User talk:Adam Conover

"New Default Theme (reminiscent of Safari)". How is that derogatory? Maybe New Default Theme, layout derived from Safari would be better? -- Wikisux 07:47, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

I interpreted your addition as being an accusation that Firefox ripped off Safari's layout. I guess this wasn't your intention, but personally, I don't find the one reminiscent of the other any more than IE is reminiscent of Netscape. To say that it's derived from Safari is even stronger, and implies that the layout consciously mimicked Safari. Do you have any evidence of this? If you can present some, I don't really have any objections. However, I'm not really sure that that informtion is relevant in the table of browser changes to begin with -- the fact that there was a new layout at all is what's important. Adam Conover 20:57, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

PD Classical music

I gave you a refrence for PD classical music at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Gentgeen 00:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. Conover 00:47, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Request for article

Can u write an entry on evidentialism? Thanks in advance. Andries 20:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reply from Snoyes

Thanks for the message you left me. At the moment I'm not nearly as active on wikipedia as I was, and would like to be. But I did see your formation of the wikiproject "philosophy". I'll be glad to contribute what I can. - snoyes 10:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

re: Recursion & MediaWiki

see MediaWiki talk:List of people R for a scheme that may also help you. This is part of something in development, so i didn't post it on Pump at this point, just to you semi-privately. If not self-explanatory, i'll try to respond to questions. --Jerzy (t) 02:31, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

User:Wikiwikifast

Do you know why this user changed the contents of the Philosophy task list from a set of msg: tags? [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:PhilosophyTasks&diff=0&oldid=3144576) Mr. Jones 17:40, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe he was correcting my error. When I was converting the task box to its current format (content at Template:PhilosophyTasks and layout at Template:PhilosophyTasksBox), I think I accidentally put the layout code where the content was supposed to go. Either way, it looks like everything is in good shape now. — Adam Conover † 19:42, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects from Article to Wikipedia namespace

from the pump

Is it appropriate to create redirects from the article namespace to the Wikipedia namespace? For example, I was looking for Wikipedia:Article series just now, so I typed "Article series" into the go/search box, and found an empty page. Since one of the purposes of redirects is to make it easier to find thing, I was about to create a redirect to the Wikipedia namespace page, but then realized that this might be good practice. What should I do? — Adam Conover † 04:53, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

There are many, many, many existing redirects to the Wikipedia namespace. Case in point, Village pump redirects to Wikipedia:Village pump. Hell, Redirect redirects to Wikipedia:Redirect. Just don't create redirects to another wiki. -- Cyrius|&#9998 06:08, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Done and done. — Adam Conover † 06:11, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

There are many such redirects for historical reasons (originally we didn't have namespaces). But we shouldn't create more without good reason. Everytime we make explicit reference to Wikipedia within the article namespace we make things more difficult for re-users of our content. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:30, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello Adam! I think you should have a look in Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context and in Wikipedia:Facebook for different reasons. Cheers, MvHG 08:31, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Muriel. I assume you noticed my random-page-editing last night, which involved a lot of year-linking -- I had never been directed to that page before, and had thought that linking every year was standard wikipedia practice. Is there anything else I should be aware of? — Adam Conover † 14:57, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Gah

Thanks for removing the sig. I have no idea what the hell I was doing when I signed that. Clearly not paying attention. In any case, good edit. :) Snowspinner 18:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Follow-up. No, I think you NPOVed it the right amount. It's a pretty controversial position, in no small part because the anthropology is really under-analyzed right now, and there's not really any agreement on how to contextualize any of his political/sociological stuff with the rest of his philosophy. (My favorite view, I admit, is that the entire Metaphysic of Morals is somewhat tongue in cheek, since it's impossible for any state to meet the requirements for a "valid state" that Kant sets up). In any case, thanks for cleaning up after me. Snowspinner 19:03, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Philosophy of space and time

What's your thought on this article? Something about it makes me suspicious, but it's not enough my area to make any firm statements about its flaws, beyond being kind of suspicious that it's in any way a substantive branch of philosophy. But I could well be very wrong. Snowspinner 20:06, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm the author and maybe I have not done the subject justice, but I doubt you can speak to this since you didn't know that it is a Huge area of philosophy.

I don't think that "philosophy of space and time" is a specific subfield of philosophy, but it is certainly a philosophical issue. A better title would probably be "philosophy and space and time". I'm moving the page now. — Adam Conover † 02:25, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article of the week

The (astroturf) nomination for The Yankees overwrote the header for Duet's nomination, wiped out the comments for that nomination, and left the "Support" sigs intact. The DB server was having difficulties as I was trying to post, so I reverted out your comment. Sorry! I didn't realize you had been there; should have paid more attention. - jredmond 23:05, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

RfA

I've recently been nominated for administrator status over at RfA. Since we've worked together on a couple of philosophy articles, and since you're more familiar than a lot of people with my work on Wikipedia, I thought you might want to offer an opinion on the matter. I'd appreciate any vote you can offer, either for or against the nomination. Thanks very much. Snowspinner 14:21, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Moving articles instead of copying and pasting them

Hi. I noticed you copied and pasted the article at Eric Gagne and moved it Eric Gagné. However, please use the move page feature rather than copying and pasting because moving also transfers the history of the article to its new location, which is something that just copying, pasting and redirecting the old article can't do. Unless, of course, there is an article where you want to move it to (like in this case), then please ask an admin to delete the page to redirect to so that the article can be moved there.

Thanks. RADICALBENDER ★ 19:38, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Image: Thales.jpg

On April 11th, you posted this image of the bust of Thales.

Unfortunately, no information has been supplied as to the author of the photo, the source and/or copyrights of the image. Could you please see that appropriate information appear on that page. Or, since no article actually links to that image, it may be better to put a request for its deletion, so that nobody is tempted to use it on any wikipedia (as I did on the French wikipedia ;-)). Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 01:32, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I will answer here to your question regarding the stamp. Yes, I think it would be an appropriate alternative. Since I'm not admin (AND even if I were), I would not delete the file myself. I asked for its deletion because an admin on the French wikipedia told me to. You know, I was disappointed as well, when they did. But now it is up to other users to give their opinion on that matter, and to the admins to decide whether or not it is deleted. However, I suggest you check the article on public domain image resources or place a request on Wikipedia:Requested pictures. Perhaps someone has copyright free picture of the same bust. It is nice to know that "we are not alone" ;-) No hard feelings then? Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 04:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dispute

Discussion on this matter is clearly impossible. I am very disappointed with the lack of integrity that you and the other user displayed in this matter, but there seems to be no productive use in continuing. Stirling Newberry 00:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pattern language

I've expanded and (I hope) clarified the article on pattern languages ... while making a few newbie faux pas along the way, I now realize! ;) The design pattern page also needs some work, and possibly some material should be moved around between them. But since you commented on the page a while ago, I'd be interested to know what you think. Wordie 17:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yupster

Hi, you took out yuppster's current place of employment under the reason of wikification. Please explain your reasoning. ZaQ 23:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:42, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Factor/Factory

In the Tobacco article, "factor" wasn't a typo -- I've read it as a traditional term for snuff processors. I'm curious to know if you changed it because you believe it inapplicable nowadays (in which case I'd like to know more), or because you thought it was a typo. -Ben 05:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I remember, a factor was originally a person or firm who did the processing of snuff. I'll have to take a closer look at my references -- part of the problem is that most of the ones I have access to deal with the colonial period to the 1920s, which is very applicable to dry snuff but not at all to moist. -Ben 19:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Adam_Conover"