Wikipedia

Snoyes

Joined 12 February 2003
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fuzheado (talk | contribs) at 00:37, 13 November 2003 (comments on stats). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Learn more about this page

Log of old talk removal:

  • Removed all talk prior to October 2003. --snoyes 01:51, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Adminship

Please accept your adminship nomination. (Or decline if you really despise adminship. But try it first!) --Menchi 03:25, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, I've accepted. --snoyes 02:57, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh, youre back

Weclome back. --戴&#30505sv 02:41, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, its nice to be back. --snoyes 02:57, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ah-- so'o desu. :-) -戴&#30505sv
/me makes an expression like Homer Simpson when Lisa is talking about something he does not understand. --snoyes 03:03, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thats Japanese meaning "so is" = undersood/affirmative. -SV

You're now a sysop. -- Tim Starling 04:55, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

I usually do try to avoid multiple links to the same word, but I'll add multiple links if they are widely separated (it's annoying and time-wasting to have to scan back through a long article looking for the first occurrence of a clickable link), and/or I anticipate an article being broken up. Philatelic bits are extremely uninteresting to non-collectors, and most likely they will all become their own separate articles at some point. Stan 22:07, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Snoyes,

I appreciate your attempts to keep my outside link at Transcendentalism but as you will note, I, for some reason have been denied that privilege. I thank you for trying.Kurt Kawohl

re: NASA move

Thanks Snoyes. Next time I will post to a sysop's talk page. I did at least make the summary descriptive in the hope that a passing sysop would notice it on Recent Changes.  :) Audin 02:29, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I am the original poster of that material on Talk:Transhumanism. I am not, however I see that your reverts to that user's edits are creating an adversary, and that may be counterproductive. 207.112.31.5 03:40, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Your opinion that the text did not attempt to improve the article is just that: your opinion. Before reverting what you think is junk, let it stand for a few days. It's not going to create chaos in that short a time, and could start a useful discussion. Old cruft, of course should be fair game. 207.112.31.5 03:51, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Snoyes,

I guess you'll take this out, but for what its worth: Is anonymous edit as bad as all that? I put my first wikipedia contribution up today, and the Alfred Tarski article, while missing much, has much more than it did before. (Thanks for helping clean up the formating on it.) I never would have taken the time to post it if I had to register first, as I wouldn't have know how easy it was to get a positive change made. Anyway, I am new here, so I don't have a sense of the costs of anonymous edit, but I now know enough to think that there is at least some virtue.

Best,

Brian van den Broek

Hi Brian. I don't understand what you mean by "take this out" - do you mean delete your posting to my talk page? Of course not. I think you have slightly missed my point on anonymous edits. Obviously there is a great benefit from 'proper' anonymous edits (ie. edits that contribute information, correct errors, etc.). My attempt was to try and wheigh these positive contributions against the negative contributions. So the negative contributions of +- 1/4 of anonymous edits is that they are vandalous. However, there is an addition to that negative cost: namely, that users have to police Recent changes, and undo the negative changes made by _some_ anonymous editors. This time could obviously be better spent on making contributions themselves. You are of course right that one has to factor in the possibility that a significant number of anon editors will not contribute if they have to sign in. My number gathering was pretty much meant to give some solid statistics on anonymous edits. I am pretty sure that wikipedia policy will not change in the near future to require anons to log in. Cheers, snoyes 18:32, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Snoyes, I had assumed that since I wasn't a signed-up user, my addition would count as unsigned. (Of course, I could have read the policy carefully!) I can see your point about possible furstrations from anon. edits, but I know that many folks won't sign up for something on the web if they cannot test it out first. Anyway, I am now a signed up member! Best, vanden 23:59, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I make my chess diagrams with ChessBase. The ChessBase look is now the most common in chess publications, I think, and there is a free version available, but it's Windows only, as far as I know. I did come across something a couple of years ago that let you make diagrams by just dragging pieces around - very easy to use, free, and I think it was cross-platform, but the resulting diagrams looked bloody awful, so I ditched it. Standardising on one look would be great but I'm not sure it's really practicable. Better to just let people use whatever software they happen to have, I think. --Camembert

Hey, where did you get those pics of Cadamom? Are they public domain? I'd like to know, in case there are other spices there we can use. Thanks. dave 20:42, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Il me semble qu'il y a seulement 2 autre epices sur le wiki francais qui on un image, cannelle et gingembre. J'espere d'avoir un camera digital a Noel...je prendera des photos de mes epices chez moi. J'ai au moins vingt epices, entiere/graines et en poudre aussi. dave 21:07, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In Mount Rushmore National Memorial, why did you remove the link to Gutzon Borglum, and the italics on "See also"? There is no page yet for Gutzon Borglum, but presumably there will be someday. (Actually, it looks like someday = today; a page was just added.) Italics for "see also" is correct according to Wikipedia:Boilerplate text. Michael Shields 22:04, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, All the photographs of spices I put on the french Wikipedia are mine and you can use them, free of right. Nataraja 11:45, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I was debating removing that one ("obscene")in my mind - Marshman 18:28, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No problem! --snoyes 18:41, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No problem<G>. I'm glad RickK noticed it, cause I noticed him noticing<G>. __ Someone else 04:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re: Universal joint: Thanks! I've been looking for some excuses to do some 3D modelling or other kinds of illustration for Wikipedia. I did a bunch of pics for Screw recently, also. If you can think of other things that could use diagrams like this, please let me know! -- Wapcaplet 00:46, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Staufen/Breisgau

Whereas the town (not a village) of Staufen is part of the district Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, Breisgau isn't identical to the district. The landscape named so covers roughly a third of Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, so maybe someone should create an Breisgau article. If the server will work with me, I'll try to do a stub. -- till we *) 21:09, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Great idea. One nitpick:

except insertion of interlanguage links which were ignored

I think you should count those as contributions. Also, could you differentiate between # of edits for the IPs? I suspect IPs with small numbers of edits or with a very recent first edit are worse. Daniel Quinlan 23:16, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Always good to see real numbers and analysis. The signal/noise ratio was actually better than what I suspected. And I'd side with DQ -- insertion of interlanguage links as metadata is a valid positive contribution. Fuzheado 00:37, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snoyes&oldid=1723425"