User talk:Skyerise: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:27, 28 July 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Skyerise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly names of towns...

When will you add Yerba Buena to SF and New Amsterdam to NYC? Shouldn't that be the more correct form based on your argument? In the case of Arcata the town was Union for barely a decade. In the Case of New York City, that city was New Amsterdam for some 60 years... Norcalal 23:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what's done on other articles has no bearing really, does it? Isn't that just a red herring? I don't happen to be an editor of those articles and don't really plan to be, so your question is simply meaningless to me.

Actually it does. IF Wiki requires this then fine...and if so, then one could expect uniformity. We are going to have to ask an administrator (not involved) to adjudicate the issue. In the meantime the article is reverted. Norcalal 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My concern is only that an historical article frequently links to another article using the name current at the time of the historical article, sometimes via a redirect. If the former names are not in the first paragraph in bold font, there may be some confusion on the part of the reader as to why they were directed to the article.

June 2009

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to get consensus to move an article

Is there some way to start an official poll of some kind to get consensus to rename an article? Yworo (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could either;

Start a discussion on the article discussion page (in a new section) - explain your idea for renaming, and give reasons. Then, look at the article history and work out who is a major contributor. Leave a brief note on each of their talk pages, asking them to look in on the discussion. You might also ask on related project talk pages for others to add to the discussion.

Or,

Just rename it. Anyone who objects can change the name back, and then you can discuss things. Check out WP:BRD which explains this technique.

For more help, you can either;

Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
Talk to us live, with this or this.

Best wishes, Chzz ► 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages

Hello, Skyerise. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png

Chzz ► 08:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student Prince - Mario Lanza

The fact that many best remember Lanza for the soundtrack of the one film in which his image did not appear certainly deserves something more than the statement as you edited it. These "many" include one of his best known biographers. The text as you edited it certainly is accurate... but it ignores the bizarre circumstances... one might argue circumstances that are unique in the history of cinema. A major film star's best known records were for a film that included only his voice... not his image. That fact is worthy of specific attention. It is one of the most interesting aspects of the story. It certainly requires no editorial license to come to that conclusion. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skyerise. You have new messages at AussieLegend's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SF007#Response Cheers - SF007 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Discontinue your edit waring. Those images are now under free use licenses if you want to have them removed take it to the talk page and get consensus first, if you continue your actions will be raised at WP:ANI and disciplinary actions may be taken. β^_command 18:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say... but it's been done all wrong. The images should have been reduced to low-res, licensed as non-free, then used only on appropriate articles. Yworo (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

free images are better than non-free, and are required by policy. β^_command 18:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

k Yworo (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits

Thank you for your note and interest. Please do not remove terms that have been accepted for use in Wikipedia. Feel free to discuss and cite your sources but avoid removing accepted terms without reaching consensus. --Grandscribe (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one removing terms. So show the "knowledgeable" editors and where it was decided that "free software" is not a valid description and that it should be removed. --Grandscribe (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Grandscribe you are turning things aroung... You are the one inserting it. The onus of evidence/sourcing on WP is on the inserting party, not the other way around. Perhaps you've forgotten? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! Yworo (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 01:01, 28 July 2009 view source Tothwolf (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 10,326 edits →‎Your Edits: comments ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:27, 28 July 2009 view source Skyerise (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 135,674 edits Tothwolf, your comments are not welcome on my talk page, I have no interest in what you think or have to say. Why a Duck? Next edit →
Line 71:		Line 71:

	::THANK YOU! [[User:Yworo\|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo#top\|talk]]) 21:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)		::THANK YOU! [[User:Yworo\|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo#top\|talk]]) 21:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


	I suggest you both knock off the edit warring. Yworo, trying to intimidate Grandscribe with 3RR warnings is not a good idea either.<br />Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time dealing with {{tl\|Infobox OS}}, {{tl\|Infobox software}}, and similar infoboxes in articles, I've found it to be an accepted norm to include both [[Free software]] and [[Open source]] in the infobox. It is also quite possible to have ''Open source'' software that is not ''Free software'' and we have such articles on Wikipedia. As for the actual parameters for {{tl\|Infobox OS}}, the <code>license =</code> parameter is not usually used for a ''[[Free software]]'' wikilink as it is used to describe the specific license(s) used. For comparison charts however (which can be just as space limited as infoboxes), {{tl\|free}} is usually used in the ''Cost'' column and a parameter is use to wikilink to [[Free software]]. The most common mistake I find with all these parameters, both in infoboxes and comparison charts, is the use of [[Freeware]] as the license, which is clearly improper as the majority of ''freeware'' is actually [[Proprietary software]]. In the case of infoboxes, it usually makes sense to list those as "[[Freeware]], [[Proprietary software]]" or some variant thereof (sometimes including a <nowiki><br /></nowiki> break between the wikilinks) and [[Shareware]] is usually handed similarly. --[[User:Tothwolf\|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf\|talk]]) 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)