User talk:DW: Difference between revisions

Most wanted:

• The Club of Rome;
• Hudson Think Tank
• H.L. Hunt and sons
• J.Paul Getty family & museum

DW, it is Wikipedia convention to include a complete sentence i nthe first line of every article. Please don't go around changing that. -- Zoe

Look at all of the articles written by anybody else. Do you see them doing it the way you're doing? I will continue to change them if you put them back the way they were. -- Zoe

---

DW -- I showed you mine -- Now why don't you show us yours? J Hofmann Kemp

---

I don't see very well what makes you think I have any knowledge in politics. But I'll see what I can do user:Anthere

---

Hey, DW, I've been following the List of Famous Canadians "debate" and I just wanted to put my two cents in.

First of all, if you are truly trying to change the tenor of the "discussion" by signing in under a different username and pretending to be someone else, then that alone is, in my mind, enough to warrant a temporary ban as it shows a basic disregard for the principles of cooperation and scholarship. It is deceptive and lowers the threshold of morality for the entire Wikipedia.

Secondly, I have taught five-year-old children who have responded to arguments more intelligently and with greater maturity than you have shown. I don't know how old you are, but if you are, in fact, older than twelve, I suggest you think long and hard about your response to disagreements.

Thirdly, you seem to be placing an awful lot of importance on an article that, in my eyes, is not too important at all. I can not think of any reason why I might ever want to look at a list of famous Canadians and I believe all such lists are useless, but I do not interfere and attempt to delete them. Your repeated vandalism of the page, and I don't see how it could be characterized as anything else since it violates the obviously agreed upon community standard, is shameful no matter how many other wonderfully written and edited articles you have written.

Fourthly, your ad hominem attacks are irrelevant and silly. Even assuming Jeronimo espoused actual racist beliefs towards Americans, this should not be barring him from writing an article on Canadians (which are not the same thing as Americans, as I'm sure you know if you are, in fact, Canadian). Similarly, your statements that no Dutch person would name himself Jeronimo may or may not have any basis in fact whatsoever. I have had no luck in deciphering exactly what the problem with the name is, however it is most certainly not evidence of any quality that he is not Dutch. My understanding is that the Netherlands is a diverse land with many different positions and viewpoints, and I certainly hope there is enough cultural acceptance there to allow any citizen to go by any name. And for the record, I do know two born-and-bred patriotic Americans named Benedict, and one named Arnold.

In light of all these things (and the comments on your user page and talk page), I must conclude that if I had the power to, I would have banned you (and all your aliases) several days ago. I hope you never get involved with any of the articles I am working on, and I would not be sorry in the slightest to see you leave Wikipedia permanently. I don't believe the Wikipedia Community needs or wants contributors like you.

Tokerboy 18:03 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Ahem, excuse me <just clearing my throat, I have a cold>. DW's squabble with Jeronimo about whether a given musical group are "famous" enough -- is not actually vandalism. Deleting the whole page and writing KEWL is vandalism. There's no way Jimbo is going to ban him, simply because you (and maybe me) think he's on the wrong side in an edit war. Now, let's go back to Talk:List of famous Canadians and hash this thing out. --Ed Poor

One man's vandalism is another man's graffiti art or direct action protest.

I didn't mean to suggest that Jimbo or anyone else will ban him because he's on the wrong side in an edit war, but because of his immaturity and unwillingness to compromise. I simply stated that I would, if I could, ban him, or at least seek a community acceptance of banning him. I have no problems with anyone discussing the meaning of the word "famous," I simply believe that DW has shown that he is unwilling to discuss anything and would prefer to use deception and pigheaded stubbornness to convince everyone to give up and leave him alone to do as he pleases. Any attempts at discussing this with him, Ed, is welcome and well-meaning but will probably be useless. Tokerboy 18:35 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

---

I posted some questions at Talk: Politics of Canada--a few sentences are very confusing right now, and some important details are lacking. You seem to know a lot about the Quebec independence thing, so maybe you can help? Tokerboy 21:39 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

---

I thought the accepted disambiguation format for movies was to use the title then (movie), or the title then (year movie) if there are more than one? --KQ

See Talk:Blue (Kieslowski movie)

---

Do we have permission to use the image at Juliette Binoche? --KQ 02:14 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

Of course! ...DW

---

DW:

1. Please don't scribble on my user page. My talk page will do just fine. I will also get notified if there's a message for me there.
2. I already answered you on the above page.
3. "You were told already..." - did you become owner of wikipedia? I wasn't notified of that! Apologies, your majesty! ;-)
4. As far as I remember (and I'm with wikipedia almost since the beginning), a maximum width of 350 pixel for images was agreed upon, so an image won't be too large even on smaller screens.
5. What is it with your "2.5 inches"? Are you talking about screen width or resolution? Or do you mean image size in terms of byte??

Magnus Manske 20:49 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

DW, you are correct in one point: it is 250, not 350 pixel (Wikipedia:Image use policy). And, with my mentioning of being here a long time I was merely trying to point out your attitude, which is a little absolutistic ("...images are too large...","...you were told..."). Well, maybe the NPOV is finally getting to me ;-)
You still haven't told me what you mean with "2.5 inches", though... --Magnus Manske 22:21 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

DW I wonder if the images you've uploaded are really free of right ? Ericd

---

Hi DW,

Could you put some information about the source and copyright status of the Golda Meir image on its description page please? Thanks. Mswake 12:16 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

DW Your answer in Talk:Front de Libération du Québec was your first answer on a talk page. I think it's a good thing. Can you also give some answers to questions about source and copyright status of the images you've uploaded.

Thanks.

Ericd

---

DW,

You have produced a lot of good work in the Wikipedia, and I'd hate to see us develop hard feelings. If you really feel that the Wikipedia consensus is wrong, please discuss it either on the mailing list or at the Wikipedia:Village pump page. It's not my standards that I'm adhering to, it's what the Wikipedia community in general have decided. -- Zoe

---

DW, I just discovered that you actually *replace* my images, instead of uploading your smalled version to a different name (e.g., "xx_small.jpg"). An example of that is media:Peter Paul Rubens.jpg. Please link to that larger version from the image desctiption via the media namespace, as I did above.

Also, do that for all the images you already have "overwritten".

Thanks, Magnus Manske 21:16 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

Re my talk page:

By shrinking my images, information is lost. While that might be not a real problem on the screen, it starts getting ugly when someone tries to print such an image. So, usual practice (you can find many examples of this in the image list, just search it for "small") for shrinking an image "xx.jpg" is to

• either upload the smaller image as "xx (small).jpg", and change the link on the page,
• or to upload the large image as "xx (large).jpg", and upload the small image as "xx.jpg".

In any case, on the image description page of the small image should be a media: link to the large one.

Yes, I know the large image is still in the "history" list, but it is unlikely to be found there. --Magnus Manske 22:23 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

I wish you would quit abusing other contributors; I'm embarassed for you to see the things you say. We're all here because we believe in what wikipedia stands for, other people just as much as you, and friendliness would go a long way towards making everyone's time here pleasant.

---

DW, what image are you talking about? It would be nice to know exactly which sin you're accusing me of, I lose track ;-)

While I'm at it, you are (still) in error about image sizes in pixels and inches. Let me phrase it in bold text: There is no relation between the size of an image in inches and pixels. Find an image, look at it on your screen when set to 1024x768, take a ruler and measure the width. Now do the same again, but at 640x480. Then do both of that on a screen with a different physical size. Then save that image, open it in Paintshop (or whatever). Set it to 75 dpi and print it. Then set it to 600 dpi and print again. Notice a pattern there? All of them are different sizes in inch, but the same size in pixels.

Got it? --Magnus Manske

---

DW's latest threats have been placed on the Wiki list and sent around, as requested by some other members.

---

DW, sorry to do this but at Jimbo's request I have blocked your ability to contribute to this website as a "signed-in user". --Ed Poor