User talk:Gavia immer: Difference between revisions

Welcome to my talk page!

• Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
• If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
  • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|Gavia immer}}.
  • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
  • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
  • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Request

I have done a good deal of research, and written and created the new article, Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet. Can you now please remove Mission Earth from WP:Requested moves? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent piece of work, especially for something that I know was worked up quite quickly. Nonetheless, I tend to think that Hubbard's sprawling whatchamacallit is the best-known use of the title. If nobody else has bothered to agree with me after another day or so, I'm willing to withdraw, but I'd to see whether others have a strong opinion on this first. I know that we both do have strong opinions, and Anthony Appleyard's comment doesn't have much depth to it, so it would be nice if the community had something to say on the matter. If there's no other opinion offered today, then I would be willing to withdraw, but not yet. — Gavia immer 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And thank you for your kind words about my recent research and writing efforts. That is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Jester

Could you explain why you moved Narrenfreiheit to Jester's privelege (spelling?) instead of Jester's privilege, which already existed ? I'm not aware of the spelling "privelege". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that spelling either, but evidently my fingers are. My mistake, entirely. Nonetheless, we do not need a one-line article on the German-language term "Narrenfreiheit", as I hope you would agree. I see you have already fixed the problem, so I guess that's that. — Gavia immer 04:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's all set now, except for expansion of the article-- which could be fun! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the fact is that I'm as shocked as you are that we have nothing on this topic other than the material at hand. — Gavia immer 04:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:New Steven Brust image

I can understand that mentality, but when the creator is a noted artist in their own right, I think their identity is sometimes worth mentioning. The author of the lead image of Anne of Cleves is very much worth mentioning in the caption, for instance. Your call; I'm happy either way. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ANSI/VITA_40-2003

I'm looking at ANSI/VITA_40-2003, trying to confirm the copyright problem. While I can see some problematic phrases in the Abstract, they could be fixed.

The main material reads as it was a straight copy and paste, but I'm not seeing the source. Can you help me out?--SPhilbrickT 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find another publicly accessible page with more of the text on it, but it may take a minute - just replying so that you know I've seen this. In any case, it's plain enough to me that our article is just a text dump from the standard that this website sells for $50, probably done by an employee or associate of the website itself. — Gavia immer 01:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: this 2002 draft of the 2003 standard shares substantial language with the ANSI/VITA_40-2003 article. Presumably both of those have the text in common with the actual standard, which is not published under a free license. I'll look for a copy of the published standard, but it's probable that any such copy is itself a copyright violation. — Gavia immer 01:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good enough for me.--SPhilbrickT 01:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I'm being ultra-cautious, when I read the article it was clearly a copy, but this is my first delete (not counting user requested), and I'd hate to start with a blunder.--SPhilbrickT 01:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're fine. I actually should have looked more closely at the URL I gave in the first place - I check copyright violations by searching for random distinctive phrases, and when I found that text on the publisher's website I didn't check closely enough to realize that my randomly-chosen phrase was just about the only matching text. That's what I get for half-assing it. — Gavia immer 01:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OBAMA

您好! 我认为条目的注释篇幅太长，以至于有挤占正文的感觉，列示超长的注释实在没必要，隐藏它为的是更好地突出正文。我还认为隐藏注释并不会影响条目的品质，反而会使版面更好；况且隐藏的注释并不会对查阅参考来源构成障碍。这是我的观点。祝编辑愉快！JHH755 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)