User talk:Geoffrey

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! 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 or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi Geoffrey, feel free to change the way I phrased the Iraqi reports. I was just attempting to pull all of the official Iraqi government statements together in one place. -º¡º

RE Meta: Thanks. :) --mav

---

Hi!
I've just been looking at les Invalides and your excellent four pictures are too wide. What I mean is that they make me scroll my 1024 by 768 screen to see them all and this is irritating to the reader. Three across the screen should be OK but not four. Could you rearrange them please?
Thanks Adrian Pingstone 16:46 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

They're not my pictures, they're Isis's - I just put them in that table. ;-) Strange, though, it worked fine on my 1024×768 screen (WinXP, Mozilla). But I changed them to a 2×2 square arrangement - it definitely wouldn't've worked on 800×600 or less screens. Geoffrey 01:37 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Bad news! The right hand two pics (on Internet Explorer 5.5) are half on my 1024 by 768 screen and half off. In other words, there's a lot of white space between the pics. Any other ideas?

Adrian Pingstone 08:03 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...I see. IE and Mozilla render stuff very differently. I think the problem was the table width="100%" tag. I changed it to width="600" (pixels) - it's now looking the same on IE 6.0 and Mozilla 1.3. Only thing is 640×480 screens will still have to scroll - but they have to scroll to see an entire Wikipedia article anyway. Geoffrey 21:33 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine now.Thanks.

Adrian Pingstone 22:21 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, I think you are going to need to re-insert your comments into User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0. The formatting went quite bizarre after your change and Wik reverted it. I just tried to put back in what you wrote but something strange happened and all of a sudden my name was all over it suggesting I had written things there when I hadn't! Good luck trying to re-do it. Angela

---

Geoffrey,

In answer to your queries:

Isn't the NRSV incompatible with Wikipedia's GFDL?

AFAIK, it appears from my reading of the GNU FDL, the NRSV is incompatible with the GNU FDL.

Where did you get the "permission" listed on your user page?

I copied the notice you seen from the permissions page on the NRSV website ( http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/permiss.html ). I put the notice there to inform Wikipedians and others were the quotes came from.

You ought to use King James or something uncopyrighted.

That's a good idea.

As to the Authorized Version, that would be a good idea. However, the AV is under copyright in the UK. The SAERV of 1901 would a better choice. Thank you for pointing out my error.

Mea Culpa.

hoshie

---

The AV is copyrighted? Who did that!? :-)

Yes, the AV is copyrighted in the UK. See http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/king_james_copy_pr.htm.

This SAERV (Standard American English Revised Version, maybe?

SAERV stands for Standard American Edition, Revised Version, also known as the American Standard Version.

My ISP won't connect to much except Wikipedia right now)

I've been there many, many times.

may work, because 1901 should mean public domain in US, but...isn't there a Net Bible translation that's open content?

A couple of years ago, I had the ASV/SAERV on my site. Before putting it there, I checked into the C/R status. You are right: 1901 is public domain in the US. In the second part, you are refering to the NET Bible. See http://www.netbible.org. It's copyrighted, and from what I heard, permission is hard to get. There is also the World English Bible. See http://www.worldenglishbible.org. It's PD, but not done yet.

hoshie

Foster

I don't remember where I got the 1891 date. If there are several sources that say 1881 then that's probably correct. AndyL 06:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

39th Canadian Federal Election

• You weren't quite right saying that law requires the election to be held in 2009. Unlike (notably, although by no means exclusively) the United States, Canada (as a Westminster System) does not have fixed election dates. Instead, elections are called by dissolving Parliament. That can be done (technical details aside) by the Prime Minister at will, or by the government losing a vote of non-confidence. Constitutional law sets a time limit on the duration of any Parliament of five years, so at most five years can elapse between elections. The current Canadian government is a minority government, with no stable majority coalitions, so it is particularly vulnerable to non-confidence motions. I edited your change to the intro sentence, but nice job at cleaning the language up. Majromax 02:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)