User talk:Marnanel
|
Contents |
Drop by, have a cup of tea
Hey Marnanel -- you seem to be another editor who knows quite a bit about interactive fiction. I'm making a concerted effort to flesh out the IF articles around here -- the first one I've worked on is Inform. Do you feel like helping out? We could divide up tasks. Adam Conover 19:57, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd love to. What needs doing? Marnanel 20:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Well, IIRC there's not much in Glulx. Unfortunately, I'm not as familiar with it as I am with Inform. We could also use more information on the Z-machine, I think. As for Inform I've been trying to give it a more full treatment as a programming language, and I think that TADS could use the same sort of work. Finally, I'm hoping to document more of the important works and events in modern IF history -- the "Notable Games Written in Inform" section of Inform makes a brief stab at that, and a few of those games and authors have their own articles. In general, though, I think it would be terrific if we could create a lot of encyclopediac material about the works that deserve it, and integrate it into a sort of timeline. What are you thoughts? Adam Conover 21:51, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
- I know a bit about Glulx, so I could put that together; I don't know that much about TADS, though. Modern IF history (games, people) certainly need some description, yes-- if a game wins the IFComp it's probably worth writing about, and there are many others. (I like the writeup at Photopia, and the way it concentrates on the influences the game had and made within the genre.) Once we get that underway a little, we might invite ideas from rec.arts.int-fiction about what articles are needed. I'm not sure what else can be said in a brief nontechnical overview of the Z-machine. I looked at Java virtual machine for comparison, but that entry has even less about the guts of that virtual machine. Marnanel 01:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know... Java virtual machine looks pretty technical to me! And no, I don't know that much about TADS either. Perhaps we could co opt someone? As for the other stuff, I don't know if you hang out on ifMUD, but I was trying to pick some brains there. The definition I decided on for the "Notable Games" listing in Inform were "Games that were milestones in the history of interactive fiction" -- that is, games that established trends or set major watermarks -- and I tried to describe how they did so in the list. What do you think of that definition? Also, maybe we should set up a page to dicuss this effort separately? From what I gather, a WikiProject page isn't exactly what we'd be looking for, but perhaps something in between? We could make up a list of tasks, etc. Interested? Adam Conover 01:46, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
Arms
Hi. When you add arms to pages with a box, could you make them actually int he box? Like what i've done to Chiltern (district) - having them stacked side by side isn't really very appealing. One day we will have a better countrybox like format. Morwen 22:50, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Oo, sure, will do. Marnanel 22:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Flag of Scotland
Howdy. I think your new image for Flag of Scotland is a great improvement its chubby predecessor. I wonder if you could do me a favour - could you possibly produce an identical version, only with the azure as something near to Pantone-300 (which photoshop says is around rgb(0,103,198) == #0067c6). I think the article should show both - one your more traditional sky-blueish one, and the second the cryptostandard pantone 300 one. Given the entertaining colour-discussion in the article itself, does that seem like a good idea? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Sure, how's this?
- Marnanel 19:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Excellent, thankyou. I've updated the article accordingly, making it look accurately muddleheaded :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
---
What's your problem, doc? 666 21:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Read the talk page. AFAICS, it's not listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, so it shouldn't have the VFD message. Marnanel 22:12, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
thnx man Privacy is good 01:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Screaming Lord Sutch
I read in the Gueiness Book that he contested every election he ever ran in. Therefore, if he contested over 40, he must have ran in over 40. user:J.J.
Ahh, okay, fair enough. I guess the word has a different meaning in the UK. Here, to "contest" means to challenge.
Table placement
Hi, and thanks for fixing the table in BBC Micro#Specifications. Do you by any chance know how one would horizontally adjust such a table within a bullet list? The best placement would undoubtedly be in line with the lists indentation at the level the table is placed in. So far a method of attaining this has eluded me... Any hints would be appreciated. --Wernher 09:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Extreme POV Edits to Articles
I agree that that sort of nonsense is absolutely unacceptable. It's purely an opinion based on a personal agenda, and there's a place and way to note that -- but that guy wasn't interested in following policy. But note that he's put it in twice! He probably won't stop. We may have to get him banned. jaknouse 19:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
My username
I replied on my talk page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
comment
His comment was so insipid, self-important, and infuriating it simply had to be responded to. I did have to spend some time making the response civil, though <g>. In light of your remarks, I'm happy you saw it. I hope the original author sees it as well, and takes a moment to reconsider his remark...but let's not hold our breath! All the best, - Nunh-huh 16:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
80x15 link button
- from the pump
In case it's useful to anyone, tonight I made this:
It's the vaguely-standard link button size of 80x15. Feel free to use it to link to Wikipedia. Marnanel 01:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I've added a link to it under Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. —Steven G. Johnson 02:11, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the nohat logo is not GFDL. See m:Logo -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:27, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Given what I see there, Finlay, I would argue that Marnanel's work is derivative, and that nohat's only request for derivative works is that they be released under the GFDL, which it's my understanding that Marnanel's work is. Is there a section I'm misreading? Jwrosenzweig 19:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- My understanding is that nohat hasn't yet agreed to the terms on that page, so they're pending terms, not current ones. On the assumption that he does approve them, those terms request that derivative works be licenced under the GFDL (I think that implies, but doesn't prove) that the original isn't GFDL - the restriction would already be there were the original GFDL. Don't misunderstand me - I'm not critisising Nohat or Marnanel or their work at all (they're lovely - the work, that is). Indeed, I think that the logo and marnanel's button shouldn't be GFDL. Just like the wikipedia trademark, ideally they'd belong to Wikimedia (or have Wikimedia in particular be granted a rather broad licence to them). If the logo were GFDL, then any of our mirrors could blithely use them, change them as they saw fit, and change the link target to point not to wikipedia but to the mirror. By way of a (somewhat extreme) example, Sun Microsystems has a "jump to java" webbutton, the only redistributable use of their "Duke" character (roughly a logo for their Java technology). The terms they impose on users of the webbutton is that the button be accompanied by html (essentially, the link text and destination) supplied by Sun. So you couldn't use their button but point it somewhere else. That seems like a reasonable thing we'd like to think about for users of buttons like Marnanel's (and, not to belabour the point, but that's something we can only achieve if the image isn't GFDL) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Given what I see there, Finlay, I would argue that Marnanel's work is derivative, and that nohat's only request for derivative works is that they be released under the GFDL, which it's my understanding that Marnanel's work is. Is there a section I'm misreading? Jwrosenzweig 19:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"assumed fair use"
Hello. I saw your upload of the NJ Transit logo. In that description, you say, "used for identification, assumed fair use". Is there a wikipedia policy describing this practice? I'm curious because I'd like to upload some similar logos and want to make sure that it is indeed a fair use. Thanks.--ChrisRuvolo 09:22, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Fair_use covers, I'm led to believe. Marnanel 03:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Looks good, thanks, that clears things up. FYI, I just uploaded a somewhat cleaner versions of the logo that includes their "The Way to Go" tagline. Thanks for getting back to me. I wouldn't have realized logos were fair use if I hadn't seen your contribution. --ChrisRuvolo 06:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
enrolment
Thanks very much. I'll change it back. Yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sidney crestshield
Hi, I noticed you're interested in heraldry and Sidney... do you know what the thing on the right of the sidney shield is meant to be? I've only found little bitmaps on the web which are too small to decipher. Any better image or the blazon would be helpful. Cheers, Lupin 09:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It's argent a bend engrailed sable, impaling or a pheon azure. A pheon is a "broad arrow", the same device that was once printed on prisoners' clothes: perhaps some member of the Sidney family was once in charge of prisons. Marnanel 13:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hedd Wyn
Yes, I do agree with you. Sorry it took so long to reply, I've just come back from the Shetlands. If you have time, check out this entertaining web site - www.unstbusshelter.shetland.co.uk Deb 10:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Maps
Not at the moment. However, I may make one. Morwen - Talk 07:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
GB/UK
Hi there,
I read the text: Lundy is an island in the Bristol Channel of Great Britain and took the word of as possessive. You may be interpreting it more like off. It could probably be interpreted either way in the current from. The wording is a bit weird and probably needs revision.
I read the text: Map of Lundy with inset maps of Great Britain & Bristol Channel and saw that the greater area picture was actually of the United Kingdom. I think that is a reasonable interpretation.
However, I am not too worried either way. Feel free to make further change or leave it.
Thanks.
Bobblewik 15:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
NATO not part of EU
Inference in WEU article and the lack of information on a military side of EU as described on their site and with sidebar conversations I have had with others who do not understand the interdependence of the various organizations. --Tomtom 14:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
White border
- When flown by civilians the flag should have a white border, but this is rarely seen now.
I've never heard of this; what evidence do we have for the assertion? Marnanel 20:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The flag is sometimes refered to as the Pilots' Jack and traces it creation back to 1823 when it was created as a signal flag, and never intended as a civil jack. A book explaining the Act was issued to British consuls in 1855. It states that the white bordered Union Jack is the flag to be hoisted for a pilot, although it was being used by that time as a jack and the use of the Red Ensign for merchant shipping was not established until 1864. There was some ambiguity as to the legality of using as a jack although the practise was not acted upon by the authorities, partly because of fears that it would rise to demands that the merchany fleet be allowed to use the Uion Jack, a practice that the Admirialty did not want for no more than abitrary reasons and a possible superiority complex
- In 1970 the white-bordered Union Jack ceased to be the signal for a pilot, but references to it as national colours were not removed from the current Merchant Shipping Act. It thus became a flag that could legally be flown on a civil ship, as a jack if desired. This status was confirmed by the Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Act 1993. From which prohibits the use of any distinctive national colours or those used or resembling flags or pendants on Her Majesty's Ships, except:
- the red ensign
- the Union flag with white border
- any colours authorised or confirmed elsewhere in the same Act.
- Hence it might well be considered a civil jack, but that only applies at sea. Dainamo 15:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the wales's
Just to let you know thw reply is on page. --garryq 17:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why did you change an image?
At [[Template:United States infobox]], you reverted one of the images. Why did you do this? The other one looked much better. Neutrality 03:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I got your messasge on my talk page. Sounds good, thanks for helping me out. Neutrality 21:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
MacCormick Vs Lord Advocate
Nice article pal!
- Thanks :) It was interesting researching it. Marnanel 16:54, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Image:Mentha spicata.jpg
User:Diberri/Image tag request --Diberri | Talk 23:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Daviđ Oddson
Hi! Thank you for explaining. I didn't know:-( David Cannon 20:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Arms permissions.
I am looking at tagging all the Arms-of images. Reading your notes I can see they are {{permission}} but are they {{GFDL}}? In other words is the owner happy for others to use them provided acknowledgement is made? Rgds Rich Farmbrough 17:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User page protection
I am sending this message to a group of seasoned users whose opinions I respect. My aim is not to draw you into a dispute, but to canvass opinion on a contentious area of policy. If you have a few minutes to spare, please see the debate currently under way at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, with particular reference to user page protection. For some reason, I seem to have fallen foul of a group of sysops who have made it their business to stamp out the practice of protecting one’s own user page. A sensible (in my opinion) proposal has been made to amend the policy, and I would be grateful if you would add your view, assuming you have one. Cheers. Deb 13:19, 2 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 1000 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§ion=new)| talk)
Category:Individual computers
Hello, there. Due to ambiguity, there seems to be a need for said category to be renamed---the new name should most probably be "Category:One-of-a-kind computers". See the "Early computers" category talk page for the discussion about this; pitch in if you like. If you agree with the suggestion, please indicate so on the talk page; it would let us do the practical renaming work much quicker. BTW, thanks for creating the category in the first place! :-) --Wernher 07:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pius question
Ages ago, you posted a question on the Pius XII talk page. Since no one else has replied, I might provide you with this link: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/fatima/immaculh.html Str1977 18:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)