User talk:Rossumcapek
|
|
Rossumcapek - that's kewl, is it related to Karel Čapek and Rossum's Universal Robots? :-) --Lumidek 23:09, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Of course, now I have to create my user page. :) Rossumcapek 18:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Raw foods
Thanks for merging those two articles. Rosemary Amey 19:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- No problem! --Rossumcapek 21:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
YACHAD
I'm looking for input on the situation with the YACHAD Germany articles. Please take a look at Talk:Yachad (Germany). --Smack 21:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
SEALORDS
Hi, you created SEALORDS. The article is effectively an orphan. Whenever you get to it, please give it a home. Cheers, Jiang 22:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Wow, it's grown. Thanks for beefing it up! As for linking, Google reveals page hits for SEALORD and SEALORDS on John Kerry and 1968#October. I'll see if there's a good place to put it in the Vietnam war article.--Rossumcapek 16:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi, thanks
Just saying hello, and thanks for redoing the headings at Polyhedral dice. ··gracefool |☺ 01:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
TV Naming conventions.
At some point in the past you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy (T) 16:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pauper Magic
I've noticed your vote on VfD and I'd like to tell you that linking to an anchor within an article usually isn't a good idea. Heading names can be changed, causing links like that to be broken. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 07:49, Oct 6, 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:
- {{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)