Jump to content

User talk:BillC: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Re: Boundary changes in the district of Blenio
Crop Circles
Line 135: Line 135:


I've answered in my talk page, with two interesting links, to keep the discussion in one single page. But if you prefer the wikipedia default reply behaviour, I can also reply in this page. [[User:Cate|Cate]] 08:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've answered in my talk page, with two interesting links, to keep the discussion in one single page. But if you prefer the wikipedia default reply behaviour, I can also reply in this page. [[User:Cate|Cate]] 08:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== Crop Circles ==

The reference to England and Scotland may have been considered "vandalism" but the reference to HAARP was not, neither was the speculation that the larger circles are made in stages by UFO's

Revision as of 18:12, 24 October 2006

Welcome!

Venus

Hi, Thanks for pointing that out. I've added a reference that should cover what I've added. Suradasa 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:103 qvgd millions.jpg)

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:103 qvgd millions.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Orphaned fair use image (Image:Milijonas.jpg)

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Milijonas.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 19:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not in any Wikipedia articles because you removed them from there. However, feel free to delete the files. BillC 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss municipalities

{{Navigation bar Bellinzona district}} looks good in general but I would suggest a few things. One, add a link to the de template (within <noinclude> tags), which sort of doubles as an indication of the source (you could add other interwiki if they exist, but I think it's really only important to have one). Add them to Category:Swiss district templates (with piping, preferably, unlike the ones there) in <noinclude>, and into Category:Municipalities of the canton of XXXX in <includeonly>. The latter are named Category:Municipalities of XXXX for some cantons (you can see which at Category:Municipalities of Switzerland), but those can be changed by hand or (probably better) the other templates can be changed to make them all consistent. Finally, the Municipalities of Ticino at the bottom of the box should be Municipalities of the canton of Ticino, which seems to exist (at least as a redirect) for several random cantons I checked. The only other issue is dealing with disambiguated names, such as Gudo TI. It's funny, none of the four municipalities with the canton abbreviation have articles for the other places on the corresponding de disambiguation page...but maybe they will someday. There seems to be no consistency for naming these here (i.e. XXX, Switzerland, XXX, Ticino, XXX TI all seem about equally common). I think the simplest and certainly (for now) adequate solution is to ignore them for now, or use the format you prefer (I don't have any preference), and they can be changed by hand later if someone feels strongly about it. Rigadoun 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment on User talk:Docu. -- User:Docu

Hi BillC, I just wanted to point out that there is a small problem on Template:Municipalities of the district of Morges, which you converted to a dynamic navbox: most of the wikilinks have one too many "]". This is easy enough to correct (and I have just done it), but since you seem to have converted quite a few of these templates, you may want to check if it is a unique occurence or if it happened elsewhere. Cheers, Schutz 06:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I went back through the list and was unable to find another other than Morges. There are only two more to convert, once I have standardised on the format and name for the existing template set, I will begin work on importing the results of the Perl script and creating the missing navigational boxes. I think I will place further text on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swiss municipalities. BillC 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the templates are nice and I see you started adding the municipalities. I am in the process of adding info to the ones that popped up on the Missing encyclopedia articles pages I monitor, and will continue to do so. I also created Category:Swiss canton templates for the next administrative unit up; lots of work remains to be done there but there's few enough it's probably easier to do it by hand. The language bots will pick up the links soon enough, I think, so I wouldn't worry about it. I'm watching the project page now, so we can communicate there. Rigadoun 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the specific feedback. I'll respond to you on the same page when I get the chance to go over it! Dreadlocke 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your feedback, I made some changes to the draft and I responded to your other feedback too. Let me know what you think. Dreadlocke 21:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I re-wrote the ND draft to address the points you and Rohirok brought up. I identified the specific changes on the feedback page. Let me know if the changes address your concerns. Thanks! Dreadlocke 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you have any further feedback. I hope I addressed your concerns. I made an honest effort to do so. Dreadlocke 02:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magically shifting suitability

Please explain to me how WP:RS means that the title of an article page changes the suitability of a source, and why that makes any sense at all.

What this says if that I make a tangential page, say Josephson-CSICOP controversy, I can use the data from Josephson's page, because the article title specifically refers to it, thereby a primary source is OK. But if I do the sensible thing and merge such a page into e.g. CSCICOP, then I can't use the data from Josephson's page, because the title no longer relates to Josephson. That's just silly. I don't buy it. I disagree that "topic" in WP:RS equates to "title". - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was only asking for your rationale behind your interpretation, and proposing an IMHO rational counterargument to consider. I'm not keeping an eagle eye on when people post comments to the page, because it's too much to deal with on a daily basis. So if I take too long to ask you for more info on your opinion, I apologize, but that's all I was doing. The problem as I see it is that the policy simply does not provide clarity on this issue, and the result is a cavalcade of interpretations. IMO, when all else fails, figure out which makes the most Wikian sense. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 05:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


cornea image

Hi there, yes, the image is of my eye which was keratoconic, and still is but much better than before.

German towns

Great job copying over all of those German-language places. We need more of those on Wikipedia. Too bad there isn't a bot that could do the work. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I wish *I* understood how to write bots, too.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss town naming

What do think of this summary? It could avoid us a template like de:Vorlage:Begriffsklärung Schweizer Kanton. -- User:Docu

A reply is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swiss municipalities#Article titles. BillC 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Missing Articles List (fr)

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr#Complete Update if you haven't yet. Thanks, Ardric47 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns

You are welcome, but please don't take this "distinction" too close to heart—it's nothing official, just vaguely defined common sense. The only reason why I even bothered to correct this was for consistency sakes (to match the terminology patterns with those of other cities/towns). Incidentally, if you are interested in what this issue is about, you can read a great deal about it here. Cheers!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Val de Ruz

Hi I have started the Val-de-Ruz article for you. It needs a great deal of expansion as it is above the municipalities that you have translated!! keep up the good work.James Janderson 15:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes thats why I said it needs a great deal of work as I know nothing about it and was judging from german wikipedia. I knew I could trust you to write a good un'. Good luck editing Swiss!! 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job on swiss. great! James Janderson 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --BillC 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss location articles, and stub-tagging

I notice you've started a large number of Switzerland-geo-stubs, which currently I'm stub-sorting. Do you an estimate of how many such articles there are to create? Ideally, if you know that on a per-canton basis, even better. So far I've created stub types for the seven largest cantons (see here), but if these keep growing, the remaining cantons, and perhaps even several districts may be necessary. Alai 20:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem, it was by no means urgent. (In fact, the less and less often the database dumps occur, the less urgent it becomes...) That's not a horrifying number by any means, though it's probably worth creating stub templates ("upmerged" to feed back into the main Swiss category if there's not yet 60 of each) for each canton, so if you can give me some advanced warning of when the next "batch" is due, that would save some re-sorting effort (which admittedly is fairly minimal, given that they were easy to do by 'bot). On the names: I just followed the existing permanent category names, which are at Category:Aargau and Category:Canton of Berne, I assume using the "Canton of" only where it's necessary to disambiguate from the municipality of the same name. If there's any question of whether those are the appropriate names, it would be better to make any necessary changes to those first, via CFR, as it's much easier to fix the stub category names, since those are populated from the template, obviously. Alai 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five more canton stub types proposed here. Similar issues arise about the category names, if you'd like to comment on that. Alai 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer images secondary voltage

In your transformer diagrams, you show an arrow for the voltages. If the tip of the arrow is interpreted as positive voltage, though, the secondary arrow is upside down. I don't know if that is how the arrow is supposed to be interpreted, but that is what people are doing. I updated one of the images with + and − signs, and I am going to update the rest... Are there any others? — Omegatron 03:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really should upload this one to commons, as it should be useful to other projects.... - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Venera images

was late at night and i misread the copyright date. mh, well, nevertheless, is still think we could use the images, since they were published by the soviet government back then, and should thereby be under public domain. --BlueMars 16:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill. I am happy to have my reprojections of the Venera images on Wikipedia (although BlueMars should have asked permission first). I do object to the images being labeled as "public domain", which they are not. I retain copyright privilages on them. There is a discussion of the process used to create them here: http://donpmitchell.blogspot.com/

I am a little concerned that Wikipedia plays fast and loose with copyright, which could be a controversy someday. Soviet and Russian images cannot just be labled as "public domain", especially when they date from after 1973.

In addition, images from NASA's websites cannot always be assumed "public domain". As NASA points out, they do not always own the copyright on those images. That is true of many spacecraft photos on NSSDC. For example, the color picture of the Venera-13 lander on Wikipedia was taken by Sky & Telescope. The photo of the Venera-9 lander was scanned from a book by Grinspoon and Marov, etc. DonPMitchell 12:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise is requested

FYI: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology has just been started. -AED 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Boundary changes in the district of Blenio

I've answered in my talk page, with two interesting links, to keep the discussion in one single page. But if you prefer the wikipedia default reply behaviour, I can also reply in this page. Cate 08:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crop Circles

The reference to England and Scotland may have been considered "vandalism" but the reference to HAARP was not, neither was the speculation that the larger circles are made in stages by UFO's