User talk:Taw
|
|
Taw, there's a complete list of all TeX/LaTeX/AmsLaTeX symbols at http://wso.williams.edu/how/lshort2e/node61.html AxelBoldt 19:31 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)
see my question at Wikipedia_talk:TeX_markup --user_talk:hfastedge Im sure its as simple as an argument to an imagemagick script or something...
You changed "Lower Oder Valley National Park" to "Lower Odra National Park", as well as other occurrences of the word "Oder" in several articles. That is okay by me, and I don't mind. I'm quite upset about your comment "One more user:H.J. fix". I created that article, and I am not identical with that user:H.J. person, nor do I have any sympathy with her. Please be aware, that not everyone calling a river by its German name is necessarily a Nazi. Regards -- Cordyph 17:21 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)
Taw, why on earth did you change every reference to the Oder river to "Odra"? In case you weren't aware, we have a policy of using English name on the English Wikipedia. The English name for this river is "Oder". I fully realise that this is also the German name, but that unfortunately cannot be helped. The name "Oder" is in overwhelming use in English: every major English encyclopedia uses it, as do news organisations and even the English page (http://www.szczecin.pl/inwestor/uk/index.html) on the Szczecin city website uses it.
Your assertion that these are "user:H.J. fixes" and that you're removing "German propaganda" is grossly unfair and highly POV I would say. As Cordyph above pointed out, this has nothing to do with user:H.J.'s antics, but with Wikipedia policy. You have also changed Oder-Neisse line to "Odra-Nysa line", a title virtually unknown in English. Please revert your changes. Thanks. -Scipius 00:51 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
Or, why don't we just wait a couple more months until the "official English name" changes to the original "ODRA" and everybody's happy? Let's look into the future!
Space Cadet 14:21 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
If the "official English name" agrees with user:H.J., than obviously, there is something wrong with the "official English name"!
167.83.96.20 17:51 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
Why are all of you talking about user:H.J.? I really become furious about this. user:H.J. wrote revanchist, right-wing propaganda. The articles cited above did not contain anything of her disgusting POV. The only "crime" committed in these articles were to use the name, which is the valid name of the river on its western side - this river is partially Polish and partially German, and the name "Oder" is the German name and not the Nazi name of the river. If someone calls this "German propaganda", he must be blinded with ultra-nationalism, as it seems to be in your case.
I repeat, that I do not mind, if we decide to call this river "Odra" on Wikipedia. You may call it whatever you want, but stop annoying the Non-user:H.J.-contributors to these articles with wrong and unfair accusations!
I have taken this subject to the mailing list, so please join us and discuss it there, and try to discuss fairly! Good night -- Cordyph 21:30 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)
I placed a compromise proposal on the Oder/Odra talk page. Please continue the discussion there. Thank you. -- Cordyph 18:45 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
Hey, please don't confuse fascism with being from the United States. Some of us recognize irony in Bush's intent to disregard the U.N. so he can punish Iraq (punishing it supposedly for disregarding the U.N.) Some of us even hate imperialism, though our court-appointed "leader" doesn't want to hear about it. ^_^ Cheers, Koyaanis Qatsi
I'm not saying every American is fascist but this one who wrote that certainly was one. Taw 15:19 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
- Ah. m (_ _) m Koyaanis Qatsi
Why is it inappropriate to move information on the People's Republic of China to the China page? 172
Hi Taw, why did you delete Arnold Schwarzeneggers Image? Did you not read the discussion page? Fantasy 15:19 30 May 2003 (UTC)
- I've seen it but you can't put "fair use" images (well, it wasn't even really "fair use") into GFDL articles. Taw 16:38 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Image use policy does not say so. It is not yet decided, if we can or not, see "copyrighted image - may only be used under "fair use" rules". And a Book cover is "fair use" for me and Zoe, why should it not be? Fantasy 17:07 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It is not ok to blank the China article. Fred Bauder 22:38 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Taw, it was agreed after an exhaustive (and exhausting!) discussion on the w-list and various pages not to turn China into a disambigulation page. The article does need a lot of work but because of the sheer number of links and references, and because any move is guaranteed to provoke edit wars, and for a number of other reasons, that was the clear consensus reached. I thought maybe you didn't realise that. Mav put a comment to that effect explaining that on the relevant talk page and on that basis I reverted to the previous version by Fred Bauder. I hope that clears up any confusion. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:30 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Your input is requested at Talk:U.S. occupation of Iraq. MB 00:26 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop a line to say that the work you're doing on AG mapping looks great! I don't know a lot about cartography in general, but if this mapping thing happens, it would be a fantastic service to many people. Maybe it could be the start of a WikiMap thing, where it can become the main repository of maps for everything from maps of the known universe down to maps of the street and suburb I live in. Great stuff and huge potential! Neolux 19:06, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Do you consider it a good idea to edit a protected page, that is so heavily disputed? Your edit was not only affecting a typo, but one of the highly disputed parts. Just a friendly advice: reverse your edit, otherwise some of the participants could question your sysop status. This is not meant as a threat - I won't do it, but I fear, that others could. -- Baldhur 13:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why are you changing Oder to Odra and Neisse to Nysa. The former are the more common english names. For example in english:
- "Oder River" 4,640 [1] (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Oder+River&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images)
- "Odra River" 2,690 [2] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Odra+River%22&lr=lang_en)
Maximus Rex 17:57, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Odra and Nysa are correct names in English. Oder and Niesse are just German borrowings of the Slovian name (of course German may use whatever names they want). 58 years is enough time for a switch. Taw 18:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
No they are not. English uses Oder and Neisse. Polish uses the spellings you prefer. Secretlondon 18:01, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Oder-Neisse. This name is in britannica online [3] (http://www.britannica.com/search?miid=1210436&query=oder&x=8&y=8). And that argument is pointless. Should we, Poles, use London instead of Londyn since over 500 years is enough time for a switch? And there is also a Vistula river that does not makes any objections from you. Are the only sin of Oder-Neisse name is it's German origin? Przepla 21:01, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Just a little note: We go through all this almost every year. In February Taw had last time the idea to change all occurrences of Odra to Oder, making comments like now ("this river is called Odra and not Oder"), not at all responding to the common sense, that a river may bear more than one name, which may both be correct. At that time we had not as many partisans as now, and it was possible to settle a compromise (see Talk:Odra). Unfortunately it did not last long. -- Baldhur 22:31, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, Tomasz! The name is still Oder, not Odra. As soon as it changes we WILL redirect!
Space Cadet 15:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Taw - there is no consensus to delete images used with permission. As image deletion is permanent can I ask you to stop it? Secretlondon 22:15, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
Further, there a process for deleting copyrighted images. It is Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. Please go via this in future. Morwen 22:17, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Dolly
Undeleted. That image was fine per our current policy. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. I suggest that you do not use your sysop user rights unilaterally again. --mav
I don't know how you do things on the Polish Wikipedia, but here on en:, pages (including image pages and copyright violations) have to go through due process on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion before being deleted. Please respect this process, or I will have to revoke your sysop privileges.—Eloquence 00:47, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
It's not like there's any doubt these were non-free images:
- Maveric149 (Photo of Dolly the sheep owned by Roslin Institute obtained from http://www.roslin.ac.uk/library/ . This image "...may be used free of charge by education, public sector or non-profit making groups
Unless the freedom on Wikipedia became subject of voting, I don't feel obliged to put it there.
And I'm going to use any means necessary to keep Wikipedia free. Taw 00:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- While I agree with you that this particular image should not be used under the conditions given, this is also a good candidate for fair use as it is clearly historically valuable and not reproducible by other means. In any case, this matter has not been settled in consensus, and it is not for you to take any unilateral actions or use "any means necessary" to enforce your point of view.—Eloquence 01:07, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
- So far not taking any action resulted in a lot of unilateral action by those who prefer to dilute the freeness of Wikipedia. There is no consensus to upload "fair-use" images, and even less to upload those explicitely for "noncommercial use". Taw 01:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense. Certainly an image that is explicitly licensed for noncommercial use is easier to defend as fair use (including for commercial use!) than one which is copyrighted without any permission whatsoever. And fair use is a well accepted doctrine on Wikipedia for images which are not obtainable by other means.
- I have restored one of the two images and added a fair use notice to it. From this point on, the matter should be discussed reasonably without any unilateral actions from either party. I have temporarily suspended your sysop status, but will reinstate it if you pledge not to re-delete this image unilaterally.—Eloquence 01:16, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Taw, I've restored your sysop status. --Brion 02:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- And I will remove it again if Taw starts deleting pages without discussion again.—Eloquence 02:24, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I have access to the database too. Taw 02:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- And I will remove it again if Taw starts deleting pages without discussion again.—Eloquence 02:24, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Now you have edited a protected page. This is way over the line, Taw. Both your sysop and developer status are at risk.—Eloquence 02:40, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Assuring freeness of the Wikipedia is much more important than my sysop or any other powers here. Taw 02:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Taw, while I agree with you that the image in question shouldn't be used without clearer permission that we have right now, and I disagree strongly with Erik's unilateral desysoppings, there is a process here. I've listed the image on VfD and would prefer to let things go through at a reasonable pace. While the page is protected please let it be. --Brion 02:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Taw, if you care about Wikipedia's freeness, please concentrate your wrath on the 36,000 odd untagged images, and people who upload untagged images, rather than the tagged ones. Otherwise you're going to discourage people from being honest about the images they upload, and that is in none of our interests. Martin 02:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies please vote to keep it. Cautious 20:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's a small world eh? I was just voting on Poland's betrayal by the western allies , and could have guessed you'd vote the same. :-) Kim Bruning 14:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Accomodation at 21C3
Hello Tomasz,
I'll give you accommodation in Berlin at the 21C3 (if you still need/want). You 'll need a sleeping bag. You are allowed to trink but not to smoke in my flat :-). Please tell me here (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Coma) if you accept :). --Koethnig 13:57, 23 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:
- {{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)
texvc
Hi Tomasz, not sure if this is the best place to reach you. Would you mind having a look at a proposed change (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1594) I filed against texvc on bugzilla? While you're at it, there is another issue (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1182) which I don't know how to fix. Thanks! --MarkSweep 00:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)