User talk:Bunzil

l33t

Wikipedia is not suited to complex infoboxes. It is suited to prose, because the database structure is so simple. Don't do something because you think it's l33t. — Dunc|☺ 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The database structure is what is contained within the database. For example, if you go to imdb, for each person they will have a separate entry for their name, birthname, date of birth, and so on. A wiki is not like that. It only has a single text entry for each person, which must contain all of the data. The best way to present data in that way is as prose.

It is best that articles appear uniform across the whole encyclopedia.

That means keeping all the formatting simple.

Now, despite having removed the silliest things from your infobox you are still carrying too much information in it. And I really don't think you've thought this through. People won't get at you because they come across as grumpy, but it really does look terrible. You are trying to do because you think it is "l33t", but programming wise it is nothing new and the novelty for you will soon wear off. — Dunc|☺ 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually understand any of this?

Do you really intend to list in a side box, all of a person's grad students? — Dunc|☺ 12:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dunc, discussion on l33t (that I called 'geekiness') and how one might fix it is at [1]. Please check it out. Regarding the students the short answer is "no" and the methodology/intention discussion is in the 8th from bottom paragraph of [2]. I didn't understand the bit about datastructures, so put some questions about that point on your talk page at [3]. Best regards, bunix 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alfred kleiner.jpg

Could you confirm that the above image is granted to anybody to use given attribution, not just Wikipedia? Thanks. theProject 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing about the tag that needs to be changed. The only issue is that there are reusers of Wikipedia content that would presumably copy the same image, and if permission is not granted for them to use the image as well, then Wikipedia cannot use the image. I would be very grateful if you could check up on whether the image is granted to anybody to use given attribution, not just Wikipedia. Much thanks! theProject 05:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reusers of Wikipedia content don't have to be "approved" by us, although we generally become aware of them at some point. The GFDL states that anybody can reuse our material, so long as they include a copy of the GFDL and other things required by the license. Some of the reusers are different from us in that they're commercial reusers of the content and are actively involved in producing revenue from the content. There's a very partial list at which should give you an idea. theProject 15:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I contacted ETH and got a reply saying they were aware of the Wikipedia rules when they granted permission. However, now that I have raised the matter they are going to have a meeting on this Thursday to check that all the key parties at ETH are happy with it, in order to "double check." I'll report back here at the end of the week. bunix 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they got back to me and everything is cool. They are totally happy with us & the reusers using the photo. They were going to charge me 200 Swiss Francs but they let me off the hook when they realised that Wikipedia is non-profit. So we got a freebie folks! bunix 09:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic! Great to hear we have another image for use in our inventory. theProject 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel medal

Hi, I noticed that User:Ancheta Wis is adding the image of the Nobel medal to Nobel laureats pages and he directed me to you for questions regarding the template. AFAIK, the Nobel Foundation keeps a tight copyright on everything Nobel related, especially the design of medals and diplomas. They state that permission must be asked to use the image of these things and when granted, the permission is for a single use. My concern is that it might not be fair use to put it like that in all articles, though I'm not a lawyer. Question is, are you sure that it is OK, as this might be a pretty serious problem for WP?

PS: You can answer here, I'm watching your talk page AdamSmithee 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, Good point. OK, I've just emailed the Nobel Foundation and we should get a reply in a day or two. Keep watching this space :-) Best regards, bunix 06:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are taking their time...so in the meanwhile I've replaced it with a "home made" Nobel medal, that doesn't look as good as the real one, but will probably do for the time being.bunix 21:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really curious what they will say... Hope they'll have good news AdamSmithee 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — not to butt in here, but Wikipedia doesn't use things which only have permission for use on Wikipedia. They'd have to grant permission for all re-users to use it like this as well. This has been policy for awhile due to an order from the top. Just pointing that out in case you haven't seen it. --Fastfission 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Fleiss.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fleiss.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel template

I believe the addition of the copyrighted Nobel medal image to individual articles is a violation of copyright. Please see my comments at User_talk:Ancheta_Wis#Nobel_medal. You may respond to those comments here.--Jiang 10:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jiang, Looking into this. See comments to Adam (above). Watch that space in a couple of days for the answer. Best regards, bunix 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeman

Hi JdH, accoding to "The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists" publ: Oxford, Ed: Roy Porter, Zeeman's PhD was jointly supervised by both Kamerlingh Onnes and Lorentz. If you disagree, please let me know your sources. Best regards, bunix 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Dutch biography (P.F.A. Klinkenberg, Zeeman, Pieter (1865-1943), in Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland) Zeeman took courses from Lorentz, but Kamerlingh Onnes was his sole thesis supervisor. JdH 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Database structure

Okay, I'll try to explain database structure.

Wikipedia's information is carried in a database. Each Wikipedia entry basically has two fields. The first is the article's title, the second is the text in the article. This is extremely basic, in fact it's about as basic as you can get. (The categorisation system makes it slightly more complex, but categories are a side structure rather than the main structure). Wikipedia has one field that is best used for storing prose like an essay.

Compare now imdb. Take as an example, Keira Knightley if you click on the update button at the bottom you get taken to an update page. Now you see that all possible details imaginable have their own entry, their own field. This is a proper database and it is ideal for storing specific information. Her date of birth, place and so on all have separate entries in their own field. This is proper database design. Wikipedia it not a proper database.

Wikipedia is not like this, because it is so simple you need to apply the KISS principle. That means if you're going to use infoboxes, you need to think them through properly, which I don't think you've done. — Dunc|☺ 13:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

The question is the exact opposite; do you have an sources that support your contention regarding Kellog? If so, I'd love to see them. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe nobody did this, yet; welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Bunzil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!

If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page!

Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:

Best of luck to you, and happy editing!

Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]