User talk:GPHemsley
|
|
| Contents |
Slackware
And an extra warm welcome to a Slack user! – Jrdioko (Talk) 01:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks! I really should go on there more often.... (I dual boot Windows XP and Slackware, with the default being Windows XP.) GPHemsley 01:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wizard of Oz Changes
Hi. I see the changes you made to the Wizard of Oz article. You only need to link an article once -- you linked 1938 and 1939 every time they showed up in the article, and should only be linked the first time. Also, we don't have articles for month year. RickK 06:02, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I thought about the year thing, but then I said, what the heck. But as for the month year thing, we actually do have them. Prime example: January 2004. GPHemsley 16:45, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, we have them for current years because we've been redirecting the Current Events articles to them, but for years back that far, we don't have such articles. RickK 18:31, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Oh alright.... but maybe you should! GPHemsley 20:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
¿What do you have against just writing "Æ"?
Ŭalabio 08:28, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
- It's not the properly valid format for HTML. GPHemsley 01:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- In the beginning, we hand ISO-646 (ASCII). By the time Text/Html came to be, we had ISO-8859-1.
- From the beginning, Text/Html supported ISO-8859-1. With the rise of ISO-10646 (Unicode), Text/Html embraced Unicode with HTMLv2.0. Application/Xhtml+Xml embraced Unicode from the beginning.
- For legacy-reasons, the original code for WikiPedia.Org could only handle ISO-8859-1. Many of the nonenglish WikiPedia.Orgs now use Unicode. I personally believe that En.WikiPedia.Org should switch to Unicode in the guise of UTF-8.
- To summarize, both En.WikiPedia.Org and Text/Html always supported ISO-8859-1 and Æ is part of ISO-8859-1. In other words both En.WikiPedia.Org and Text/Html have always supported Æ without escapesequences.
- Ŭalabio 04:06, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
- Having not varified any of the information that you provided, I am merely assuming it is all correct. In which case, my synchronizing the usage of Æ was perfectly correct. However, your spending your time to revert to Æ, and then my spending my time to revert back to Æ, were incorrect. However it is now (presumably Æ), is probably the way it should stay, and the way it should continue in the future. Both ways are perfectly valid (from what you are telling me), so, since either way could be used, it's easiest to stay at whatever it is now. GPHemsley 05:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, both are equally legitimate. Indeed, if one has a broken æ-key, I guess that it is perfectly legitimate to escape it.
- Ŭalabio 06:12, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
- Well, to tell you the truth, I don't even have an æ-key. The only way I can get it to display is to use the character code or to copy and paste it. Which is why using Æ (Æ) and æ (æ) are easier to use. This goes for all American keyboards. GPHemsley 03:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I do not have an æ-key either. My OS (Mac Os X) provides an option called Special Characters in the menu Edit, which allows one to insert any one of tens of thousands of characters. The details do not matter. What matters is that we both learned something:
- We both entered a slow edit-war -- at least we were not rabid -- because we believed the other broke compatibility. I am sorry. Before I correct someone in the future, I shall make certain that the other truly errs. I am certain that you will too. I believe that we are both better WikiPædists because of this incident. I hope to cooperate on articles with you in the future.
The Book of Mozilla
Hi,
I (as the person who did the rewrite and made the quotations look more like they do onscreen) saw you made the code for The Book of Mozilla, 7:15 exactly match the code from the about:mozilla page. For the sake of consistancy, do you fancy doing the same for 12:10 and 3:31 too? The MozillaZine copies of the pages (12:10 (http://www.mozillazine.org/misc/about:mozilla/12:10.html), 3:31 (http://www.mozillazine.org/misc/about:mozilla/3:31.xhtml)) use exactly the same code as the originals. I would have a go myself, but my knowledge of <div>s and the like isn't too brilliant.
One thing to bear in mind is that the the first two verses did not specify a font, but just used the browser's default. As this was almost always serif, maybe it should be added as the font for the other two verses (at the momemnt they use the default Wikipedia font, which is sans serif).
One more thing is that the text in 7:15 is a bit smaller than the text appears on the actual about:mozilla page. I guess it's because the sizes are relative to the Wikipedia default, not the browser default. I don't know if there's anything that can be done about that, but the text certainly looks better a little larger.
Lovin' your work.
62.64.141.99 13:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Those points that you brought up were the precise reason I didn't do the other two. I had originally planned to, but I came across those two pitfalls that you mentioned: using the default font, and the fact that they use the original HTML from the about pages (especially notable on the 12:10 (http://www.mozillazine.org/misc/about:mozilla/12:10.html) one, with its atrocious code).
- I'll go back and re-do the code for 12:10 and 3:31, but I'm going to translate their HTML code into the format currently in use by 7:15. If all goes well, it shouldn't make any difference in appearance. As for relative size, there's no easy way to make it bigger properly, as it's a relative size (probably relative to the user's settings). As such, I'll leave the size at its relative settings, which will turn out to be relative to the Wikipedia user's style. GPHemsley 19:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The page looks great! Thank you. You rock!
- 62.64.216.61 11:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you! You're welcome. Thank you! Heh.... GPHemsley 17:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Vandalizing or Incompetence?
Is someone actually vandalizing New York or just making incompetent edits? 67.23.173.21 03:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 149.61.160.161 is repeatedly editing articles such as Long Island and Upstate New York (not New York, to my knowledge) to make it appear as if Long Island is part of Upstate New York. It is not. This person's edits are repeatedly reverted, and then they make similar edits again. It is definitely vandalism. GPHemsley→◊ 03:52, Oct 26, 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)
Flag license
Hi Gordon. You tagged Image:Long Beach, New York flag large.png with Template:Tl. According to the last sentence of that tag, your image isn't automatically public domain. Just to be clear, could you add the Template:Tl tag? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 02:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Sure thing, David. It's done. Now to get the city to put it on their site.... GPHemsley→◊ 04:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
WCBS-FM
I noticed that on the WCBS-FM talk page, you questioned recent edits to WCBS-FM. The only extensive edits I've made on the page is to the possible reasons why the station, despite having decent ratings, decided to change formats. Previously, there was a user, whom I will admit I'm not a fan of, who claimed that the changes occured for the sake of cutting costs. Knowing that this was far from the truth, I set out to show more plausable reasons as to why the station did what it did. I've followed radio for quite some time, and I've followed this new format, as well as how this market came to other markets. Apparently, someone else took one of my reasons and ran with it. I'm sorry if the article ended up this way, but I felt that since this was such a shocking change, some explanations needed to be pointed out. ErikNY 02:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And by the way, I got this message from the user that was responsible for many of the edits. Here's what he said:
- When I wrote my copy regarding the change to WCBS-FM I didn't notice in history that you already took down someone else's copy on the subject. However, before you consider this with mine, I think in the case of WCBS-FM it is different. I am not writing this as one of the 50 or 60 year olds who probably think (and they are not so wrong) that they were mugged for younger listeners, I am only an occasional listener (and mostly for their 70s and early 80s songs) and am much younger than that. The difference between this and the "flips" in other markets is that the station did not have bad ratings, and as I say in the article it was a historic "cultural icon" that even non-oldies fans recognized at events, etc. I do believe that the day may have come down the line for WCBS to change just like what happened to "Big Band" WNEW-AM a generation before, but I think given who the station was and what they represented, it should not have been done in this abrupt a manner, especially given who the station personnel were who were let go with 1 hours' notice. Nor should JACK FM be "dissing" the old station on the air as they are given who it was. So in that sense I do think it is relevant and hope you will let it stay.
- It appears that the main edit that caused the content that I was referring to was made by neither you nor User:hairymon, but actually by User:63.13.249.88. That edit brought a lot of the POV into the article. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WCBS-FM&diff=14740264&oldid=14739629) Your and hairymon's edits were fine. Let's continue this discussion over at Talk:WCBS-FM. GPHemsley→◊ 03:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)