Old talk in archive: User talk:Dysprosia/Archive -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (2) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (3) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (4) (most recent)
I will not be here from the 23rd of December to the 26th of January.
Thanks for pointing me to the style manual. I actually take issue with the points about quotation marks. The point is not that we should use curly quotes because they look nicer. The point is that ’, etc. have a different meaning. A left quotation mark indicates the beginning of a quotation—the plain old ASCII ' character is so ambiguous as to make it wrong to use. Even the Unicode spec says so. See http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr8/ (4.6 Apostrophe Semantics Errata).
&mdash Alexander
Thanks for obviously needed the edit on Playgirl - Davodd 00:57, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)
Hi, thanks, this is my pleasure to have massage from you. Keep smiling. Regards karkikailash
Hi! Would you like to protect the last edit by Morwen of the Silesia article, as User:caius2ga continues to revert to his version, although we have a consensus agreed by all other users, both Germans and Poles? -- Nico 01:42, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Okay, done.... Dysprosia 01:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Could you please insert a note that the content of the Silesia article is disputed - Nico's edits are very controversial. Thank you. Grzes of Poznan 06:03, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Nico's edit are the consensus version, written by Szopen and Nico, and accepted by all other contributors, even the Polish, in the discussion except User:caius2ga. "Very controversial"? - Nico 06:21, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Please don't get me too involved in this. You and caius2ga go discuss your issues on the talk page, and when you both have a consensual agreement that the article is not disputed the header can be removed. Otherwise I don't feel comfortable being piggy in the middle of this... Dysprosia 06:23, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hello, Dysprosia. When deleting images, make sure to click the del link next to the image, NOT the Delete this page link at the bottom. The former deletes both the image and its description page. The latter only deletes the description page, but leaves the image on the server. See for example Image:Lightning-Protector-US1266175.png. I've gone ahead an deleted the actual images that were left behind. --Minesweeper 03:14, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
Ohh, so sorry about that. Yes I was wondering why there was still a link to the things and such. Thanks for letting me know :) Dysprosia 04:31, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
No problem. :) --Minesweeper 06:42, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
nonsense
Hi Dysprosia.
Could you move the deleted NONSENSE page to Wikipedia bad jokes and other nonsense, I found it rather amusing. Thanks, SableSynthesis 06:17, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Ok, sure. Dysprosia 06:18, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Thank you, SableSynthesis 07:53, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi Dysprosia, it looks like you helped handling the, erm, theory that the linearly-challenged 211.28.xxx.xxx anons keep adding everywhere. I would just like to say thank you and it would be nice if you kept an eye open. Cheers, Kosebamse 14:18, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- ;) Sure, no problem. I've been a bit busy these last few days but now I should have some more time to...these sorts of matters... Dysprosia 14:25, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. And by the way, I have a theory that time is actually green with pink dots, not colourless as professors say... erhm... Kosebamse 15:21, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi Dysprosia, Should the list of 4gls be moved to Categorical_list_of_programming_languages? What do you think? --davidzuccaro 04:13, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Hmm... Perhaps, but the other generations of languages should be classified first so the 4gls don't look out of place. Dysprosia 04:30, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks amigo. To be honest this looks like donkey-work to me that could be scripted. I mean: if there is a style rule which says something as straightforward as "bold the first occurrence of text XYZ where subject title is XYZ" then that shouldn't be done by humans like me and you, it should be automated. But I take your point in the meantime. If we can precisely define the style rules, then we have some chance to automate them. T0ky0 05:27, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. But there are some tricky cases some software would need to handle... for example if we have something like Orange and the first line says Oranges are fruit... and otherwise. Anyway, thanks :) Dysprosia 05:29, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I do not know C, so I just keep writing "In C++" Lirath Q. Pynnor
- That's okay :) I hope you don't mind me clarifying... Dysprosia 00:28, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Not in the least. Lirath Q. Pynnor
In regards to my pathetic stub on the Skunk Ape, it was better than nothing. Yes, it was poorly written, but it does smell. Would you prefer I say that it has an unpleasent odor? :)Iamthecheese 23:04, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes. That would have been an appropriate wording. The edit is yours, my friend. :) Dysprosia 23:05, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You must be following me. I was about to ask Zanimum the same question about Musketeer. :) Angela
- I thought I'd chip off a few from Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs when I saw it pop up in Recent Changes :) Dysprosia 01:24, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to create a century article just to mention what years are in that century. Do you? Dysprosia 05:09, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC) :
I think it is necessary, because some students might need to know. Though of course we will all be dead by the next century, it's still important.
I've replied on your talk page. Dysprosia 05:18, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know. So, always make sure I have a extra comment. Maybe it may help for me to make account also. How do you even know that I added it? <moved from User page by Cyan>
- Have a look at Special:Recentchanges :) You may want to discuss what major events may happen in the 29th century or something.
- You can make a new account by clicking here.
- Thanks Dysprosia 05:27, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
What's about moving that exciting news to Republic of China? In article Taiwan, it says: This article is about the geographical island of Taiwan. --YACHT 14:45, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
- k, done. By the way that whole RoC/Taiwan thing was confusing :) Dysprosia 14:52, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Wow, In my opinion, Taiwan==ROC. BTW, there is also an article Homosexuality in China#Taiwan about that. ;) --YACHT 15:11, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Well, I'm totally out of the loop with the whole Taiwan/China thing :) Dysprosia 15:13, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Don't worry, someone's keeping watching them (not me) . :) --YACHT 15:19, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I like what you've done with Once in a Lifetime. Maybe I was too hasty in blanking it, but I guess I have this idea that if I'm going to be an admin (which now seems possible, if not likely) I should keep an eye on all the anonymous edits in recent changes to show that I'm able to stay on top of things, and I'm feeling more than a little stressed out about that now. Maybe it wasn't the best idea. -- Pakaran 07:16, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- That was a very borderline case in my opinion. Sometimes you can salvage a bit of info from an odd edit and piece it with some stuff from What Links Here and you can end up with a decent stub, but don't feel to bad about blanking :) You know even if you do get admin you can restore del'd pages Dysprosia 07:23, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)~
- Good point, thanks. -- Pakaran 07:24, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yeah no problem. I didn't think to re-add the notice as I actually deleted the page and recreated it. Thanks for making the page into something sensible. Angela. 04:15, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"Encyclopedic"
Hi Dysprosia and Muriel,
Thanks for your encouragement and patience with me.
Perhaps I am in for a bit of a paradigm shift here.
Bear in mind that before I came to Wikimedia last night and logged in for the first time, I had put a lot of thought into what my team's encyclopedia would be.
For those that might be reading this without a context, let me refer you to a project I am founding called PureEnergySystems. It is an open sourcing of technology related to alternative energy, and would include an encyclopedia to reflect the latest and best thinking on any topic related to alternative energy (specifically free energy).
What I had in mind for my own encyclopedia was to be both comprehensive and concise.
All entries would be stored for retrieval, but the editorial process would present the main contents in a clean fashion, and with preference.
That way, discards of info someone thought to be irrelevant or wrong, which were in fact very relevant and very right, would still be accessible to the diligent searcher needing just the right clue to take his/her next step in their research and development.
My encyclopedia idea was built with the idea of fostering the advancement of technology while also reporting on its advancements.
Mine wasn't a free-for-all (anyone able to make changes instantaneously), but would be an editor-screened submission process.
All submissions would go into a pool for retrieval by anyone, but only the editor-approved submissions would become a part of the featured listing.
After working with Wikipedia for a day, I can see advantages to allowing anyone to do just about anything by way of submission and review. I can also see disadvantages. I'm guessing that overall it is a better model.
Is there any way I could have audience with the founder of Wikipedia and discuss together some of the basic concepts and tactics?
- I doubt that the editing model of the Wikipedia will change in the way that you describe here, unless there was considerable groundswell. Perhaps you need to start your own project. You seem to have a lot of initiative which is commendable, so you might want to seriously look into that.
- If you're looking for the "founder" (don't know if this is what you mean), but User:Jimbo Wales is the Benevolent Dictator for the Wikipedia. Seek his user page and leave him a message if you so desire.
I don't see any appeal process built into Wikipedia. There should be a "hold" before delete. There should be an appeal allowed when someone is blocked from editing a page (e.g. I cannot edit the fire extinguisher page)
- Precisely for what the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page is. You get five days holding. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
- As to fire extinguisher - if you have a problem with reversions and so on, you should bring it up on the talk page or with the editor in question.
It seems the idea of top notch conciseness and quality could be paired with the idea of comprehensiveness.
Why not have the encyclopedia list every person alive on the planet? Are we not all equal in God's sight?
- Because that's not what an encyclopedia is for - it logs historical events and people and ideas. To be all koanesque - if an idea forms in someones mind, and there is no one there to hear it - is it an important idea? Anyway, logging everyone there is and was is just not technically feasible.
What makes Monica Lewinsky "better" than me? In my opinion, my listing is of value and benefit to mankind. She played her role in our nations country, and it deserves an entry; and so have I, and so do I.
No, I've not been published; but not because my work is not of value. Rather, because it is so far-reaching, most won't touch it.
I have a quote on my website: "He who is one step ahead is a genius. He who is two steps ahead is a crack pot." There is a lot of "rough around the edges" when you are a pioneer out in front breaking new ground.
Call me an egomaniac, but I have lived more than a dozen years as an activist for causes in which I believe; and though I might get the Media's attention, I am making a big difference.
Who was Monica Lewinsky before she was noticed? Monica Lewinsky.
Who was she afterward? Monica Lewinsky -- but with some fame upon which she could ride, illicit as it was.
Who is to judge what person deserves and entry and who does not?
- Entry into the Wikipedia? The Wikipedia community. Cf the What Wikipedia is not link above: Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge.
Think of the great artists and composers who died in poverty and broken hearted, only to have their music or art become classics beloved by the world.
They were not hardly worth a footnote in their day -- or so those around them thought.
- They are great because they were great. If you believe you can change the world and be great - you should do so - and if you are as great as they are, the Wikipedia will acknowledge you. Perhaps not now - perhaps you are "not hardly worth a footnote" in your day, but perhaps this may change.
- The key point now is, unfortunately, for now, the Wikipedia cannot recognize you. What have we to go on? What kind of resources do we have to acknowledge you? For the Wikipedia to be an academically respected work, we work in the manner of academia. Predominantly, we acknowledge the well-known great work of others before our times. We acknowledge the peer-reviewed great work of others in our time today. We cannot acknowledge your work since it is relatively unknown, and it is not peer-reviewed.
- Do not take this all as discouragement. All I have tried to do here is let you realise the concepts and process underlying the inclusion of content in the Wikipedia. I am sure you have much to contribute to the Wikipedia, and I hope that the manner of your contributions will be more acceptable to the Wikipedia community. Newton said that he got where he was because he stood on the shoulders of giants - if you are truly great then you too stand on the sholders of the giants and you are well acquainted of them. I think this is an excellent place to start your contributions :)
I should probably get to bed. I only had three hours of sleep last night I was so excited to get up in the morning and explore the power of Wikipedia.
I guess the question I ask at this point is, Will Wikipedia consider a change of focus -- if only for the Free Energy portion of its site -- complete with disclaimer if it prefers -- and allow a combination of comprehensiveness and conciseness? Or do I need to start looking at maybe discussing the use of your source code so we can save some time in the creation of our own system?
- I doubt it. You can create your own system sure. The Wikipedia software is free software. You can download the system yourself: Here's the SF page.
Let me mention that I know of several free energy technologies that are about to break out (they have working models but are preparing a more refined edition for release to the world), and the reason I created www.pureenergysystems.com was to provide a home for an open sourcing site; and along with that came the idea of the encyclopedia and academy and library and PAC, etc. When those break out, it will change the way the world looks at energy. No longer will it be scarcity. It will be abundance.
By the way, where do I go to edit my personal profile for review?
- I'm not sure what you mean. Dysprosia 10:47, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Sterling Sterlingda 10:21, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Dysprosia - the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) is not a stub, it's a redundant article, as Chaos Computer Club already exists. What's the procedure for correcting this? - Isomorphic 11:49, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Merge nonredundant information to the correct article and redirect the old to the newer. If the older just duplicates the newer you can generally just redirect the older to the newer without merging. Done so with the above - thanks for pointing itout :) Dysprosia 11:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for doing the correction. I'll go look at what you did, for future reference. Isomorphic 12:01, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
How was 195.92.168.177 able to post after you had banned him? RickK 03:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Timing. I blocked *.177 at 3:03 WST and that person posted at 3:01. I thought I'd give this person one last chance to saddle-up-and-fly-right but after that comment I decided it's best that they be blocked. Any further *.17x edits popping up I'm going to block today also. Haven't got time for nasty mess. Dysprosia 03:07, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)