Being less WP active in the last couple of months, I find myself entering through the Main Page (rather than my browser's bookmarks) more frequently and, whenever I do so, I continue to be impressed with the overall presentation of our "front page". Thanks for your perseverance, intellect and gentle (sometimes) persuasion during those times of change. A very merry New Year to you and to those that are close. --hydnjotalk21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was doing a lot of juggling with the text, wishing that I had done exactly what you suggested, and I had that beginning of '07 on my clipboard so I just dropped it in the archive. It should go in the next archive though, so yeah move it --frothTC03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that you were the one who usually archives it. light current asked for an archive so I figured I'd just do it myself. I'll stay away from it in the future --frothTC03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very glad you liked that quote :D. I've always liked encyclopedias very much, but after a (long) while I generally had already read my particular areas of interest. This thing clearly does not happen with Wikipedia :) I think that due to its nature it is the only encyclopedia project actually deserving its name. --Taraborn22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment in the Terri Schiavo archives questioning linking of dates. Yea - I agree. It seems bizarre to me. If they want to do it, or not do it, they could have a BOT take care of it, either way. But why you would want to link all dates is beyond me.
I think that there is excessive and inane wiki linking across the board.
Being less WP active in the last couple of months, I find myself entering through the Main Page (rather than my browser's bookmarks) more frequently and, whenever I do so, I continue to be impressed with the overall presentation of our "front page". Thanks for your perseverance, intellect and gentle (sometimes) persuasion during those times of change. A very merry New Year to you and to those that are close. --hydnjotalk21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was doing a lot of juggling with the text, wishing that I had done exactly what you suggested, and I had that beginning of '07 on my clipboard so I just dropped it in the archive. It should go in the next archive though, so yeah move it --frothTC03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that you were the one who usually archives it. light current asked for an archive so I figured I'd just do it myself. I'll stay away from it in the future --frothTC03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very glad you liked that quote :D. I've always liked encyclopedias very much, but after a (long) while I generally had already read my particular areas of interest. This thing clearly does not happen with Wikipedia :) I think that due to its nature it is the only encyclopedia project actually deserving its name. --Taraborn22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment in the Terri Schiavo archives questioning linking of dates. Yea - I agree. It seems bizarre to me. If they want to do it, or not do it, they could have a BOT take care of it, either way. But why you would want to link all dates is beyond me.
I think that there is excessive and inane wiki linking across the board.
Thanks for correcting my bad (27/31), I've been misreading stuff lately, and it's frightening. I took the archival creation as a welcome invitation to chuck it away. Hope it didn't mess up your plans. ---Sluzzelintalk 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Ok, I get the picture now. Sorry about the presumptuous archiving. ---Sluzzelintalk01:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NP. I was just waiting a day or so to give Froth a chance to make up his mind about archiving his RD color project. All seems sync'd for now and we can always bring it back if he objects. ~ hydnjotalk 01:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just to give you an idea of how sustainable your antics are, the Godfather theme somehow popped in my head on my way home yesterday, and it made me grin, then giggle, and I caught a few stares. How long ago was it, more than a month perhaps? Anyway, it's up there, in highlight-heaven. Take care. ---Sluzzelintalk02:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a question at each RD just to observe the response time and quality. Please forgive me if this was a stupid thing to do, it was just my own personal experiment and it was not frivolous (I think). --hydnjotalk02:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No way that I can keep up with Sluzzelin's antics, it would take me about a week to find that perfect image. Thanks for your cleverness! ;-) --hydnjotalk05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found your timing of the answers for questions at the Ref Desks interesting. Especially considering I have one on the Science Desk that's been there a few days without an answer. Dismas|(talk)05:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of which question you mean. I did indeed seed an obscure question at each desk just to personally gauge our collective response time, attention and wisdom. I'm left with a feeling of genuine helpfulness from the RDs. I'm also sure that a less obscure question might go unanswered at one time or another but then a refactoring might bring plenty of response. "See" you at the RDs Dismas, from one side or the other. --hydnjotalk00:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Would you care to take a look at my talk page? I have an idea for the reference desk and I would like to know what you think about it. Also, if you understand about bots, your opinion would be really useful. A.Z.02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the people that I have the hardest time understanding here. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough. It has to do with slangs and with that last post of yours. I read it a couple of times and I couldn't figure out just what it meant. I like you, though. A.Z.04:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey A.Z., sorry about the delay in responding, we just screwed up by missing and responding to your your comment/inquiry, it won't happen again.
When we said: Unbelievable! No, un-freaking unbelievable!... and so on we were commenting about the seemingly never ending complaints about the current RD structure and the seemingly never ending suggestions as to how to restructure the RD to the benefit of all.
We were in a bad mood and shouldn't have let that mood impinge on our response as it did. We certainly understand your mis-givings and apologize for our out-burst :-(
Thanks for bringing our ill-advised commentary to our attention as without your insightful response we may not have realized what a stupid commentary we were leaving.
I'm happy with your response! Hey, I don't think that the never ending suggestions are a bad thing! I know they can be quite annoying, as the huge majority of them will turn out to be impossible or absurd or something like that, but I think it is needed that there be people willing to question everything all the time and suggest improvements to things that apparently are already working perfectly. How would anything new be invented if it weren't those people? Candles used to lit the room just fine, yet someone made like 2000 tests with different materials so we could have lamps, which, at first, could have looked like a totally unproductive, time-consuming effort, and probably did, until one day, voilá, the entire world realized that using lamps was a lot better. Why try to make a whole new encyclopedia, if there's already Britannica? And why allow everyone to edit it? Why try to fly and do all that effort to invent airplanes, if we already have great and comfortable huge ships that work just fine? Well, one could say that the airplanes would make people get from one place to the other much more quickly, but, when people first did invent them, they were those little things that could only carry one person for two or three minutes. I don't know if you agree with me now, but I hope you at least get my point!
Point made. Your English is just fine, I understand all that you are saying. Hmmm, lets us think about that for a while! :-) ~ hydnjotalk 03:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed link to personal blog "Today's Worst Wikipedian in the World " which does not aid in creation or add to the betterment of the encylopedia. "Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed. The removal of such material is not subject to the three-revert rule. Linking to attack sites is not permitted and doing so repeatedly may result in a block." See WP:NPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs)
I agree that it is usually not a done thing to edit other people's user page without their permission.
But, (isn't there always a but) I didn't want to create any fuss.
I left the text unchanged, it continued to say: "For more righteous indignation, see my blog", I removed only the offending link.
I see a user linking to their own blog on which they select "Today's Worst Wikipedian in the World" and go on to name one as violating the word and intent of the Wikipedia policies against harassing another user.
Such a link has no place in an encylopedia and does nothing to forward the purpose of "creating and distributing a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in their own language"
OK, and thanks. I don't know if you'll have any success in convincing Kelly to remove the link but you should demonstrate your own good faith by first dealing with it in that way. ~ hydnjotalk 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:CfG SamBrown.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96(talk)23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedia Bookmark.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you may remember,you have an account in our bank User:Bank_of_Wikipedia (or the renamed User:BoW_Bank). Our bank has been destroyed here and all our work and records have been deleted, because they accused us of being a role account. We have tried to revive the bank in wikia, but they rejected us again. If you are still interested in our Bank and in your account there (as I am) I would like you to join wikia and support our request for the creation of the bank.
I'm not as young and certainly not as "innocent" as I was back then in my early wiki-life so I'll decline your kind invitation. ~ hydnjotalk18:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean? Do you think that our bank had (has) an evil purpose and we are trying to find "innocents" to fool them? How is this possible, as long as we are giving to our members the right to decide about ALL the rules of the bank? Other communities, like wikipedia, do not allow people to decide some crucial rules. Honestly, tell us what you think about our bank and what makes you deny us... Time passed, we have now more lucidity. But we are still wondering and cannot understand what is the real reason behind the rejection of the bank. BankOfWikia15:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason you can't contest the prod -- all you have to do is post something more than "this is a company that makes medical equipment." The article is actually empty enough to be eligible for speedy deletion, but I held off after seeing your (good) contribution history. I still don't understand why people have to post these "placeholder" articles -- it's not like there's some other Puritan Bennett that's going to swoop in and grab the article title. Wait until you have a good basic article stub and then post it. NawlinWiki23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your vigilance and as I now understand your rationale I'll not contest the AFD as I'm not prepared to flesh out the article at this time. You're right, I started the article as a placeholder while starting yet another article which linked to Puritan Bennett and was surprised to have it come up red. So, I'll let this one go until I or someone else has the time to do a proper start. My apologies I guess, I've seen this kind of stub-starter before and so I thought that it was OK to do. (ref: Puritan Bennett) - hydnjotalk00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading Image:DSCN0300.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:25, 10 August 2007
(UTC)
A few templates you created, Template:Main pagedate and Template:Main page date, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedia Bookmark.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
