User talk:Dbabbitt

Hello Dave, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

• How to edit a page
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages or add another question to the village pump. Angela 01:32, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi :) I'm afraid you can't copy and paste content from the web into the Wikipedia, that's a copyright violation... As a result I've listed Redwall on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/copyvio. If you like, you should write the article in your own words so it doesn't use copied content.

Thanks! :) Dysprosia

---

Please note that Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary. I feel your entry on Babbitt is therefore inappropriate. Please discuss the issue on Votes for deletion if you feel otherwise. Angela 02:27, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Please don't overload the sandbox - the addition made the sandbox blow out to 98k, which is really large for when people want to try out Wiki editing they'll have to wait for all the stuff to load.

If you like, you can make a personal sandbox. For your convenience, here is a link that'll do it for you: User:Dbabbitt/Sandbox

Thanks Dysprosia 03:05, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Concerning the "49 virtues" which you added to the Virtue article.

May I ask - did you just happen to think of an arbitrary 49 yourself or can you cite some published reference?

Are the 49 virtues defined by a particular movement or school of christian theology or ethics? If so, then can I suggest that it might actually be a good idea to create an article dedicated to that particular school or movement and put all the related contributions there.

Without wanting to be too critical, it would seem a better approach than the one you have taken. For example, it is not clear to me that an article describing flexibility requires any discussion of it as a 'virtue', christian or otherwise - a simple dictionary definition of the word would suffice.

Please note this is just my personal point of view. I have no authority here. However, you should be aware that some of your contributions have been listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup by more than one user. Peter Manchester 17:07, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC) See also discussion on Talk:Virtue Peter Manchester 23:29, 24 Nov 2003 (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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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)

authoritarian gov rationing Hubbert peak

I modified your change on the Hubbert peak article and removed "authoritarian goveverment" as all types of government can ration energy, do you agree? Even the U.S. rationed gasoline in the early 1970s. A known troll has come along and reverted my change, if you agree with the change I made to your edit can you be the one that cleans up the mess left by this troll? If so, thx zen master T 04:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be at the same time narrowly defining what an authoritarian government is and broadly defining what a troll is. Any government that tries to help society as a whole and only incidentally help the individual is authoritarian in that respect. Even the U.S. in the early 1970s. Labeling someone a troll I find mildly offensive. Didn't he also refer to you as a troll? Your self-defensiveness is also mildly offensive. I'm just mildly offended today. :-) --Dbabbitt 01:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)