User talk:Triton
|
|
Hello there Triton, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. MB 18:32 23 May 2003 (UTC)
People have been making pictures before the camera, you know. For millennia, even. -- John Owens 11:49 26 May 2003 (UTC)
I guess Webster's has been slipping, then, because the 1913 edition had this to say:
- Contemporary Con*tem"po*ra*ry, a. Pref. con- + L. temporarius of belonging to time, tempus time. See Temporal, and cf. Contemporaneous.
- Living, occuring, or existing, at the same time; done in, or belonging to, the same times; contemporaneous.
- Of the same age; coeval.
- Contemporary Con*tem"po*ra*ry, n.; pl. Contemporaries.
- One who lives at the same time with another; as, Petrarch and Chaucer were contemporaries.
Clear enough now? Why are you complaining about it if you didn't even know what it means, anyway? -- John Owens 12:45 26 May 2003 (UTC)
I would welcome your factual input on the subject of List of French monarchs; editing at Wikipedia is part of the process of providing facts and improving on information in articles. However, when you delete my articulated work that is 100% supported by facts, and withoiut justification revert to a previous user’s non-NPOV unsubstantiated article, then that is an abuse of your sysop powers. If you have any qualms over my right to provide input to Wikipedia or the informastion I provide, please say so and we can ask Jimbo Wales to examine the issue at hand. Thank you. Triton
- Thanks for the instruction. I have an idea of what it means to edit here, because I helped to write some of the guidelines :-) Please, if you feel you need to involve Jimbo, that would be fine with me. But before you do, I suggest you take note that other wikipedians with reputations as fair and useful contributors are involved in the France discussions. Were I to invoke the wrath of Jimbo, I'd want to make very sure that I had truly entered into the discussions and came off as someone who really wanted to come to a wiki solution. But then, that's just how I like to do things. JHK
Can you please cite the sources of the images you've uploaded, such as Image:ClovisDomain.jpg and Image:843-870 Europe.jpg? They have been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and will be deleted in a few days unless you can demonstrate that they are public domain or used with permission under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. If they are under copyright and not used with permission, then fair use is a very dubious position to take: Wikipedia is a direct competitor to conventional encyclopedias, textbooks, and such, and as such publicly distributing material from such a source and encouraging its reuse would be seen as having a detrimental effect on the copyright owner. (Aside from the general dubiousness of "fair use" material in a GFDL'd work.) --Brion 20:27 26 May 2003 (UTC)
As I said, Wikipedia has no obligation to verify photos/maps posted.
- Nor do people have a legal obligation to not be complete asses to one another in public. Nonetheless, it is polite to try. ;) Wikipedia is not just a web hosting service that stores other peoples' files. It's a project with the particular goal of creating an encyclopedia that is freely distributable under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License: that explicitly includes the rights to modification and redistribution in other media such as CD-ROM or paper, which last I heard are not protected by the DMCA's "safe harbor" provisions. I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer. Are you?
- If you are a lawyer specializing in intellectual property law and are willing to stake your professional reputation on the claim that all these mysterious uncited "fair use" pictures can be distributed without any restriction or doubt under the terms of the GFDL in all media for both commercial and non-commercial uses, then perhaps you'd better speak up. And even if you did, don't forget that Wikipedia must not accept third-party material without citing the source as a matter of professional ethics and practical sense even if it's sometimes allowed by the law.
- So yes, please cite your sources from now on, and by all means raise questions on other images you find whose sources are not documented. (Note that a little less concern for "your" "FACTS" and a little more concern for the collaborative editing process and neutral point of view methodology would go a long way towards making you not a pariah.) --Brion 23:59 26 May 2003 (UTC)
- Actually, we currently do allow fair use (see Wikipedia:Image use policy), and it has not yet been cleared whether the maps would fall under such use. But sources should be named whenever possible. I think it's virtually impossible to build a decently illustrated encyclopedia without resorting to at least some fair use, esp. of people photos.--Eloquence 00:13 27 May 2003 (UTC)
My God! A voice of reason. !!! Triton
Hi, Triton,
Where does the map you put in the article on Clovis I come from? Fred Bauder 01:13 27 May 2003 (UTC)
Triton -- I don't make nasty comments about you to others, nor do I presume to tell other people what you would or would not do. Please try to play nice. If you feel capable of discussing sources, quotes, etc., and answering the questions several readers have posed for you, that would be great, and we might get somewhere. But constantly attacking me does none of us any good. JHK
Yes, if you're really a newbie, then it would be a good idea to make your words sweeter so they will be more enjoyable when/if you have to eat them later, and if you're an oldtimer coming back under a new name, you should know better. Jimbo is much too nice of a guy - if I were in charge, some of your ruder comments would likely have gotten you kicked off already. Stan 04:21 27 May 2003 (UTC)
Triton, if you truly have a concern for the facts and for increasing the usefulness of the Wikipedia, I must suggest the following: stop using language that seems to be designed to upset people. You consistently use sarcasm and hyperbole in a way that makes me believe that you intend to make people upset. This is simply not constructive. Regardless of what any other users do, you are responsible for your own actions, and even if you think that others are being rude to you, you ought not be rude to them. I'm not saying this in a prescriptive moral sense, but rather in the sense that it is unscholarly to engage in petty bickering. Regardless of your personal feelings I suggest that you compose your messages in a manner that reflects the degree of erudition and sophistication that you would want to see in others, and on the Wikipedia in general. --Dante Alighieri 03:37 28 May 2003 (UTC)
- Sir, I certainly hope I have not hurt yours or anyone's feelings. But, I do admit that Ms. JHK sure hurt mine, but I know in her heart she is sorry. If I have offended you please point it out. I want to learn as much as I can and be a good contributor whose work won't be called nonsense and deleted only to find out it was fact -- again. Thank you for taking the time to point out my possible communication shortcomings. Maybe it is cultural. Triton
- OK, I'll take you at your word. First of all, you haven't really offended me. But here are some things that may be culturaly differences. Your usage of Sir seems insincere. It may not be intended that way, but I imagine that most people here are reading that as a sarcastic usage. Also, phrases like: "I know in her heart she is sorry" seem sarcastic, and if they ARE meant truthfully, they are plainly false, as you cannot know someone else's inner feelings. As for your work being revealed as fact after it was deleted several times: my take is that your work has not yet been proven as fact, but that is not to say it isn't. As for the deletions, all the contributions you have ever made are still on the Wikipedia, they are simply in past revisions of the page history, so they're not really gone for good. As for the "maybe its cultural" argument: repeatedly using the same phrases over and over also seems sarcastic. When people feel as if you intend to belittle them, they will likely react poorly, and I believe that many people would view some of your comments this way. Keep in mind that I'm not attacking you, I'm offering constructive criticism, as per your request. I honestly do hope that this is simply a matter of miscommunication and that it can be resolved positively.
- On the miscommunication front, is English your first language? What other languages do you speak? Since you claim it may be a cultural misunderstanding, what culture do you consider yourself to be from. I, and I believe many of the others on the English Wikipedia would consider themselves to be part of the "Western" culture. Let's hope that we can clear this up and move on to a more productive usage of our time. ;)
- Oh, one final note: try and be a little less "formal" sounding, some people will take that as veiled hostility for some reason. A casual voice in your writings may go a long way.
- --Dante Alighieri 04:20 28 May 2003 (UTC)
- Since you've yet to respond, I'll add something else. You continue to accuse JHK of deliberately (and I believe you imply, maliciously) deleting your map image a second time after it was shown by Brion not be covered by copyright. This issue has been answered when JHK asserted that, due to the quantity of different articles where the discussion was taking place, she was not AWARE of Brion's "OK" on the image when she deleted it a second time. Now, you may not have caught that message from JHK, as I said, the conversation is taking place in very many articles.
- Also, if you carefully reread her original statement, JHK actually did not refer to your edits as misrepresentations or lies. The reference was to a single line, the statement about all prominent scholars considering the Merovingians to be French. In addition, the misrepresntation and lie remark was meant to be a worse case example. She also characterized it as perhaps a "sad demonstration of obtuseness by a well-meaning amateur". Now, admittedly this is not the kindest of remarks, but it's hardly a vicious insult. There is a third-likelihood which has yet to be mentioned. The line could be a result of hyperbole coupled with an imperfect knowledge of the vagaries of the English language. It is not uncommon for native speakers of English to interpret text differently than someone who speaks English as a second (or third, etc.) language. This is aside from the fact that the assertion that all prominent scholars consider the Merovingians to be French is likely factually false, as statements with absolutes tend to be.
- It could go a long way to resolving this issue if you would confirm you cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Please realize that I don't particularly care where you're from of what languages you speak, except so far as they have bearing on the potential cultural/linguistic misunderstandings regarding the French monarch issue.
- --Dante Alighieri 20:52 28 May 2003 (UTC)
- from my user page:
- Mr. Dante Alighieri, your question: "It could go a long way to resolving this issue if you would confirm you cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Please realize that I don't particularly care where you're from of what languages you speak, except so far as they have bearing on the potential cultural/linguistic misunderstandings regarding the French monarch issue."
- Thank you, but like User:Slrubenstein, User:Jlk7e and many others at Wikipedia, I prefer not to reveal my ethnic background. Race has no effect on one's ability to participate in Wikipedia. If I make mistakes in English please be kind enough to point them out. Helping me perfect my language skills is important and appreciated. Thank you, I look forward to working with you on this valuable project. Triton
- Two comments, first of all, it was you, not anyone else, who brought up the possibility of a cultural misunderstanding. It is hardly helpful to assert such a possible cause and then refuse to elaborate. Also, with respect to "mistakes" in English, the problem may not be "mistakes" as you put it, but rather simply thinking about the text in a different way. I'll ask again whether you are a native speaker of English, sure that is not too terribly intrusive. I'm not even asking which other languages you speak.
- Secondly, you failed to address any of my other issues... this does not give me much hope for a positive resolution to this situation. --Dante Alighieri 21:49 28 May 2003 (UTC)
I reverted your revision on Clovis I because JHK felt it needed some checking and some work. Slrubenstein
Mr. Bauder, sir, Ms. JHK deleted my photo the second time AFTER Mr. Vibber posted the notice that it indeed was proven by me to be copyright free and 100% unquestioningly usable at Wikipedia. As a lawyer sir, please check your facts before you insinuate I have made a false allegation. And sir, as to my conduct, I am not combative other than to defend what I believe as fact as I support you, Ms. JHK and everyone do so as to make Wikipedia the best possible encyclopedia. I believe that is the goal, is it not? My conduct has been extremely restrained in light of Ms. JHK calling my sincere efforts as "nonsense" and "ridiculous" and as you are well aware, she deleted them without just cause. And sir, her behaviour could not possibly be my fault. She has clearly demonstrated that pattern of dismissive and insulting conduct with other contributors and drove them away. Do you condone that, sir? If I have in fact offended even one person at Wikipedia, I will apologize. If I have fought hard for my beliefs against someone who belittles me in public, then sir, I will never apologize but I will never stoop to their level of hurling insults. Being polite helps create bonds of goodwill between all peoples of all nations and races, And, as to my conduct Mr. Bauder, sir, should I use the example set by all those contributors at Talk:Communist state and its archives? Triton
Triton, I see above an excellent example of combativeness. Whether you are right or wrong becomes irrelevant. Fred Bauder 10:13 29 May 2003 (UTC)
Fred Bauder: I regret that I must disagree because I see nothing combative here except for someone being clear, precise and asserting facts which anyone does after having been degraded publicly. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your interpretations, and I respect that fully while not sharing your view and expressly state here and now that my words to you have no intent to be combative whatsoever. I repeat what I have said before: If my ability to express myself in English in Wikipedia to your complete satisfaction is unacceptable and I am being disrespectful or abusive, then take up the issue with Mr. Wales and have him rule that I should leave. Meanwhile, sir, would one not consider the example of Talk:Communist state as beyond combativeness, a matter in which you were very much involved? Was not the conduct of the participants in this discussion a very core issue both on the talk pages as well as the WikiEN-l Archives? I must note how you could not have missed the repeated demands by User:Dante Alighieri in these discusssions that I answer his questions. So, in this vein, I asked you a simple question which you did not answer and I repeat it here:
- "as to my conduct Mr. Bauder, sir, should I use the example set by all those contributors at Talk:Communist state and its archives?"
Because you have chosen to intevene here, you might explain why it is I must answer Dante Alighieri’s questions, but you sir, find it unnecessary to answer mine? Do we have different conduct for different people at Wikipedia? I might suggest your accusation of combativeness is, in my intrepretation, an unwarranted, antagonistic interference and as best I am able to understand your words, combatative, intended to provoke anger rather than elevate quality debate. But again, that is only my intrepretation, I might be misunderstanding your words, past and present. Nevertheless, may I extend my hand in gracious cooperation? I profess no great expertise on the issues at hand, just a desire to help out so if I can assist you with the input you want to give on the issues being debated here, namely the List of French monarchs and Clovis I, then I would very much like to do whatever I can to be of assistance to you. Meanwhile, I look forward to your reply, while respecting your constitutional (Universal) right to do so or not, to my second request of the unanswered question above directly related to your example of personal conduct. Thank you Mr. Bauder, sir. May you have a blessed and joyous visit at Wikipedia. Triton
And, a response to your very correct statement above regarding combativeness: "Whether you are right or wrong becomes irrelevant." That sir, is my entire point. Had Ms. JHK edited and improved my work after proper research, I would have no objection, my abilities are limited, and in fact I would have been very grateful for her (or anyones) valued input. But, Ms. JHK did not and simply removed my work without reason and dismissing it with snide remarks degrading me. Therefore my text additions, right or wrong become irrelevant to the only matter: disgraceful and unacceptable conduct by a participant at Wikipedia. Triton
Message I posted to Mr. User talk:Maveric149
- Mr.Maverick, sir, thank you for your posting, pointing out the derogatory remarks made by Ms. User:JHK against User:Jacques Delson. It certainly adds to my complaint that she had made derogatory remarks about others, this time Mr. Delson and the entire population of Canada. It’s too bad, because I looked at his contributions on sports and Mr.Delson had done a huge amount of valuable work in extremely great detail. Wikipedia needs people like him but he said her behaviour was making him leave Wikipedia. It appears from his contribution dates that he has indeed left. Too bad, he is one more that Ms. JHK has driven away. Thank you again for helping me. May the prophet bless you. Triton
- "as to my conduct Mr. Bauder, sir, should I use the example set by all those contributors at Talk:Communist state and its archives?"
- I don't recomend that. But you change the subject... Fred Bauder 18:36 29 May 2003 (UTC)
Mr Triton, sir. I politely request that you desist in your defamatory comments. If you are Mr. Delson or if you are a friend, that's fine, but since you weren't party to the conversation, it's really none of your concern. However, to put your mind at rest, although the tone may have been unpleasant, the question is in fact one of genuine curiosity. It seems (from things these users have said about themselves or the types of articles in which they are interested) that the vast majority of the people arguing the French nationalist case are in fact Canadian. I would like to know if this has something to do with retaining a unique French identity in a mostly English-speaking country? I find it interesting that these issues seem much more important to people living outside of France than it does to our French wikipedians. Perhaps you can explain these things. Otherwise, I wil only point out that you made a very nasty comment about user:kt2's ethnicity that in fact did drive him away from contributing to the pages in question. SO might this just be the pot calling the kettle black? All the best JHK
Oh, and Mr,. Triton? I notice when you posted your comments about me on Maverick's page anonymously (the ones he moved to Jacques Delson's page) that you have absolutely no problem with your command of English. ALso, if you read through M. Delson's comments (try user contributions) you'll notive that heis the one who told me I should leave the 'pedia. I find it interesting that that leads you to believe I somehow drove him off. JHK
Thanks for calling my attention to the changes to Austrasia. I actually like having all the Frankish monarchs in one list, so I just added links to the list from Austrasia and Neustria, the anon list creator having neglected to do so. BTW, I'm generally on JHK's side in regard to the Merovingians - my comment on wikien-l was really about the meta-issue of how one creates an article that will be stable when the sources are contradictory. Take a look at Chordate and its talk page to see a discussion about taxonomic issues that are just as difficult as French monarchs, yet no one is accusing anyone of evildoing. (Even if others fall short of the ideal, you should never let yourself sink to their level.) Stan 05:35 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Since you seem to think that my attempt to engage you in dialogue and clear up some issues was a demand on my part, I hereby rescind all questions. Rejoice, for you are free of my demands! Oh, and congratulations on your very sudden achievements in your skills with the English language, you must have a very good tutor.
--Dante Alighieri 09:05 30 May 2003 (UTC)
- Given your comments on my talk page, and my reply, I am confused why you continue to refer, in the present tense, to my attempts to engage you in dialogue? I thought you had made it clear you no longer wished to converse, and I thought that I had made it clear that I was willing to comply. Given that, would you mind not using the following (from Talk:List of French monarchs) imprecise language about me:
- Instead, you (the reference here is to llywrch -DA) MR. User John somebody (sic) and Dante User Alegh??? (sic) and User Elequence (sic) and Usr:JTdrlfireman (sic) and God knows who else, keeping (sic) asking me to repeat what I've already said, plus ask a new question to add to my dilema (sic)
Thanks. Oh, and no response necessary. --Dante Alighieri 23:39 30 May 2003 (UTC)
because you brought it up to such a high level, her our answer Quote Viking (I think in this mess): "if you are interested and capable: read the German or Dutch sites of our project, those correspond to the laws (which is much more liberal, even in Germany)" -- Where on earth did you get the idea that an American based company who offers a page in the German language must conform to the laws of the country of Germany. Was that from paragraph 3(a) from the California Civil Code of Gilbert? Triton
Triton: (sorry we can not address you better, you have no user page) allow us to answer to your brought up question: We meant of course the USA law - sorry about the confusion on your side - and if it is within the USA law it is within the German law, which is broader (opener) in respect to pornography - sorry about our language Viking 14:52 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Mr. llywrch - Regret sir, I never noticed your input on this above the others when I came back and I responded to Ms. JHK and Mr. Dante who I saw. Before you even intimate even the slightest of disrespect on my part, would you in the future please give me the benefit of the doubt -- always until I break any trust or lie, or make derogatory remarks to you or your contributions? My willingness to cooperate and massive, I repeat massive, documentation and responses to questions from many (note I get the many, many, many, many, questions demanding I reply AT ONCE to anywhere from two to seven places) (note there is total inconsistency as to how or where different people post questions but by God I had better find them) does derserve some degree of respectful consideration. Do you agree? As I think I may have stated somewhere in Wikipedia already, there are people who use this tactic to gang up and wear one down then accuse them of not responding to questions and being uncooperatiuve. Then, as you will see if you read these pages thoroughly, after I have listed numerous specific reliable sources, several mutiple paragraphs later, they then state I provided no proofs. Too, I gave one proof where a line later I was told if I had that proof then it was a different matter, So, I saud read my reply but that did not mastter and with great respect to that user, he was caught dead wrong making a statement. But, no, I am still grilled, told I don't listen to their proofs? And of course I would listen to you. I appreciated you stating you have no formal training, and admired your detailed research despite that. On the Internet people can claim anything or take any identity so you being so open is appreciated. I didn't specifically invite your opinion to ignore you. Have I done or said anything to give you reason to believe I act that way. If so, sir, please point it out and I will apologize. But dealing with who or who may not have ruled over what we have called Germany for only 100 (?) years or its predecessors is a separate task that was/is being done at Wikipedia, isn't it? I must assume that Encyclopedia Britannica, and the University of Washington and all the others have dealt with that issue. Would they not have? Or would they have ignored it and made their encyclopedias and university courses anyway? You said: "that some people believe Clovis founded the French kingdom." That insinuates there are those of credible standing who diasagree with Britannica, the numerous reputable authors I listed, the University of Washington and more. That sir, and again with all due respect, appears to me as being left in the air unfinished. I have never found even one credible source who disagrees so before we blaze new trails here and contradict so many undoubted sources, we should provide the names and creditenials and published works of the "Some" who disagree. Then we can all assess the facts on both scholary points of view buit I for one would refrain from such a scholarly task. I stand in acceptance with the sources named that I have listed already. Until someone produces credible contrary opinions in a succinct list as I did (with multiple repeats), how can anyone judge that Encyclopedia Brittanica et al is wrong? In all honesty, I am not qualified to overule Britannica or any of the other scholars listed already. So lets look at the "some" you say who do. Then of course, we have the Roman rulers of Britain to add to their list to discuss along with and all the various chietains in Scotland plus Spain, Italy, and every other country in the world on Wikipedia where we have or may soon have a list of monarchs or foreign rulers or temporary conquerors to add. Thank you, sir. Triton
- I'm sorry that I jumped to the conclusion, Triton, that you were ignoring me. I'll try to be more patient & understanding in the future: I have a problem with that, & it has given me problems in the past.
- If you had broken up your response into smaller paragraphs, I could respond directly to your point, but if you don't mind I'd like to quote a few sentences of yours to help create the context. You wrote:
- "You said: 'that some people believe Clovis founded the French kingdom.' That insinuates there are those of credible standing who diasagree with Britannica, the numerous reputable authors I listed, the University of Washington and more. That sir, and again with all due respect, appears to me as being left in the air unfinished. I have never found even one credible source who disagrees so before we blaze new trails here and contradict so many undoubted sources, we should provide the names and creditenials and published works of the 'Some' who disagree."
- Well, I for one disagree with the assertion that Clovis founded the Frnech kingdom, & I set my argument forth above -- that it could be argued that Clovis also founded the later German kingdom. A continuity of political entities can be traced between the two. So the question then becomes, am I a credible person? Do my opinions matter? I would hope so, but I understand that it would not be practical for every opinion -- or perhaps any -- of mine to be recorded in the Wikipedia. But since my opinion can be implied -- I'd prefer this word to insinuate, if you don't mind -- by using the word some, or the word many, then I am satisfied.
- Would you agree with this?
- You wrote later: "Then of course, we have the Roman rulers of Britain to add to their list to discuss along with and all the various chietains in Scotland plus Spain, Italy, and every other country in the world on Wikipedia where we have or may soon have a list of monarchs or foreign rulers or temporary conquerors to add."
- I don't understand your point. Could you explain this to me? If you'd like, feel free to put a response on my User Talk page -- I'll look both there & here for your response. -- llywrch 04:51 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Thank you Mr. User:Llywrch -- In response to my sugestion we use the list form I gave you from the University of Washington that lists the French monarchs I then suggested a wording of explanation for the article. Ms. JHK then stated: "Perhaps another alternate solution would be to reverse the chronology, with annotations at each segment, explaining the relationship of each dynasty to the one before? By reversing, we could then include Roman rulers, and then step backwards to Gallic chieftains." Thank you, sir. Triton
I am now officialy going to take a rest and eat. ALL new questions below this only, please. Triton 02:22 31 May 2003 (UTC)
I'm sorry I couldn't respond to you before you were called away from Wikipedia, Triton. If you'd like to continue our conversation when you return, drop me a note on my User Talk: page, & I'll try to promptly pick up the thread of our discussion. Good luck to you! -- llywrch 01:26 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)