the issue[4], as well as history that he has been blocked for a revert war[5], etc. etc. After multiple attempts of communication, I was advised to file an RfC on him, but upon doing research, I see that there were already two others, and that he has already been cautioned about uncivil behavior.

I am asking your advice on how to proceed at this point. Should I open a third RfC? Or try to re-open an earlier one? Or should this be escalated to a higher stage since RfCs have been tried in the past, without effect?

Thank you for your counsel,

Elonka 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elonka,

In fact I noticed yesterday that you were in dispute with DreamGuy. I didn't look very far into the history, but from what I could see you have been acting correctly and have more than satisfied the requirements for attempting dispute resolution.

For a bit of background, my general impression of User:DreamGuy is that he is an excellent editor who can be more than a little grumpy at times. In the past I have supported him in a dispute and at other times I've criticised him for being unnecessarily hostile over a storm in a tea cup.

Although there have been two previous RFCs on DreamGuy, and even an RfAR, to some extent they have all been brought in bad faith, with the parties opening the RFC having behaved pretty badly in an attempt to provoke DreamGuy. I got involved in the 2nd RFC largely in an attempt to clear the air between DreamGuy and his tormentors. The result was partially successful, in that it brought out some surprising evidence, and although some of the editors involved reformed their ways, User:Gabrielsimon(/Gavin the Chosen/Gimmiet) went a bit crazy creating mulitple disruptive sockpuppet accounts and quickly arrived at an RfAR of his own, which got him banned for a little while.

To cut a long story short, you can disregard the previous RFCs against DreamGuy, except to say that they show he has had a pretty rough ride in the past. That said, dialogue is an important part of dispute resolution, and in this current dispute DreamGuy does seem to have failed to engage in dialogue. This could be seen as a breach of Wikiquette. Also, if I checked DreamGuy's edit history, I wouldn't be too surprised to find that he had a similar pattern of behaviour with some other editors (although some might be justified response to harassment). Overall, its not really acceptable to rub people up the wrong way like this, so a sensible next step could well be to open a new RFC on DreamGuy. If you haven't been involved in an RFC before, it is a good idea to find yourself an advocate who is familiar with the process. One option is to ask at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, but a better bet is to ask an experienced editor who you already know — its important to marshal the supporting evidence carefully and aim to present a clear and fair case.

However, from what I could see, your current dispute started with difference of opinion over a page deletion on a subject in which neither of you were particularly invested. You might want to step back and let dust settle for a day or two, to see whether you still feel like proceeding with an RFC. If you like, I could try having a word with DreamGuy in the meantime. -- Solipsist 15:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reviewing the situation. I've posted a history of the discussion here User talk:Petros471/Mediation between DreamGuy and Elonka, including documentation of DreamGuy's personal attacks, and my attempts to make good faith efforts to resolve things with DreamGuy. In the meantime, I see that DreamGuy has posted an accusation of harassment against me at the User_talk:Android79#Someone_harassing_me_and_another_person_pretending_to_be_a_mediator_or_something. Admin User:Bishonen has also gotten involved, as can be seen at DreamGuy's talk page. My guess is that DreamGuy knows more admins than I do, so anything that you can do to help would be greatly appreciated. :) Also, just for the record, my dispute with DreamGuy is not about the Aladin page, though it did seem to start there. My dispute is specifically related to his personal attacks and uncivil behavior. If he apologizes for the personal attacks he made against me, in the locations where he made them (or deletes the attacks), I will be satisfied. Elonka 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Very nice post. Very diplomatic.  :) May I also ask you to post a link to the dispute discussion on his page? I would add it myself (it seems the polite thing to do, to inform him of its location), but I don't want to risk being accused of further harassment. The page is at: User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute. Also, I would appreciate your opinion on its format. I've seen rumblings from other admins that it's a "dirt-gathering" page, and I want to ensure that it remains as civil as is possible under the circumstances. Thank you. Elonka 17:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't previously noticed that there were a number of sockpuppet accounts involved in the Aladin (magician) page and its various AfDs - that tends to confuse the situation and DreamGuy has had a lot of harassment from sockpuppets in the past. Whilst I appreciate that the crux of your dispute is in relation to DreamGuy's responses to you, rather than the actual AfD, it seems likely that the wider picture has coloured DreamGuy's reaction towards you. I'm not sure that the link to your subpage would help at the moment, but I will bare it in mind. Hopefully it will be possible sort things out amicably. -- Solipsist 17:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My reason for asking is that in other RfCs that I've been reviewing, there seem to be concerns from some people that starting an RfC on someone without telling them that there's an RfC on them, is in bad faith. Then again, I think it's probably reasonable to assume that he knows about the page from other sources at this point, so you're probably right, it wouldn't help the situation. Thank you again for your assistance, Elonka 17:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that applies when an actual RfC page is started on an individual. It is then necessary to inform the individual that you have started the RfC and point them to the RfC's subpage. You also have to get support for the RfC from two(?) other certifying editors with 2 days. The due process is thought necessary to avoid too many frivolous RfCs. AFIK gathering infomation and diffs on a subpage in preparation for an RfC is OK, although maintaining such a page long term is sometimes deprecated as 'dirt gathering' or mintaining a 'hate page'. It is exactly because of these sort of details that it can be useful to have the help of an advocate who knows the ropes, and help avoid falling foul of a technicality.

However, I wouldn't rush towards an RfC. If you review some other previous RfCs you can see that you typically need to establish a pattern of disruptive behaviour, with diffs from other similar disputes, for an RfC to gather momentum. Even then they really need to move on to an RfAR (usually using much the same evidence) before any sanctions can be applied. -- Solipsist 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anglia Ruskin University photo?

If you get a chance, could you snap a digi photo of Anglia Ruskin? I know the campus isn't much to look at, but maybe a photo of the sign out front or from inside the courtyard area would be helpful to the article. Cheers. Youngamerican 17:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Actually there new main entrance isn't too bad to look at, although the street is quite crowded so it might not be easy to get a good angle on it. -- Solipsist 18:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

that's good to hear. I was there for a semester as a study abroad student in 2000, and it looked like crap. Before I left for Cambridge, I wondered why there were no photos of APU on the website. I quickly found out upon arrival. Youngamerican 21:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mission accomplished. -- Solipsist 13:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are awesome

I am writing to remind you that you are awesome and cool. Thank you, and keep up the good work. Lotusduck 15:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

British Museum Great Court

Your picture Image:British Museum Great Court roof.jpg has just become a Featured Picture!. Congratulations, and thankyou for taking it. Raven4x4x 08:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Page moves

Hi Solipsist, thank you for info about move process (I don't know to using cut-n-paste, the contribution history would not be preserved).

However, I am not going against consensus in moving plant articles to their scientific name, since genus is a taxonomic category, not must be like species with a common name widely in use. Even because there are several common names in several languages (there is no consensus). Berton 18:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

the future :-)

Hi Solipsist!
It's still in early developement as you can see, but I got sick of waiting for the flash integration in wiki to get finisihed (I had originally planned to do something fancy in flash). Anyway what do you think of the general design? Only problem is that it doesn't look that good in IE (but who would use that!) --Fir0002 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do you think FPC would be an appropriate place to put movie files such as this one? And do you think that movie is of good enough quality? --Fir0002 06:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the ogg for winamp would be for the sound file. Movies are uploaded in ogg Theora. Download real player here and the correct codec here and it should play fine. Thanks for your input! --Fir0002 09:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Standardization of Featured content interface

(Cross posted to User talk:Solipsist, User talk:Jguk, and User talk:Cyberjunkie)

Hi Solipsist, Jguk, and Cyberjunkie. You are the go-to guys for the featured pictures, lists, and portals, respectively, so I'm crossposting this to each of your talk pages. I recently finished revamping the interface for the featured articles - see wikipedia:featured articles. All featured article-related pages now have a standard interface pane at the top-right (and most have the left pane as well), linking to all the other featured content, and all the relavant related pages directly underneath. Up until now, the featured content has (1) not been well integrated, and (2) has had a very balkanized interface. This changes that. So, starting very soon, I want to start converting all the other featured content pages to use this interface as well. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Standardization_of_Featured_content_interface Raul654 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Difference engine

Image:BabbageDifferenceEngine.jpg is awesome, so thanks for providing it! Melchoir 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cat flap vs. pet flap

Any pet can use a it, so it doesn't belong at cat flap. Please don't be stupid and move it to cat flap when any pet can use the door. Robin Williams 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Randoll Coate

Nice one, Solipsist! I hadn't spotted the Randoll Coate obits before you pointed them out. Many thanks. As you'll notice, I've done a bit of proofreading!

I also did a bit of extra reading/searching around the subject and I suspect that "The Imprint of Man" and "Imprint" are the same maze: both are footprints, both in Gloucestershire. A picture captioned "Imprint" in The Art of the Maze shows the bridge to the artificial island, and repeats the story of the design becoming too big for the field. It's clearly a left foot. In Magical Paths the same photo is shown (upside down) and it's called "The Imprint of Man"; it says it symbolises the unnamed owner's wish to leave an imprint on the earth and step into the unknown, and also contains 132 symbols in all, including numerals, signs of the zodiac and animals. The Art of the Maze goes into more detail, saying the local wild animals and a Noah's Ark were included "for the owner's children".

Fran Severn's Mazes by Minotaur article [6] says:

More personal is the garden maze at the home of Alan Scott in the Coltswold (sic) Hills. "Scott said he wanted to leave his mark on the land," says Randoll Coate. "We took him literally, so the maze is in the shape of a giant foot. Actually, it's a composite. We traced the left foot of each member of the family and merged them."

"Imprint," as the maze is called, was planned for the Scott children and so is filled with the shapes of birds, rabbits, frogs, foxes, snakes, and other creatures hidden in the layout of the hedges. For balance, Minotaur added symbols of man, including the alphabet, the elements, the planets, and the signs of the zodiac.

It looks suspiciously like one and the same to me. I suspect Alan Scott commissioned it, and Chubb and Durie bought the house later. Their garden certainly had just such a maze: see Chubb's 2001 obituary [7] where it says:

He was also involved in local environmental issues. His garden, which included a pond, a stream, a waterfall and a half-acre maze of hedges shaped like a foot, was included in the National Garden Society's list of distinguished gardens (sic).

(There ain't no such thing, so far as I know: they may mean it was once open for The National Gardens Scheme). The obit also says:

He is survived by his wife of 10 years, Sarianne Durie, and a step daughter, Aletta van Barthold, age 20.

(ie no Chubb children at the time the maze was made - unless they died in the interim!)

On that basis I think we should probably remove both sets of owners' names (especially as the maze doesn't seem to be open to the public), at least until the confusion is resolved? What do you reckon? SiGarb | Talk 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just put a (slightly-edited) version of the above onto Talk:Randoll Coate so future editors don't have to track down our reasoning in your talk archives. Yes, I think you are right in assuming Borghese Gardens = gardens of the Villa Borghese. I also tried to hunt down some more info about that one, but it's amazing how many Google hits you get which link "Villa Borghese" with "the maze of little streets" or "a labyrinth of surrounding streets", or clichés to that effect... SiGarb | Talk 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Tracey Emin

• I have removed the copyvio notice from the Tracey Emin article. Thank you for your detective work in sorting this out. Capitalistroadster 23:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)