User talk:Palapala
|
|
Contents of this Talk page will be archived in /TalkArchive at irregular intervals.
Hi, the page attoparsec is in itself already a #redirect page; the contents of the former talk page was completely moved over by me, so I do not understand the reason for making talk:attoparsec a redirect as well... --Palapala 09:15, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
- It was to prevent parallel discussions from taking place now that the content of Talk:attoparsec was a subset of that of Talk:strange units. -- Dissident 11:18, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Got that -- Would you know whether this linking takes place automatically when one uses the "move" feature (I did all the copying manually)?
- It does if you check the appropiate checkbox. -- Dissident 22:59, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Thanks for supporting my nomination as an admin...
...I appreciate it. Dpbsmith 10:18, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Red links on VfD - these are apppearing as admins believe that some are speedy deletion candidates. Some are, and some may be more borderline... Secretlondon 19:41, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- There appears to be no discussion... unless it is on IRC. Secretlondon 21:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Orphans
Orphan pages are pages that don't have any links to them. For a disambiguation page this is a good thing - although I think that if they are listed on the list of disambiguation pages they shouldn't make the orphaned pages list (I think they are cross referenced).
A redirect page that is an orphan isn't a problem either - an article that is an orphan is - a link to that page needs to be made somewhere. Secretlondon 18:23, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Franco German locomotive
Hi, I noticed your edit to the above, removing "A locomotive that for euroenthusiastic pushes to rise all the rest of European Union to became as the most powerful and splendid power of all times of the human mankind." Got to say I've been fighting a losing battle with this guy, similar fantastical claims have been posted on France and Germany. Thanks for helping out!! Mark 10:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Vacuum Propeller
I want to give some comments on Vacuum Propeller, as you are busily defending the article and stay on the sane side.
- I'm all for including any bogus science, if it gets a notable and sustained coverage in public discussion. As an example see de:Biofoton and its VfD discussion. I don't think Vacuum Propeller qualifies on this aspect. Perpetuum Mobile heavily qualifies.
- I'm all against this:
- There is a big problem X
- Given a minority view on physical theory Y, this problem is easily solved.
- We name this hypothetical solution Z and tell everybody about it, including prominent coverage in the Wikipedia
This is just sensationalist. This approch tries to compensate the speculative reasoning behind the solution, with the easiness of the hypothetical solution.
So, in my not so humble opinion, the right thing to present this, is in the article of "Physical Theory X". This also helps with the problem, that some inventors of hypothetical solutions are rather unclear, which theory their hypothesis should employ.
So, at Casimir effect, a carefully NPOVed statement about the hypothetical Vacuum Propeller may be added.
An if you are rather bold, you also can try the the Neutrino Plasma Propeller drive at Neutrino.
Pjacobi 08:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hubble-barn
Hubble-barn on List_of_strange_units_of_measurement was commented out by you with the edit summary of "last entry awaiting confirmation". What sort of confirmation were you looking for, and have you got it? I've added a note to the commented out portion explainting why, but it would be better to just add it or remove it if you have got your conformation...
- Removed the commented-out section because I have been unable to verify the formula as given by the source... --Palapala 06:41, 2004 Oct 21 (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)
Images
First of all, thanks for uploading all those images, particularly those from the Albert Hofman Foundation and those from SIDI Sportsmanagement. Just a few leftover images without image copyright tags.
Is Image:Airkz 2004-0129 poster la cage.jpg part of the movie poster? Then, you can tag that as {{poster}}.
Are Image:Airkz 20040716 metal paperclip.jpg and Image:Airkz 20040717 heinrich hertz turm00.jpg your own images? You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.
Just so you know. I put Image:Airkz 20040428 aram khachaturian.jpg and Image:Airkz 20040206 Karlsruhe Stadtwappen.png up for deletion because they're simply reduced size version of other images. You don't need to add reduced sized version since we can resize the image on the pages themselves.
Also, I curious why you believe Image:Airkz 20040205 orang utan.jpg to be in the public domain? It seems unlikely since this was from a company.
Lastly, looking at your tools page, I hope you don't still use that old HTML for images. I believe that this and this page can show you how to use the simplier (in my opinion) Wikipedia syntax. If you need help with anything at all, just let me know at my talk page. Thanks so much, Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Image:Airkz 20040716 metal paperclip.jpg
| Image deletion warning | The image Image:Airkz 20040716 metal paperclip.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information. |
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 11:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
"Jury rig" etymology source
I've removed the cryptic reference to Walter William Skeat in Jury rig because it doesn't provide any concrete information. If you know in what work Skeat (first) provides this argument, please add it back with an appropriate citation in the References section. Thank you. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)